Everything Else

Hi,

Experiments starting with those conducted by the scientist Dr. Ernest Rutherford using alpha particles show that atoms are mostly empty space.

So in simple terms are we compose of 99% space as well? Any scientists in the midst to clarify this?

Cheers

Well, naturally.



And this is only a very rudimentary sketch. There's a huge friggin load of nothing between the electrons and the nucleus.

Using the same pretty dumb expression, the air we walk around in is at least 99,999% empty space. We're breathing VIRTUALLY NOTHING! OMIGOSH!

Some people are more vacant that others.

I would say 99%, but a high percentage, a group of people could be crushed into the size of a sugar cube, the neutrons and the protons are the only real substance, electrons have practically no mass and are also rather small, all they do is orbit the nucleas, according to some scientists, so if this atom could be compressed and all the atoms were compressed then yes, we may be 99% free space.

We are foam!

Totally naive question: if most matter is predominantly empty space, why don't objects pass through each other?

ajerimez wrote: Totally naive question: if most matter is predominantly empty space, why don't objects pass through each other?

Quantum physics: at any given point of space/time there will be a random particle occupying it... since you could not predict the position for a single particle, is a lot less probably that you could predict the position for every single point from an enormous quantity of particles composing the matrix for any given object... and even less probably that you could process such a big amount of information to synchronize the position for each particle from the object A with each empty space from the object B...

All in all, if you were enough speedy (and clever!) you could do it!

[EDIT] And this without consider the interactions between the electromagnetic fields from each particle... [/EDIT]

ajerimez wrote: Totally naive question: if most matter is predominantly empty space, why don't objects pass through each other?

Van der Waals force ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force

We may be mostly empty space, but it's not really empty. Don't think only in terms of matter; we're completely filled with energy/force gradients, some attractive, some repulsive (no pun intended). As Pontus mentioned, Van der Waals interactions are critical.

Also keep in mind that our atoms are constantly moving, and the electrons in particular move around very quickly. At any instant, a point in space may be unoccupied, but at the next, most infinitesimal moment, it may be filled, so it's more practical to think of exclusionary clouds than single points in space over time.

Jim, the analysis of this so far
is potassium -- 35%, carbon -- 18%,
phosphorous -- 1.0, calcium -- 1.5.
Jim, the crew didn't leave.
- They're still here.
- What do you mean?
These white crystals -- that's what's left of the human body
when you take the water away,
which makes up 96% of our bodies.
Without water, we're all just 3 or 4 pounds of chemicals.

http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/55omegaglorytrans.htm

josehill wrote: Also keep in mind that our atoms are constantly moving, and the electrons in particular move around very quickly. At any instant, a point in space may be unoccupied, but at the next, most infinitesimal moment, it may be filled, so it's more practical to think of exclusionary clouds than single points in space over time.

Exactly what I've tried to say... but in your words it sounded a lot better!

No, we are 100% meat. Some are fat, some are lean, but in general, humans (like most active omnivores) aren't very tasty. You wouldn't want to eat a cheetah, either. Lamb, cow, pigs... herbivores that don't move very fast... are much better tasting.

http://baetzler.de/humor/meat_beings.html

shadowless wrote: Hi,

Experiments starting with those conducted by the scientist Dr. Ernest Rutherford using alpha particles show that atoms are mostly empty space.

So in simple terms are we compose of 99% space as well? Any scientists in the midst to clarify this?

Cheers

But what is space? What is matter?

Everything is a kind of "forcefield", interacting with other forcefields (or not).
The atomic nucleus is a forcefield and so are the electrons that belong to
to atom. And between them is another forcefield.

I'm not a scientist, but that's my explanation : )

To call the space in between a nucleus and it's electrons "empty like a vacuum" is hardly fair!

So what is between the nucleus and the electron shell? is it some other undiscovered matter?

shadowless wrote: So what is between the nucleus and the electron shell? is it some other undiscovered matter?

it's just space.

Nothing. But it's not empty in the traditional sense; you probably wouldn't be able to stick your finger (or microsopic probe of suitable size) and wiggle it around in there. No other particles (none we know about) can get in, either.

I bet within the next 15-20 years scientists will be able to tell us more about this sort of stuff. I've been reading Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds , which attempts to explain quantum phenomena in layman's terms. Pretty cool.

I'd like to think that the space between the nucleus and the electrons is filled with creamy, caramel nougat.

Thanks for the explanations, though I'm not sure how quantum uncertainty explains why objects don't pass through each other. Granted that electrons are more akin to clouds or fields than particles, and that in reality clouds of smoke (naive, I realize) and fields (magnetic, electric) can overlap and pass through each other, why then can't electrons pass right through each other?

ajerimez wrote: why then can't electrons pass right through each other?

I like to think that there are a few universal facts impeding it. I can think of:

1) The sub-atomic particles are either close to or lightspeed accelerated. It should make a lot more difficult to observe an empty space at some given point of time. Since they are a giant quantity of particles, and they travel to the limit speed, it would be as if each orbit were solidly covered with an anular shaped body more than with a single ball travelling thru it.

2) Since at speeds close light speed mass is increased as soon you accelerate the particle another tiny bit, I like to think that since those sub-atomic particles are so much accelerated, they should be on rare (inflated?) state rendering more mass than the original for each particle.

3) If all the above fails, I think the sense of turn from each sub-atomic particle should have a lot to do with it. As you know the principles of electrostatic fields explain that equally polarized particles suffer repulsion and oppositely polarized particles suffer attraction. But I was never sure if the reason is the same than the dogmatically consignated one in the books of text. There is a lot more to it than what I could recall now, including Triboelectric Properties, and all the rest. Maybe it is just as easy as to think that particles with same angular momentum just keep appart one of each other... or maybe not!

porter wrote: Some people are more vacant that others.

got some vinyl of The Smiths?