Whats an atom?

TheoPetro

Banned
Nov 30, 2004
3,499
1
0
K so we all know an atom has protons electrons and neutrons. We know those protons and neutrons are made of quarks. A proton has 2 up quarks and one down and a neutron has 1 up and 2 downs (cant remember which is which correct me if im wrong). Now those quarks are MUCH MUCH smaller than the actual proton or neutron they make up. so are the quarks flying around randomly inside a "sphere or probablilty" like the electrons? Why is what they make up so much bigger than what they are.
 

alienal99

Member
Nov 9, 2004
153
0
0
you can't really say that quarks are in a "probability field" in the same way that electrons arent. We simply cannot capture both a place and a speed for them, so they just are.
 

Leper Messiah

Banned
Dec 13, 2004
7,973
8
0
aren't quarks further made up of muons or something liek that? physics and crap like that were always interesting to me, but I have little formal eduaction.


Well, wikipedia says its not so maybe a quark is the smallest it gets.
 

Xyo II

Platinum Member
Oct 12, 2005
2,177
1
0
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
K so we all know an atom has protons electrons and neutrons. We know those protons and neutrons are made of quarks. A proton has 2 up quarks and one down and a neutron has 1 up and 2 downs (cant remember which is which correct me if im wrong). Now those quarks are MUCH MUCH smaller than the actual proton or neutron they make up. so are the quarks flying around randomly inside a "sphere or probablilty" like the electrons? Why is what they make up so much bigger than what they are.

Electrons and quarks actually do not have any "size" to them. Since free quarks do not exist (except for maybe 30 milliseconds after the big bang), it isn't currently possible to probe them for their structure, and there is an upper limit for the radius of an electron that has been set by experiment, and nothing else, but as for the relative size of quarks to a particle, quarks are assumed to be smaller than the particles, but that's it.
 

TheoPetro

Banned
Nov 30, 2004
3,499
1
0
Originally posted by: Einstein Element
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
K so we all know an atom has protons electrons and neutrons. We know those protons and neutrons are made of quarks. A proton has 2 up quarks and one down and a neutron has 1 up and 2 downs (cant remember which is which correct me if im wrong). Now those quarks are MUCH MUCH smaller than the actual proton or neutron they make up. so are the quarks flying around randomly inside a "sphere or probablilty" like the electrons? Why is what they make up so much bigger than what they are.

Electrons and quarks actually do not have any "size" to them. Since free quarks do not exist (except for maybe 30 milliseconds after the big bang), it isn't currently possible to probe them for their structure, and there is an upper limit for the radius of an electron that has been set by experiment, and nothing else, but as for the relative size of quarks to a particle, quarks are assumed to be smaller than the particles, but that's it.

i thought electrons were like light in the wave particle duality sense so didnt think they actually had a radius.

is there a minimum radius for an electron?

if there are different sizes of electrons could there be electrons of different strengths? like a more negative electron? and is their power, if it does very, dependent on their size?

going along with the size thing could electrons be "born" in the sense stars are born? like does an e- start out smaller and slowly grow? like stars can they die out? (either violently or non-violently)
 

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,448
1,070
126
qwarks and electrons and cows all have one thing in common.. a they are all a wave that behaves like a partical.... sounds weird? yea, sure does. everything has wave properties dependent on the wave length, of course an electrons is very small, and a cows even smaller, too small to measure, just looks like a partical. . . or a cow. . . qwarks are made of something, we just dont know what yet. strings of energy is a theroy. points at which our 4 dimensions collide with anouther world of some positive whole number of dimensions is another theroy. an atom is simple, it is a unit that makes up other things and controls the properties of other things with its weight, charge and size. electrons are in the probibility wave, when we try to measre them they are not.
look up Schroders cat: The theory is, that the cat is simultaneously alive and dead because the experimetor does not know if the cat is dead or alive. Therefore, the experimentor could think the cat is alive when it is really dead, or vice versa. Because of this, the cat is both alive and dead.
 

Phantom1983

Member
Dec 28, 2005
27
0
0
It's true to say that quarks don't really have a concept of "size" associated with them. It's also true that quarks can't exist as single entities as they have a "strong charge" which must add up to "white".

Basically, a hadron (proton, neutron etc) has three quarks which are "coloured" red, green and blue, which adds up to white, so hadrons can exist. A meson (kaon, pion etc) might have red and ANTI-red, which also adds up to white. So the combination of quarks leads to something with "size", but quarks on their own have no size.

The electron has been historically assumed to have a proper radius, but the concept is becoming outdated with the introduction of probability-based wave mechanics (electrons are now regarded as not being in any place for definite, rather where they are most likely to be).
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
For what it's worth, discussions of size for such small particles relate more toward our need of some cognitive framework to understand "what's going on." Things like the Bohr model of the atom are just that... models that give us some sort of comprehension of the inner workings of an atom. Regardless, even if we did put a number on the size, I don't believe the human mind can actually comprehend how small it is. (nor can we comprehend very large numbers) I hate to put a numbers on it, but I'd guess that the average human can't comprehend greater than 10^9 or less than 10^-6 (and that might be generous)
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: DrPizza
I hate to put a numbers on it, but I'd guess that the average human can't comprehend greater than 10^9 or less than 10^-6 (and that might be generous)
That sounds about right. Outside this range (in SI units) becomes difficult to even measure.
 

ashakar

Member
Dec 8, 2005
34
0
0
at some point in time I think physicists just started making stuff up to continue to get grant money
 

TheoPetro

Banned
Nov 30, 2004
3,499
1
0
lol alot of the ideas sound like this ashakar. im too uneducated to grasp most of their derivations and it bugs me to go it on faith alone so i cant really take any of the complex ideas or theories for fact yet.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
0
Originally posted by: ashakar
at some point in time I think physicists just started making stuff up to continue to get grant money

Bingo. I'm in the major, and this is what they've been teaching us to do.

Okay, not really, but I thought it was funny anyway
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
How do you use the scientific method to test this? It sounds to me like they make a prediction, then figure out a way to make it true.
 

axe3000

Junior Member
Jan 3, 2006
1
0
0
I had the opportunity to hear Frank Wilczek, Nobel Prize winner in physics and arguably the greatest contributer to the field of quantum chromodynamics, speak at my uni a few months ago. A version of his speech that he gave at MIT is found here http://mitworld.mit.edu/stream/251/
To answer your question, you can fast forward to about 17:40 if you already have an understanding of the quark/gluons and basic quantum theory. He provides a very eloquent mathematical proof that equates mass to frequency using Ohm's Law and Einstein's theory of relativity. It basically defines mass in terms of the vibration patterns it creates in empty space according to QCD. When comparing the disturbance pattern of nucleons with that of the elementary particles that make up the nucleons, it's shown that they are exactly the same.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |