Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    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?
    Too a point, there is probably a limit where you reach the final phase of what everything is made up of. All you have to do is look how far we have come in the past 1,000 years, and do that again and its scary where we could be.

    That is a question I have never really thought about in all honesty, on face value forces acting upon them but and I'm not really in a position to say and sure there is a deeper reason. Though I will certainly consult my mind when it's not 2:30am and have a think tomorrow :p:.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    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?
    The most basic answer is: They are behaving like that due to the laws of physics.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)


    Incorrect, thats how we know.
    I don't really believe this to be conclusive evidence that objects we understand as atoms to exist.

    Op: This is a good question, we create theories based on the evidence we have and the "best theory" (defining this is quite a task in itself, there has been many a time in history where good theories weren't accepted because the most prestigious scientists of the time didn't believe it) that hasn't been disproved is what is accepted as the currently correct theory. So to answer your question scientist don't really know they exist but the evidence suggest that a theory where they exist is best.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    Theoretically speaking, is it possible to go on dividing a piece of matter infinitely? At what point do particles become indivisible and why?
    The continuum theory of matter died with Democritus and Leucippus.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    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.
    I just found this on the net:

    "Technically, you cannot "see" anything smaller than the shortest wavelength of light that you can see it with. The shortest wavelength violet light is 4 x 10-7 meters. An atom is about 10-11 meter. So an atom is 4 x 104 or 40,000 x too small to be seen.

    But there are ways to "visualize" it, like Atomic Force Microscopy. But these are all just measurements converted to computer images, and are not in any real sense "seeing" the atom."

    Is that correct?
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Dadeyemi)
    I don't really believe this to be conclusive evidence that objects we understand as atoms to exist.

    Op: This is a good question, we create theories based on the evidence we have and the "best theory" (defining this is quite a task in itself, there has been many a time in history where good theories weren't accepted because the most prestigious scientists of the time didn't believe it) that hasn't been disproved is what is accepted as the currently correct theory. So to answer your question scientist don't really know they exist but the evidence suggest that a theory where they exist is best.
    If you could enlighten me on how being able to see the bonds between atoms is not proof? If there were not atoms why would there be bonds?
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    I just found this on the net:

    "Technically, you cannot "see" anything smaller than the shortest wavelength of light that you can see it with. The shortest wavelength violet light is 4 x 10-7 meters. An atom is about 10-11 meter. So an atom is 4 x 104 or 40,000 x too small to be seen.

    But there are ways to "visualize" it, like Atomic Force Microscopy. But these are all just measurements converted to computer images, and are not in any real sense "seeing" the atom."

    Is that correct?
    Yeah pretty much, while your not seeing it in the literal sense. It is like the camera's the police use that take a 360 degree view of a crash scene and then build images of what happened in the crash from the images. The computer calculates the data it gets from what is given off by the molecule.

    Too be fair there are people on here who know far far far more than me and I'm sure one will come along and give you a far more detailed explanation if you so wish.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomo2000)
    The most basic answer is: They are behaving like that due to the laws of physics.
    Sure, but where do they actually come from?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)

    Too be fair there are people on here who know far far far more than me and I'm sure one will come along and give you a far more detailed explanation if you so wish.
    No, you've been great. Thanks.

    This is all very confusing (and amazing). :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    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.
    In theory the atom was supposed to be indivisible, but then it was discovered that it was made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. And then it was discovered that these protons and neutrons contained even smaller particles called quarks. So the theory had to be adjusted.

    But at the moment quarks and leptons are as far as we can go. There is a thing called "string theory" which proposes that these indivisible particles contain a vibrating one-dimensional string, but atm we have no way of testing it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    Sure, but where do they actually come from?
    what do you mean by "where" do they come from?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dadeyemi)
    I don't really believe this to be conclusive evidence that objects we understand as atoms to exist.

    Op: This is a good question, we create theories based on the evidence we have and the "best theory" (defining this is quite a task in itself, there has been many a time in history where good theories weren't accepted because the most prestigious scientists of the time didn't believe it) that hasn't been disproved is what is accepted as the currently correct theory. So to answer your question scientist don't really know they exist but the evidence suggest that a theory where they exist is best.

    Lets put it this way then.... Give me an example of a reaction/action/event that relates to atoms (chemical reactions/material properties/element properties) that cannot be explained logically and conclusively with the theory of atoms we have nowadays.

    Also I assume a completely uninformed and unqalified person can decide what is "conclusive evidence" of the existance of something as specific and particular as an atom.

    Also, proof read your posts, half of yours is barely decifrable due to the lack of punctuation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nuada)
    In theory the atom was supposed to be indivisible, but then it was discovered that it was made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. And then it was discovered that these protons and neutrons contained even smaller particles called quarks. So the theory had to be adjusted.

    But at the moment quarks and leptons are as far as we can go. There is a thing called "string theory" which proposes that these indivisible particles contain a vibrating one-dimensional string, but atm we have no way of testing it.
    How can something be indivisible though? Technology aside, how can it be theoretically impossible to divide something into even smaller particles?
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    How can something be indivisible though? Technology aside, how can it be theoretically impossible to divide something into even smaller particles?
    Eventually you have to hit a base, where you reach what is the foundation block. And that if you try to break that you then just break that thing in two in simple terms and do not create anything new.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomo2000)
    what do you mean by "where" do they come from?
    I mean, why do they follow the rules they follow? Why do they exist at all?

    I guess nobody knows the answers to these kinds of questions . . .
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I did the Rutherford goil foil experiment, that someone just mentioned, in labs last year. We also did the Compton scattering experiment and some x-ray crystallography.

    Guys - I can confirm, first-hand, that atoms do exist
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Eventually you have to hit a base, where you reach what is the foundation block. And that if you try to break that you then just break that thing in two in simple terms and do not create anything new.
    Why do you have to hit a base? I'm not talking about creating anything 'new', so to speak; I'm just talking about getting smaller and smaller ad infinitum. There seems to be no logical reason why you couldn't go on dividing forever.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    Sure, but where do they actually come from?
    They are set by the properties of mass.

    For example gravity arises from giving and taking of gravitons, but that is a hypothetical particle. And that is where it becomes even more confusing .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    They are set by the properties of mass.

    For example gravity arises from giving and taking of gravitons, but that is a hypothetical particle. And that is where it becomes even more confusing .
    Why are they set by the properties of mass? Why are gravitons 'given and taken' in the first place?

    I'm probably being annoying now. lol
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    Why do you have to hit a base? I'm not talking about creating anything 'new', so to speak; I'm just talking about getting smaller and smaller ad infinitum. There seems to be no logical reason why you couldn't go on dividing forever.
    http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

    Personally I believe we will take it further one day but for this current time, that is why.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
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.