Technology2 mins ago
Empty space inside the atom
19 Answers
The common picture of the inside of the atom is of extremely tiny particles separated by, on the atomic scale, huge spaces. So what is in these huge spaces? There can only be 2 possibilities: either it is a vacuum, or it is SOMETHING. If it's not the former, then what is the something? Obviously it will not simply be air, as that is comprised of molecules of hydrogen and oxygen, and its atoms would be too big to fit inside another atom. So what is it in the huge empty spaces inside the atom?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AndiFlatland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
My guess would be that they are just empty. Vacuum if you like, although whether the description applies at that scale must surely be debatable. After all this is the size of particles and as you point out loom large at this magnification. A virtual particle just appearing would smash everything nearby apart ;-) I think the issue is not that there is nothing solid to fill the gap because anything solid would be made up of fundamental particles so that makes no sense as a concept. It's more fields only, surely, at this distance.
Old_Geezer: Hmmmmm... I keep getting this kind of answer from people I've asked, and to me, it just seems like a classice example of something the 'Religion vs Science' arguments often designated 'God of the Gaps' (and in this instance, never was a concept more appropriately named!), i.e. when we don't know how to explain something, default to the answer that requires faith without proof. There are clearly only 2 kinds of space - that which contains matter, which is therefore devoid of space (except on the subatomic level), and that which is devoid of matter - which is necessarily a vacuum. Fields are only patterns of interaction between particles, and are not made up of anything identifiable as matter. Maybe the dependable Mr Hawking can sort this one out!
BTW ChuckFickens: Yes, of course, you're absolutely right... I did mean '...molecules of oxygen and nitrogen'. Not hydrogen. The perils of sitting in a noisy, busy internet cafe with pretty girls everywhere to distract!!
BTW ChuckFickens: Yes, of course, you're absolutely right... I did mean '...molecules of oxygen and nitrogen'. Not hydrogen. The perils of sitting in a noisy, busy internet cafe with pretty girls everywhere to distract!!
The answer must be nothing.
Atoms can be compressed so that the density of the matter they make up increases. Under huge gravitational pressures (such as those present in neutron stars and black holes) the space is almost eliminated such that electrons and protons/neutrons are in very close proximity, if not in contact. If there was matter between the electrons and nuclei this model of super-density would not work.
Atoms can be compressed so that the density of the matter they make up increases. Under huge gravitational pressures (such as those present in neutron stars and black holes) the space is almost eliminated such that electrons and protons/neutrons are in very close proximity, if not in contact. If there was matter between the electrons and nuclei this model of super-density would not work.
I'm not sure from where you deduce the nterior of an atom "is of extremely tiny particles separated by... huge spaces". When quite alot is known about the nucelus of atoms. Simply stated, Atoms are made up of electrons and nuclei. Nuclei are made up of protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks and gluons. Nothing is known (at present) about anything lower (smaller?) than that but it is known that they are tightly packed... more so than the can of sardines I had as a snack today (packed in mustard sauce, BTW).
Very many years ago my Physics teacher gave us this illustration of the atom.
Imagine an aircraft propeller at full speed. The space the propeller occupies at any instant in time is a small % of the total space. However it is moving so fast that for practical purposes it occupies the entire area all the time.
The same effect but in 3 dimensions is seen in the atom with the electrons moving so fast that in effect the entire space is occupied all the time. This worked for me as I could then imagine it .
Imagine an aircraft propeller at full speed. The space the propeller occupies at any instant in time is a small % of the total space. However it is moving so fast that for practical purposes it occupies the entire area all the time.
The same effect but in 3 dimensions is seen in the atom with the electrons moving so fast that in effect the entire space is occupied all the time. This worked for me as I could then imagine it .
The problem is that the popular picture of the atom is not the real picture.
It's a simplified one that's easy to teach and present to non-specialists.
The model is one from about 100 years ago and to be fair at the time everybody knew it was flawed.
Electrons whizzing around a central nucleus would rapidly lose energy and be pulled into the positively charged nucleus.
In reality the volume around the nucleus is a volume containing what you might think of as a probability field - if you look at any given point there is a fixed probability of finding an electron there.
The "empty" spaces are areas in which the probility of finding a particle is very low.
The notion of a vacuum is one that troubled a lot of early physicists - to some extent it was overcome by vacuum pumps and people seeing how air could be excluded from a truely empty space.
This became an issue again when trying to understand light as a wave and the false notion of the 'ether' was born.
Later on the concept became an issue again and it was discovered that a true vacuum is impossible as virtual particles continually pop in and out of existance in something called a quantum foam.
Which brings us almost to the present day - people like Roger Penrose look at the far future of the Universe where the last matter decays to energy and point out that the nature of time is undefined if there is no matter and that perhaps the Universe is then cyclic that when that happens the bigbang reoccurs.
I wouldn't worry about a lot of this stuff as some of it's pretty complex, I mention it to point out that the common picture of an atom is way too simplistic to think about such questions and that ideas about 'empty space' have been at the forefront of ideas for several centuries and look like continuing to be so for several centuries yet
It's a simplified one that's easy to teach and present to non-specialists.
The model is one from about 100 years ago and to be fair at the time everybody knew it was flawed.
Electrons whizzing around a central nucleus would rapidly lose energy and be pulled into the positively charged nucleus.
In reality the volume around the nucleus is a volume containing what you might think of as a probability field - if you look at any given point there is a fixed probability of finding an electron there.
The "empty" spaces are areas in which the probility of finding a particle is very low.
The notion of a vacuum is one that troubled a lot of early physicists - to some extent it was overcome by vacuum pumps and people seeing how air could be excluded from a truely empty space.
This became an issue again when trying to understand light as a wave and the false notion of the 'ether' was born.
Later on the concept became an issue again and it was discovered that a true vacuum is impossible as virtual particles continually pop in and out of existance in something called a quantum foam.
Which brings us almost to the present day - people like Roger Penrose look at the far future of the Universe where the last matter decays to energy and point out that the nature of time is undefined if there is no matter and that perhaps the Universe is then cyclic that when that happens the bigbang reoccurs.
I wouldn't worry about a lot of this stuff as some of it's pretty complex, I mention it to point out that the common picture of an atom is way too simplistic to think about such questions and that ideas about 'empty space' have been at the forefront of ideas for several centuries and look like continuing to be so for several centuries yet
As far as I know, our everyday idea of "something" doesn't work at the level of atoms. When i look at a lump of metal, I see a solid lump of "something" but it is really just a lot of atoms (or molecules made up of atoms) that are a made up of nuclei surrounded by electrons. But what are nuclei and electrons? They can't be solid lumps, like my idea of a lump of metal, because they can't be made up of atoms....or it would go on forever!
It is our idea of solid objects that is "wrong"... it is just the way our minds interpret the light reflected from the "objects"...we never "see" the objects, just light reflected from them (that is why we can't "see" them when there is no light). We then interpret the electronic signals that reach our brains after the light enters our eyes.
I think some views are that electrons and nuclei are just concentrations of energy.
It is our idea of solid objects that is "wrong"... it is just the way our minds interpret the light reflected from the "objects"...we never "see" the objects, just light reflected from them (that is why we can't "see" them when there is no light). We then interpret the electronic signals that reach our brains after the light enters our eyes.
I think some views are that electrons and nuclei are just concentrations of energy.
http://
This may be of interest to all on the subject of atoms....
This may be of interest to all on the subject of atoms....
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Sir Keir Starmer Under, Fresh...
News5 mins ago
Mass Job Losses In The Retail Sector...
News9 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.