Quantifying the Atom

Let's take a simple hydrogen atom.

An electron is 10^-18 meters in diameter.

A proton is 10^-15 meters in diameter.

The diameter of a hydrogen atom (the diameter of the electron shell) is 10-10 meters.

If you make a proton 10" in diameter, the electron would be about the size of a BB and would 7.89 miles away!

QED

Just for contrast, a Cesium atom is the largest atom. It has an atomic radius of 2.73 X 10^-10 meters, or about 43.1 miles on the scale I described above.

Now, do you want to know about quantum mechanics?

So, if you send six quarks to the outer valence shell of Cesium in a VW Quantum, how many quantum mechanics will it take to get it there? What are their names?

• Up
• Down
• Top
• Bottom
• Strange
• Charmed

The last two are very rare.

Are the Quarks Male or Female?

Strange and Charmed would have a relevance here I would guess, then it would come to what colour they are, or how they are dressed (power dresser or dressed to kill)

If you could superscale a atom, would we be able to figure out what are the base materials in the atom components, could the nucleus of an atom, protons and neutrons, if what the ball structure of those is the outer shell of a smaller atom structured base matter?

Someplace between quantum indeterminacy,

and the viewpoint that the universe is a hologram (which I think/believe has some credibility)

there lies all our speculation about the "true nature of reality".

When I was a kid, the atom was a planetary set up: as visualized.

The more mature I became, in age and education, the more nebulous the "view" became: with electrons being located in a fuzz of probability in shells around the nucleus.

High energy physics yielded trace patterns requiring more particles: quarks were added to leptons and bosuns: and tiny strings, both open and closed, came to "explain" them.

My current solipsism transcends these nattering attempts at putting reality in a box:

or perhaps I have just given up the intellectual pursuit...

I believe I "know" that time and space and energy and matter are illusive characterizations which the brain tries to impose on a fundamental commonality which "underlies" the projections:

and the basis for that sense, or knowledge, arises from the weakest of "scientific" venues: "intuition": and to further it's suspect nature, I aver that it cannot be spoken of in any meaningful way which communicates the essence of it's intent, as the matter lays beyond the range of language.

therefore, then, of what value is this in answer to your query?

Probably none, depending on what you are looking for.

I await, without attachment, your "off topic" assignment.

.

.

.

.

.

..

(Lyman, Balmer, Paschen, Brackett, Pfund....)

Why would I want to know this?

Because it's one of the only true questions.

Speculation gives rise to understanding, but enlightenment only comes from truth.

It's my nature to want to understand the world around me, but I'm really suffering when it comes to the form and function of the atom.

Here's a tunneling-micrograph of platinum atoms... What do you think?

I don't see any electrons orbiting those hexagons. Is it because I am watching?

Those hexagons are the atoms - electron cloud and all.

I have always been fascinated with the amount of nothing (space) in an atom. Does this mean we are really nothing? Indeed we are Ex Nihilo.

OK, That's a little off topic. How about Feynman's illustration of the nucleus being the size of an apple ... so on and so forth. Perhaps that's where the other "the nucleus is the size of..." explanations come from.

I never realized how much of a nothing I was until I invited some neutrinos over for dinner. None of them would bother to stop over.

In much the same vein, I was always fascinated with the amount of Nothing But in Texas. Does that mean Nothing is always big in Texas?

Indeed. Nothing is always bigger in Texas...and we also have the best nothing!

One of the clearest descriptions of atomic structure I have come across of late was found in a "new element discovery" report found in an obscure journal of the physical sciences.

The one thing that was pretty plain in the report to me, was how easy it is to scale the described structure up to our reality. Here is the report...

-----------------------------------------

The "Journal of Physical Sciences" has announced this new discovery...

New element discovered Research has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

--Anonymous

You are right! That is a good description!

The biggest problem to quantifying the atom is how you look at it or the reactions you get from it.

Whether it is acting like a particle, wave, cloud, string, magnet, a tuning fork, or the USS Enterprise launching photon torpedoes seems to be a product of how you probe it.

And sometimes if you surprise it it will act like two at once. (seems to have learned this from some guys cat)

As for the amount of space the macro is like the micro. If we are the only intelligent life in all of this space, what a waste of space. We are utilising what? one electron out of a solar system worth of atoms. We need to get busy.

Brad

Does the electron move in its orbit by perpetual energy?

If not, how did it start moving, and will it end?

Go to bed immediately...no supper for you.

(Make it cold enough it will stop )

Del

Typically, the question is, "Why doesn't the electron just spiral down and join the proton to form a neutron... It turns out that this can be done (we're talking hydrogen atom), but it takes considerable energy!

As the electron gets closer to the proton, a strange quantum effect takes place. Because of the uncertainty principle as it refers to time and energy, the electron actually starts repelling itself. At that point and others you have a stable proton-electron pair.

Certain experiments have been performed that give the electron an "orbit" of about a meter away from the proton at its furthest point. At a meter, the electron acts much more like a particle, but as it passes closely to the proton, it acts more like a wave!!!

Stop already. Why don't ya'all try with this new tread title, so somebody can GA? OP was not really asking for atoms to be quantified. Apologies to those few who "got it" anyway.

Sorry OPer, you needed guest help with this one.