Can we really touch anything?

[Buket]

Atoms do not touch eachother and electrons repel each other therefore what we feel when we touch something is the feeling of repulsion between electrons.. Do you agree with it?

[StringJunky]

Atoms do not touch eachother and electrons repel each other therefore what we feel when we touch something is the feeling of repulsion between electrons.. Do you agree with it?

Yes, it's a resistance between fields.

[Buket]

When two atoms touch each other the wave functions of each atom penetrate each other so atoms do touch each other.. Is this true?

[geordief]

Aren't wave functions mathematical objects?

[Mordred]

When two atoms touch each other the wave functions of each atom penetrate each other so atoms do touch each other.. Is this true?

You might want to throw away the bullet like visualization of a particle. Unfortunately schools still teach the Bullet like visuals as the subject gets too complex for Elementary and secondary academic levels without it.

 

Particles are "excitations of a field" they have bullet point-like characteristics but no discernable volume.

Due to the particle wave duality they also have a wavefunction.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Mordred

[studiot]

Atoms do not touch eachother and electrons repel each other therefore what we feel when we touch something is the feeling of repulsion between electrons.. Do you agree with it?

 

Atoms (and other particles) can and do touch each other.

 

For instance neutrons and alpha particles are fired into the nucleus in particle accelerators.

You can't get much more intimate than that.

 

Take heart, there is nothing wrong with the bullet model, so long as you realise it is just that.

 

A model which does not display all the characteristics of the real thing.

 

Yes electrons do repel each other.

 

This is a force model and the correct full model of this is known as the Lennard Jones model, if you would like to know more.

 

What level are you studying this at?

[Mordred]

 

Take heart, there is nothing wrong with the bullet model, so long as you realise it is just that.

 

This I agree with, one just needs to be aware of this detail. Too often I've seen ppl chase the garden path due to not being aware of the above. Edited October 18, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

When two atoms touch each other the wave functions of each atom penetrate each other so atoms do touch each other.. Is this true?

 

The wave functions describe how the atoms interact (in other words, touch each other).

[Buket]

 

The wave functions describe how the atoms interact (in other words, touch each other).

So do you say atoms touch eachother? Some say they do some say they don't..

[geordief]

So do you say atoms touch eachother? Some say they do some say they don't..

Maybe things do not have to occupy the same space and time to "touch" each other?

 

Does the Earth "touch" the Moon by that definition ? ( or non definition)

[studiot]

Strange was answering your question about wavefunctions.

 

Mordred has already councilled (as I do) not mixing up wavefunction and discrete models.

 

For quantum models 'touching' has no meaning since wavefunctions extend to infinity, even through other atoms etc.

 

So either use the particulate model or the quantum wave model but not both at the same time.

[Sensei]

Atoms do not touch eachother and electrons repel each other therefore what we feel when we touch something is the feeling of repulsion between electrons.. Do you agree with it?

So do you say atoms touch eachother? Some say they do some say they don't..

Atoms don't have fixed boundary.

 

See f.e. how ions interact each other, or electrostatic charged surfaces/objects.

 

They "know" about each other from long distance.

 

In neutral atoms, positive charge of nucleus, is cancelled, "shielded" by negative charge of electrons.

They don't always do this shielding in perfect manner, in each axis equally.

Therefor some molecules are exhibiting region that's more positive and other region is more negative.

They're dipoles like water molecule.

[Strange]

So do you say atoms touch eachother? Some say they do some say they don't..

 

 

I guess it depends partly on the definition of "touch".

 

Also, if the atoms aren't touching one another but the electromagnetic fields are, then that implies that the fields are not part of the atom. But it is clear tat the fields are part of the atom; arguably they are the atom.

[Buket]

Touching in macro level is not the same with touching in micro level.. Is it true?

[studiot]

Touching in macro level is not the same with touching in micro level.. Is it true?

 

Since the distance between two touching objects is defined as zero the question has no meaning.

 

You can't half-touch.

Edited October 18, 2016 by studiot

[Strange]

Touching in macro level is not the same with touching in micro level.. Is it true?

 

 

What do "touching in macro level" and "touching in micro level" mean? And how are they different?

[Buket]

 

 

What do "touching in macro level" and "touching in micro level" mean? And how are they different?

You are like a teacher who asks tough questions😂 I ask a question and you ask about the question 😄

[Strange]

You are like a teacher who asks tough questions I ask a question and you ask about the question

 

 

I lik to think I am like a Zen master.

 

But the point I was trying make is that the questions you are asking really depend on what you mean by touching. The interaction of two surfaces is purely electromagnetic in nature (*). That is true whether you talk about a ball hitting wall or two atoms. You can throw a ball and watch it bounce off a wall. We can fire atoms (or even subatomic particles) at other atoms, and watch them bounce off. The effect is the same in both cases.

 

So, I suspect that whoever said that atoms can't really touch was trying to sound clever (and failing).

 

(*) Actually, the Pauli exclusion principle may play a role as well ...

[studiot]

 

 

I lik to think I am like a Zen master.

 

But the point I was trying make is that the questions you are asking really depend on what you mean by touching. The interaction of two surfaces is purely electromagnetic in nature (*). That is true whether you talk about a ball hitting wall or two atoms. You can throw a ball and watch it bounce off a wall. We can fire atoms (or even subatomic particles) at other atoms, and watch them bounce off. The effect is the same in both cases.

 

So, I suspect that whoever said that atoms can't really touch was trying to sound clever (and failing).

 

(*) Actually, the Pauli exclusion principle may play a role as well ...

 

I'm not convinced that neutron interaction is electromagnetic.

 

Thinking further about the question of macro v atomic and smaller, there is a whole science of what is called contact mechanics or tribology.

[Buket]

 

 

I lik to think I am like a Zen master.

 

But the point I was trying make is that the questions you are asking really depend on what you mean by touching. The interaction of two surfaces is purely electromagnetic in nature (*). That is true whether you talk about a ball hitting wall or two atoms. You can throw a ball and watch it bounce off a wall. We can fire atoms (or even subatomic particles) at other atoms, and watch them bounce off. The effect is the same in both cases.

 

So, I suspect that whoever said that atoms can't really touch was trying to sound clever (and failing).

 

(*) Actually, the Pauli exclusion principle may play a role as well ...

I asked the question on quora to people who have physics background and most of them said atoms don't touch each other. Also when you google this topic lots of writings appear about this subject claiming that we can't actually touch objects..

[geordief]

What happens when two fields interact?

 

Can they be said to "touch" at points in the field?

 

Is it possible to say that they do not "touch" ?

 

Are there points in space and time where two field meet so that where there were two fields there now is one (a combination) ?

 

At that point can we say that the distance between (an element of ) the two original fields is actually zero?

 

Are these two fields mathematical objects or physical objects? (or both?)

[Strange]

I'm not convinced that neutron interaction is electromagnetic.

 

 

You are correct. And even proton interactions are not purely electromagnetic.

I asked the question on quora to people who have physics background and most of them said atoms don't touch each other.

 

I would like to know what they think "touch" means. Or maybe what "atom" means. If the atoms of two surfaces are not touching each other, then what is happening?

 

An atomic force microscope works by "feeling" or "touching" individual atoms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic-force_microscopy

[geordief]

 

 

 

I would like to know what they think "touch" means. Or maybe what "atom" means. If the atoms of two surfaces are not touching each other, then what is happening?

 

An atomic force microscope works by "feeling" or "touching" individual atoms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic-force_microscopy

Getting very close?

Edited October 18, 2016 by geordief

[Strange]

Getting very close?

 

 

 

Getting close enough to feel the shapes of individual molecules. Because the probe is being repelled by the atoms. Errr, that is what "touching" is.

 

I would like some to explain what touching means that excludes this case, but allows for the identical process when we can touch something. It makes no sense.

[geordief]

Maybe people who understand the process in the round are trying to explain to people who don't and the phrase "do no touch" is a method of getting the latter group to reassess their understanding .Shock tactics?

 

I remember some 50 years ago telling myself that things didn't ever "touch" ,which seemed important to me at that time.

 

But I don't think I had thought it through . It was certainly well before atomic force microscopes were created.

 

EDIT:the use of "really" in the OP is probably revealing. It seems to divide things into "real" and "not real". That may be a bad approach. It certainly jars after all the threads we have had about real vs model.

 

It should be a classification that should be used sparingly perhaps.

Edited October 19, 2016 by geordief