Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thebadgeroverlord)
    The picture in GCSE/A Level isn't. Whilst there is a a nucleus of protons and neutrons at the centre the electrons don't orbit like in the solar system, they isntead obey the probabilistic laws of quantum theory but they don't tell you this as it is harder to understand.

    They can see atoms with electron micrscopes like someone posted earlier and with particle acclerators like Rutherfords where he fired aplha particles a thin gold and looked at the trajectories of the alpha particles having passed through/collided with the gold atoms.n This is how they know most of the mass is in a dense nucleus at the centre.
    How the hell do they 'fire' these particles to begin with?
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    How the hell do they 'fire' these particles to begin with?
    Magnets so they both end up being attracted to the same place, in very simple terms.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Magnets so they both end up being attracted to the same place, in very simple terms.
    Whoa . . .

    So what about the conflicting messages in this thread? There are people saying we don't know exactly what atoms look like.

    I'll ask another question:

    Theoretically speaking, is it possible to go on dividing a piece of matter infinitely? At what point do particles become indivisible and why?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ernest Rutherford has proved that atoms arent empty space. check out his golden foil experiment. also im pretty sure someone else has proved the presence of electrons.

    anyway the theory has worked for so many years you cannot undermine it.
    we know that everything is made up of atoms because in nano technology they now can pick up individual atoms and move them around (amazing stuff,i've seen how they did it)

    however in nano technology there is this aspect that people simply dont understand. many scientists tried to prove it but failed. i think it has something to do with particles, basically if you take one particle and put it in one direction in universe, and take another and put it in another direction (imagine billion light years between them) then if you try to do something to one of the particles, the other one instantly changes. INSTANTLY. its just amazing, people still do not understand how and why this happens. i cant remember what particles they are, you might want to search this feather.

    sorry to bore you with all this nerdy stuff, i thought this is a very interesting topic to discuss
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    How can they possibly observe them?

    By using a scanning tunneling microscope.

    The basic structure of the atom was determined by Rutherford's gold foil experiment which showed that most of the mass of the atom was in a tiny, positively charged nucleus.

    Electrons can be fired very easily using a cathode ray tube. But the experiments where scientists fire particles at each other use particle accelerators.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    Whoa . . .

    So what about the conflicting messages in this thread? There are people saying we don't know exactly what atoms look like.

    I'll ask another question:

    Theoretically speaking, is it possible to go on dividing a piece of matter infinitely? At what point do particles become indivisible and why?
    We don't know EXACTLY, as in we couldn't draw it like in a textbook. But we know the parts are there and how they operate if you can understand that.

    The people saying we outright don't know are ill-informed.

    You can divide a particle into as small a pieces as you have the technology to do so. And it can only become indivisible if you don't have the technology, atoms were indivisible in the past, now we can . In the future we will be able to see the parts which make them up. Science will constantly evolve so thats a hard question to ask IMO.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I honestly need further proof of the theories that scientist hav come up with. I mean in their world bees should not be able to fly.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by 2kuayyaz)
    I honestly need further proof of the theories that scientist hav come up with. I mean in their world bees should not be able to fly.
    Why don't you go and read them then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    particles become indivisible because we dont have the right equipment developed yet. in the next 10 or so years we might be able to go much smaller than we are able to go now. this is what nano technology is for

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX-gTobCJHs
    and this is our near future
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    We don't know EXACTLY, as in we couldn't draw it like in a textbook. But we know the parts are there and how they operate if you can understand that.

    The people saying we outright don't know are ill-informed.

    You can divide a particle into as small a pieces as you have the technology to do so. And it can only become indivisible if you don't have the technology, atoms were indivisible in the past, now we can . In the future we will be able to see the parts which make them up. Science will constantly evolve so thats a hard question to ask IMO.
    So, theoretically, could you go on dividing forever? That's a strange idea (but then again the idea that you could reach a point where it was impossible to go smaller is equally ridiculous).

    One other question: what actually 'motivates' the behaviour of atoms, if you get my meaning? Why are they behaving in the way they do to begin with?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2kuayyaz)
    I honestly need further proof of the theories that scientist hav come up with. I mean in their world bees should not be able to fly.
    .... What?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    This thread is making me feel astoundingly stupid. :p:

    Scientists are amazing.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    We don't know EXACTLY, as in we couldn't draw it like in a textbook. But we know the parts are there and how they operate if you can understand that.

    The people saying we outright don't know are ill-informed.

    You can divide a particle into as small a pieces as you have the technology to do so. And it can only become indivisible if you don't have the technology, atoms were indivisible in the past, now we can . In the future we will be able to see the parts which make them up. Science will constantly evolve so thats a hard question to ask IMO.
    Not necessarily. Although its entirely possible there are smaller 'things' than what have been discovered at the moment (string theory for example) scientists have got a major problem with actually dividing a lot of sub-atomic particles into coherent things at the moment (the hadrons) being that they are made up of quarks bound tightly together, so tightly in fact that the energy required to break them apart is higher than that to create a new pair of quarks, making that the more energetically favourable outcome. So basically it is so far theoretically impossible to break apart quark pairs into individual quarks, let alone breaking them apart.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mithra)
    Not necessarily. Although its entirely possible there are smaller 'things' than what have been discovered at the moment (string theory for example) scientists have got a major problem with actually dividing a lot of sub-atomic particles into coherent things at the moment (the hadrons) being that they are made up of quarks bound tightly together, so tightly in fact that the energy required to break them apart is higher than that to create a new pair of quarks, making that the more energetically favourable outcome. So basically it is so far theoretically impossible to break apart quark pairs into individual quarks, let alone breaking them apart.
    . . .

    :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)

    You can divide a particle into as small a pieces as you have the technology to do so. And it can only become indivisible if you don't have the technology, atoms were indivisible in the past, now we can . In the future we will be able to see the parts which make them up. Science will constantly evolve so thats a hard question to ask IMO.
    Improvements in technology doesn't nessacerily mean we can keep on dividing up the atom. It can only be divided up into specific particles and it seems to make sense that there is a group of fundamental (indivisible) particles that make up everything.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    . . .

    :p:
    lol, I really didn't explain stuff very well there

    Hadrons are stuff like protons and neutrons. We know that they have a substructure of smaller things called quarks, but as yet we don't think these quarks are divisible.

    Electrons are believed to be indivisible themselves, and are called 'leptons'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mithra)
    lol, I really didn't explain stuff very well there

    Hadrons are stuff like protons and neutrons. We know that they have a substructure of smaller things called quarks, but as yet we don't think these quarks are divisible.

    Electrons are believed to be indivisible themselves, and are called 'leptons'
    Why aren't they divisible, even theoretically?

    Doesn't it just seem like an absurd idea? I hope you see where I'm coming from when I say that.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Mithra)
    Not necessarily. Although its entirely possible there are smaller 'things' than what have been discovered at the moment (string theory for example) scientists have got a major problem with actually dividing a lot of sub-atomic particles into coherent things at the moment (the hadrons) being that they are made up of quarks bound tightly together, so tightly in fact that the energy required to break them apart is higher than that to create a new pair of quarks, making that the more energetically favourable outcome. So basically it is so far theoretically impossible to break apart quark pairs into individual quarks, let alone breaking them apart.
    It's a question that I don't think anyone can answer without a time machine.

    I do honestly believe one day we will achieve it, and that it may be possible to break it down somehow further though thats just my wishful thinking.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mithra)
    Electrons are believed to be indivisible themselves, and are called 'leptons'
    I'd like to ask you this question, too:

    What actually 'motivates' the behaviour of atoms, if you get my meaning? Why are they behaving in the way they do to begin with?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    .

    One other question: what actually 'motivates' the behaviour of atoms, if you get my meaning? Why are they behaving in the way they do to begin with?
    The behavior of particles and hence the atoms they make up is determined by the four fundamental forces; electromagnetic, strong, weak and gravity although the affects of gravity are negligable on the atomic scale.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.