Developing Not Quite a Theory: Atomic Geometry

[Vivec]

This odd thought keeps nagging at me and I have been debating whether or not I should even share this on the forum. It may even get trashed and rejected completely. Whatever happens here is cool with me, I simply need some well thought input to help me develop my own thoughts here. Where to begin is even kind of difficult.

I believe there is a way to visibly see atomic geometry with the human eye. (I know this sounds weird or maybe even dumb. Just stick with me for a bit.)

Atoms are so small that it is "impossible" for us to see them with tools and make visual observations. On the atomic scale we use mathematics to calculate the shape (geometry) and nature of atoms. As I said before, though, no actual visual of atomic geometry currently exists. (To my knowledge we've never been able to see atoms.) What if it is possible to manipulate a visible amount of a pure element in a vacuum and create the circumstances for the visible element to behave as it would as a single atom? Now I realize that there are several things wrong with this statement. For one, what practical relevance would this would-be-theory have in science? For two, even if such a thing were both possible and relevant, how does one come to the conclusion that collective atoms would ever behave in such a way under any circumstances? In short, Vivec, how do you figure?

Well, I believe in patterns. If behavior remains consistent then it can be expected to remain consistent. This is a general rule, however I realize it isn't always true. Based on my own observation, I have noticed a direct relationship between the geometry of an object and its own physical attributes while in motion. Okay even I have trouble making since of this so far. Look, Earth is spinning and has density as it revolves around a sun through the vacuum of space. The value of these attributes determines the shape of the Earth in combination with the elements included and the density/volume/mass. For example, at a certain scale in density/volume/mass/speed, due to gravity, objects take on spherical geometry.

Take a visible pure element, put it in a vacuum suspended from Earths gravity (like an experiment at the ISS or something), and speed it up along a controlled elliptical path and observe its behavior. Of course, we could not assume that the geometry involved would be the same as the atom, but it may be relate able.

Now I haven't explained this whole thought, it's difficult. Some of my reasoning is based on non-scientific concepts and some is based on things I know. However, there is no way for me to be sure if I'm on to something or not unless I try. So I tried. At worst, I just wasted thirty minutes typing this up. (I can't really focus on one thing at a time.) At best, I expect to learn something here.

[ajb]

Atoms are so small that it is "impossible" for us to see them with tools and make visual observations.

Visual imaging is impossible, okay.

 

On the atomic scale we use mathematics to calculate the shape (geometry) and nature of atoms.

Indeed, one can use quantum mechanics here.

 

To my knowledge we've never been able to see atoms.

Techniques have been developed to image atoms and molecules. For atoms this has so far not been great, but we have images of individual atoms.

 

A couple of links for you

 

Image hydrogen atoms

 

Image of molecules

 

More images of molecules

[John Cuthber]

"What if it is possible to manipulate a visible amount of a pure element in a vacuum and create the circumstances for the visible element to behave as it would as a single atom?"

It isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_band_structure#Why_bands_and_band_gaps_occur

 

Small clusters of gold atoms are typically red. Large lumps of it are typically golden and particles in between can be a number of colurs- puprples, reds and blacks figure quite often.

 

So there's little chance that a bunch of gold atoms looks the same as a single on.

[studiot]

I wonder if these answers aren't a little harsh to a beginner.

 

After all we build walls from bricks or blocks and expect the wall to have much the same properties as the individual brick.

In fact we also create wallsized bricks out of concrete.

 

So it is not an unreasonable hypothesis, although totally wrong.

 

So concentrating on the technical reason why it is wrong.

 

The hypothesis is wrong because atoms are not like bricks and brick walls where all the parts are the same so an assembly is effectively a larger brick.

Atoms are made of several different parts, like trees or motor cars.

An assembly of leaves or wheels will never look like a tree or a motor car, walk like a tree or motor car or quack like a tree or motor car.

 

If we assemble a quantity of one of the parts of an atom, say electrons, we indeed have an assembly the behaves much as an individual electron, on in some sense more so. We call this assembly an electric current and in many analyses in physics we treat the electron as a very small electric current.

 

Please realise that this is a very superficial treatment, glossing over many things.

But I hope your enthusiasm for thinking is not dampened and I have offered a palatable explanation of why you are misguided.

 

[swansont]

"What if it is possible to manipulate a visible amount of a pure element in a vacuum and create the circumstances for the visible element to behave as it would as a single atom?"

It isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_band_structure#Why_bands_and_band_gaps_occur

 

Small clusters of gold atoms are typically red. Large lumps of it are typically golden and particles in between can be a number of colurs- puprples, reds and blacks figure quite often.

 

So there's little chance that a bunch of gold atoms looks the same as a single on.

 

Bose-Einstein condensates don't suffer from this problem, but I'm not sure that a macroscopic amount has been trapped.

 

edit: and that's still a gas, so it would fail the "visible" part of the requirement, so nvm.

[Vivec]

Well, Studiot, that makes a whole lot of since. Collected substances are not made like atoms, do not share geometry and therefore will not show atomic behavior. Instead of a proton nucleolus we're talking hundreds of thousands of proton nuclei. Like the difference between the a one ringed target and a target range. I could smell a stink in my brain, I simply could not find it.

I did try a light search before this post, however, I admit that I didn't thoroughly research this. See, I had a chem class, but an awful professor. If I had a question then my professor would tell me "It's right there in yer book, Mr. Cooper. You didn't read it." Oh I read it, alright, but I also understand chemistry enough to know that my ADHD is a chemical problem and I sometimes cannot help when I fail to understand. Well, the subject was chapter two, ionization, and I didn't get it. I don't remember the question anymore but needless to say I failed. My professor failed. I tried but I simply could not understand what the cursed book was saying. This lack of education is likely the cause of this very post. However, that does not mean that the class has ended. I don't give up easily and that class was five years ago. I'm still here on SFN trying to learn a bit of chemistry. Spartans and Marines alike taught me that behavior and I must be proud enough to say HOOWAH!

Thank you for the atomic visibility references, Ajb. It sorta killed this thread, serving my intentions well.

John, I'm almost positive that you either misunderstood my post completely or you just skipped through it. You can't just stick gold atoms in a place and expect them to look a certain way. A great many different forces act upon an objects geometry. Nearly all of these forces need to be calculated and taken into great consideration. You may be right, well you ARE right, but you didn't back yourself up very well. Realize, I've been on and off chemical subjects for years. I do understand chemistry, just not as well as someone who passed their class. That's why I was asking you. Thank you for your input, though. I did get a nice reference from you as well.

[swansont]

John, I'm almost positive that you either misunderstood my post completely or you just skipped through it. You can't just stick gold atoms in a place and expect them to look a certain way. A great many different forces act upon an objects geometry. Nearly all of these forces need to be calculated and taken into great consideration. You may be right, well you ARE right, but you didn't back yourself up very well. Realize, I've been on and off chemical subjects for years. I do understand chemistry, just not as well as someone who passed their class. That's why I was asking you. Thank you for your input, though. I did get a nice reference from you as well.

You asked "What if it is possible to manipulate a visible amount of a pure element in a vacuum and create the circumstances for the visible element to behave as it would as a single atom?" and his answer was no, it's not possible. I agree. A single atom behaves a certain way. When you get a bunch of atoms together they interact with each other, and that changes the behavior. Further, the way they interact depends on what their neighbors are, so the bulk part of a material generally behaves differently than the surface.

[John Cuthber]

 

Bose-Einstein condensates don't suffer from this problem, but I'm not sure that a macroscopic amount has been trapped.

 

edit: and that's still a gas, so it would fail the "visible" part of the requirement, so nvm.

I'm fairly sure that you could, in principle, get enough to be visible- but I don't think it would have any meaningful "shape" or "pattern" so I don't see it meeting the OP's requirements.

[OptimisticCynic]

"I believe there is a way to visibly see atomic geometry with the human eye."

 

The way to see atomic geometry with the human eye is to look at crystals. reference crystallography