Atom BBC4 & GWH

[dieselboy]

is anyone watching the documentary on the discovery of the atom?
they have interested me since school, and its hard to understand that the distance between the nucleus and the particles is so great relative to their size.
what are radio waves?
is it particles leaving the nucleus? i dont get it.
the program just said that when the particles jump orbits then they emit light. but they still orbit the nuceus, so how does it make light?

[gwh200]

is anyone watching the documentary on the discovery of the atom?
they have interested me since school, and its hard to understand that the distance between the nucleus and the particles is so great relative to their size.
what are radio waves?
is it particles leaving the nucleus? i dont get it.
the program just said that when the particles jump orbits then they emit light. but they still orbit the nuceus, so how does it make light?

rutherford "shot"the particles at a gold foil and some bounced back,the rest is history.
there is a good analogy,with the size of an atom relative to its nucleus.the concept people think off is that an electron orbits a nucleus,when in fact its more of an amorphorous shell.
you can then represent an atom as a large cathedral. now imagine a fly buzzing around, the fly representing the nucleus.the nucleus is so dense,that the fly(the nucleus) would weigh many billions of TONS more than the cathedral,this also goes a long way to explaining why neutron stars are so dense

[MattF]

The problem is that you're thinking in a one dimensional way.

[dieselboy]

i just missed the bit about the shell when i was doing the washing up.
this would make more sense because in high school we were only taught about the orbits.

but how is light giveth off? thats what i dont get

[dieselboy]

The problem is that you're thinking in a one dimensional way.

i only know what ive been taught. i never did any A levels.

space fascinates me, and i knew that dead stars compact like that.

im just trying to understand how light a radio waves work.

if light is particles emmitting from an atom, then there will be a point that there will be no more light from that source. so..

[gwh200]

one dimensional....tut,tut,tut
the odd thing about quantum mechanics is that our newtonian laws break down and do not apply.if you do an experiment called youngs slit experiment and fire a single electron,through a series of observable slits,you will notie that the electron appears in two places at once.(not appear to,but actually do so),as applicable via the heisenberg uncertainty principle.because em waves are regarded as both waves and rays,the discrete packets of energy(quanta) that the em wave is delivered in is accepted as fundamaental.the dimension question could come into play with the (now discredited) string theory,but that is all pants,where there is only a 4th dimension called into play,and we all know there are many more (some claim 8,10 14 and so on).the real base and fundamental nature of an atom is accepted as being the quark.feynman postulated the existence of quarks,and endowed them with odd names,up,dowm,strange,charm.it will only really be with the discovery of the bose einstein particle(which is only theoretic,and was invented as a a
way to endow particles with mass),but it exists at an energy state somewhere high in the hundreds of giga electron volts,and the particle accelerator that can generate that sort of energy is (as far as i know) not quite finished.the problem after this is that when you want to find a more fundamental particle,the nuclear force that binds it is so strong,we may not be able to achieve this energy,so dimensions matt are the least of our problems !!

[BUSHWHACKER]

[QUOTE=dieselboy]is anyone watching the documentary on the discovery of the atom?QUOTE]


Nope, watching an old Police, camera, action on ITV4, Ch.120 re: 4X4s

[MattF]

I was just mentioning the dimensional element to make it easier. As proven by your explanation and mine, I think mine sounded simpler.

Edit: Btw, with the dimensional thing, I wasn't actually inferring a fourth dimension or anything, merely the difference between one dimension, (flat), and three dimensional. If I remember correctly, those displays they give on that programme always appear in a one dimensional form, and are, as such, somewhat unhelpful.

With regards to the fundamental particle, I believe that comes under the same constraints as super-conductivity, does it not? They know another, (unknown), point exists, but merely have no means, (by known methods), by which to ever achieve that point.

[darkdezigns]

one dimensional....tut,tut,tut
the odd thing about quantum mechanics is that our newtonian laws break down and do not apply.if you do an experiment called youngs slit experiment and fire a single electron,through a series of observable slits,you will notie that the electron appears in two places at once.(not appear to,but actually do so),as applicable via the heisenberg uncertainty principle.because em waves are regarded as both waves and rays,the discrete packets of energy(quanta) that the em wave is delivered in is accepted as fundamaental.the dimension question could come into play with the (now discredited) string theory,but that is all pants,where there is only a 4th dimension called into play,and we all know there are many more (some claim 8,10 14 and so on).the real base and fundamental nature of an atom is accepted as being the quark.feynman postulated the existence of quarks,and endowed them with odd names,up,dowm,strange,charm.it will only really be with the discovery of the bose einstein particle(which is only theoretic,and was invented as a a
way to endow particles with mass),but it exists at an energy state somewhere high in the hundreds of giga electron volts,and the particle accelerator that can generate that sort of energy is (as far as i know) not quite finished.the problem after this is that when you want to find a more fundamental particle,the nuclear force that binds it is so strong,we may not be able to achieve this energy,so dimensions matt are the least of our problems !!

exactly wot i was thinkin!!!!

[gwh200]

I was just mentioning the dimensional element to make it easier. As proven by your explanation and mine, I think mine sounded simpler.
just dosent really apply to particle physics in the reactive sense,we have mega loads of dimensions,perjaps millions and we just dont realise it,but lets keep it easy,one dimensional rules

With regards to the fundamental particle, I beleive that comes under the same constraints as super-conductivityno not really !!
super conductivity relies on things such as a really cold media and that media has "normal" sized molecules, which are just lining up and not vibrating due to there cold operating temperature., does it not? They know another, (unknown), point exists, but merely have no means, (by known methods), by which to ever achieve that point.

this is a great point matt.a fantastic analogy is to compare picking a particle apart,into its constituent parts,in the same way you divide a number.when you divide one by 2
this +1/2
now keep dividing,wheredoes it end.you can carry this simple rule onto infinity,but you will still have some residual number left,it may (graphically) assymptote,but will never converge,the same goes for the particle search,

goddam matt,why cant you get on here a bit more often and ask some
really difficult ,fundamental ,science based posers...................oh yes you do already

[That Ruddy Squirrel]

[ducks as the thread goes way over his head]

[MattF]

I said constraints, not theory or rules. I.e: there is always a point at which you cannot proceed any further without somehow finding, (or hoping of finding), an alternative method by which to continue conducting the experiments. As an example, the point of perfection is theoretically ultimately achievable, but there is just no known means to ever reach that point.

Btw, I added an edit to my post above with regards to what I meant regarding dimensions.

[gwh200]

I said constraints, not theory or rules. I.e: there is always a point at which you cannot proceed any further without somehow finding, (or hoping of finding), an alternative method by which to continue conducting the experiments. As an example, the point of perfection is theoretically ultimately achievable, but there is just no known means to ever reach that point.


Btw, I added an edit to my post above with regards to what I meant regarding dimensions.

oh i dont know mate !!!!



you can achieve some immediate perfect responses.
with regards to electron spin and light speed.
when light leaves the sun,it takes about 8 minutes to reach us.when an electron at the sun's surface spins "up" its counterpart (which may be at ,perhaps,saturns outer ring) will react with this spin and return the spin instantaneously.this is (accepted) faster than light speed,and its a proven effect,observed in particle accelerators.rather interestingly,this electron spin is the concept used in an ion trap and is the basis for quantum computing,then bugger me matt,windoze will really crash!!

[That Ruddy Squirrel]

Very good, but what's all that waffle got to do with the price of fish ?

[gwh200]

Very good, but what's all that waffle got to do with the price of fish ?

particle fishing trev !!

but seriously,give me five minutes to make a cup of coffee and i will try and think of something !!!