Thread: Atoms

Okay
What i wanted to figure out was what created all these combonations of atoms. Also are atoms aware of these combonations?

If you mean aware as in "Hello I'm a Hydrogen atom and this is ..." then I'd have to assume...no. If you're talking about some other sort of awareness we can't really comprehend, then I guess it's possible. With all the stuff we have from quantum mechanics, something like that isn't far fetched.
Or did you mean something else?

Originally Posted by Hera

Okay
What i wanted to figure out was what created all these combonations of atoms. Also are atoms aware of these combonations?

I've concluded that you're a moron.

Atoms combine according the laws of chemistry. For example, if you give them a specific amount of input energy, Carbon atoms will always combine with Oxygen molecules to form Carbon Dioxide molecules (this is burning coal). Carbon Dioxide molecules however will never split into Carbon atoms and Oxygen molecules. This is an example of the laws of chemistry. All atoms always react in the same way according for some very basic reasons (it all depends on whether or not an atom has enough positive charge to pull the electron from another atom; this is the basis of a chemical reaction).

Of course, atoms are not 'aware' of whether or not they are bonded, because atoms are not 'alive' or 'conscious'. They're just like a bunch of billiard balls flying through space and bouncing off each other according to precise rules. In such a situation there would be no reason to think that any of the billiard balls had any idea what was going on...

Originally Posted by Xei

Atoms combine according the laws of chemistry. For example, if you give them a specific amount of input energy, Carbon atoms will always combine with Oxygen molecules to form Carbon Dioxide molecules (this is burning coal). Carbon Dioxide molecules however will never split into Carbon atoms and Oxygen molecules. This is an example of the laws of chemistry. All atoms always react in the same way according for some very basic reasons (it all depends on whether or not an atom has enough positive charge to pull the electron from another atom; this is the basis of a chemical reaction).

Of course, atoms are not 'aware' of whether or not they are bonded, because atoms are not 'alive' or 'conscious'. They're just like a bunch of billiard balls flying through space and bouncing off each other according to precise rules. In such a situation there would be no reason to think that any of the billiard balls had any idea what was going on...

See i get that Billiare balls simple and easy

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I've concluded that you're a moron.

If im a moron then fine.

atoms aren't the building blocks of everything (at least not in my theory )
think about it... think about infinity for a sec, and how nothing can be absolute, e.g. can 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999....... = 1? yes, if it goes on forever. so if you keep on going deeper, beyond the realm of atoms, you are eventually going to find new types of matter. eventually, you are going to find everything, do you understand so far? going deeper, you're going to find new realms, and maybe new worlds, so small that humans might never find them... but still, come on, if you think about infinity then atoms are kind of blunt measurements.

another way of thinking about it is that most people can't imagine having the awesome power of a lucid dream, because it's infinite creativity. infinite. if you don't understand, that's fine, it was probably my explanation that confused you. but if you do, then you get a star!

and then quantum physics (oi vey...)

also, why wouldn't everything have a consciousness? nothing to disprove it, right?
it's always best to exercise an open mind.

Originally Posted by marcc

atoms aren't the building blocks of everything (at least not in my theory )
think about it... think about infinity for a sec, and how nothing can be absolute, e.g. can 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999....... = 1? yes, if it goes on forever. so if you keep on going deeper, beyond the realm of atoms, you are eventually going to find new types of matter. eventually, you are going to find everything, do you understand so far? going deeper, you're going to find new realms, and maybe new worlds, so small that humans might never find them... but still, come on, if you think about infinity then atoms are kind of blunt measurements.

another way of thinking about it is that most people can't imagine having the awesome power of a lucid dream, because it's infinite creativity. infinite. if you don't understand, that's fine, it was probably my explanation that confused you. but if you do, then you get a star!

and then quantum physics (oi vey...)

also, why wouldn't everything have a consciousness? nothing to disprove it, right?
it's always best to exercise an open mind.

You're right and wrong.

First of all, you're correct that atoms themselves are made of smaller particles, which themselves are made of yet smaller particles. Atoms are made partially of protons, which are made of quarks, which may turn out to be made of 11 dimensional strings.

However, the smaller you get the harder it is to reveal the properties of that smaller building block, or in other words, the harder it is to see that it's real and not just a mathematical curio. By "harder", I mean it takes either larger amounts of energy or longer periods of time to expose its nature. For example, the properties of the molecule have been exploited by humans for tens of thousands of years (fire, tanning of hides, growing crops, etc.). The properties of the atom have only been known and exploited for at most a few hundred years, because exposing individual atoms took lots of energy being concentrated in a small machine. Exposing the proton and neutron took even more energy, and exposing quarks now takes particle accelerators that are miles long. So at some point, even if there are smaller building blocks, they won't be accessible to us, and will thus be irrelevant.

The other point I would make is that nature is fundamentally quantized. It's not true that you can take a real ruler and cut it in half an infinite number of times. At some point, the remaining piece just vanishes. That's a prediction of quantum mechanics and it's the most experimentally verified prediction in all physics. So there's a good chance there really are the 'smallest' particles. They certainly aren't atoms, though.

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

Some will tell you this is random chance and evolution worked around it.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with random chance. Understand what you're denying before you deny it.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

You're right and wrong.
At some point, the remaining piece just vanishes. That's a prediction of quantum mechanics and it's the most experimentally verified prediction in all physics. So there's a good chance there really are the 'smallest' particles. They certainly aren't atoms, though.

Is this called Planck's length? The point where you can go no further (in size).

Originally Posted by marcc

atoms aren't the building blocks of everything (at least not in my theory )
think about it... think about infinity for a sec, and how nothing can be absolute, e.g. can 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999....... = 1? yes, if it goes on forever. so if you keep on going deeper, beyond the realm of atoms, you are eventually going to find new types of matter. eventually, you are going to find everything, do you understand so far? going deeper, you're going to find new realms, and maybe new worlds, so small that humans might never find them... but still, come on, if you think about infinity then atoms are kind of blunt measurements.

another way of thinking about it is that most people can't imagine having the awesome power of a lucid dream, because it's infinite creativity. infinite. if you don't understand, that's fine, it was probably my explanation that confused you. but if you do, then you get a star!

and then quantum physics (oi vey...)

also, why wouldn't everything have a consciousness? nothing to disprove it, right?
it's always best to exercise an open mind.

There must come a point when you cannot braek down any further.
If there was no begining how could there be an end?

I don't see why there must logically come a point. To me, continuous matter seems just as absurd as discrete; it's just a different mathematical expression. But of course, science shows us that it is indeed discrete, although I don't know very much of the evidence for it being discrete all the way down to some fundamental level...

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Is this called Planck's length? The point where you can go no further (in size).

Yes, Planck's length is the ultimate smallest length. So things certainly can't be smaller than that. But even before you get to that scale, even if you're at the picometer scale, things start to get weird.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't see why there must logically come a point. To me, continuous matter seems just as absurd as discrete; it's just a different mathematical expression. But of course, science shows us that it is indeed discrete, although I don't know very much of the evidence for it being discrete all the way down to some fundamental level...

Well, it is discrete, and there is a lot of evidence. I mean, the most basic experiment was the double slit. Another experiment was the photoelectric effect, which Einstein showed can only be explained by quantization (of photons, but Einstein also showed that matter is energy anyway). Another example is blackbody radiation, which doesn't make sense in a continuous universe. Actually, there's a list of experiments on the side of the wiki page on quantum mechanics.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't see why there must logically come a point. To me, continuous matter seems just as absurd as discrete; it's just a different mathematical expression. But of course, science shows us that it is indeed discrete, although I don't know very much of the evidence for it being discrete all the way down to some fundamental level...

It's impossible to keep making up new particles that would describe the function of a greater particle. Eventually there has to be a smallest particle that describes the function of all other particles.

Yes but you could have a particle which is like a ball; continuous, not made up of more particles.

Well, it is discrete, and there is a lot of evidence. I mean, the most basic experiment was the double slit. Another experiment was the photoelectric effect, which Einstein showed can only be explained by quantization (of photons, but Einstein also showed that matter is energy anyway). Another example is blackbody radiation, which doesn't make sense in a continuous universe. Actually, there's a list of experiments on the side of the wiki page on quantum mechanics.

Hmm... well, I know that the photoelectric effect shows us that light is quantized... but as far as my knowledge of it goes, it does not mean that there is a smallest amount of energy, because the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency, so if the photon had a very large wavelength, it would have a very small amount of energy. This would correspond to a decreasingly massive fundamental mass...

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes but you could have a particle which is like a ball; continuous, not made up of more particles.

Subatomic particles don't have volume. Fail.

Originally Posted by Xei

Hmm... well, I know that the photoelectric effect shows us that light is quantized... but as far as my knowledge of it goes, it does not mean that there is a smallest amount of energy, because the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency, so if the photon had a very large wavelength, it would have a very small amount of energy.

Photons are generated be either electron orbital transitions or nuclear excitation transitions, both of which are always quantized. You literally cannot have just any wavelength of light. The effect is only apparent at small energies, though, because energy levels get closer together the higher you go.

Originally Posted by Xei

This would correspond to a decreasingly massive fundamental mass...

What?

Subatomic particles don't have volume. Fail.

Don't be such a condescending douchebag please.

I didn't know that and I'm still not entirely sure that it's true... or in particular why it needs to be true.

Photons are generated be either electron orbital transitions or nuclear excitation transitions, both of which are always quantized. You literally cannot have just any wavelength of light. The effect is only apparent at small energies, though, because energy levels get closer together the higher you go.

I thought all forms of EMR were transmitted via photons? Which would include radio waves and beyond? I remember being told that there was no limit to the wavelengths of EMR...

What?

(of photons, but Einstein also showed that matter is energy anyway).

I love how two posters got all huffy with my post when I wasn't even presenting an argument.

If you want people to know evolution isn't random than tell supporters to stop spreading that around. And frankly it's absurd to think there's no randomness involved. Otherwise evolution itself would be a conscious entity.

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

If you want people to know evolution isn't random than tell supporters to stop spreading that around. And frankly it's absurd to think there's no randomness involved. Otherwise evolution itself would be a conscious entity.

Well, randomness presents possible paths, and natural selection selects the path. You can't have evolution without randomness, but that's not to say that it works randomly. Unfortunately, most religious people are too mentally handicapped to understand this.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Unfortunately, most religious people are too mentally handicapped to understand this.

...there was only one isolated response to your post, and it wasn't huffy.

Evolution doesn't concern the standard model of particles. Why do atoms come together in such an ordered manner? Well, I think it's a large mystery, personally; I answer it with multiverses.

Some aspects of evolution are random, some are not.

Yeah... the randomness talked about in evolution exists just because of our inability to comprehend every movement of every atom in history, which is involved with evolution itself. Without this randomness evolution certainly wouldn't be "a conscious entity". It would just mean that, which is already taken for granted in physics and other scientific studies, the universe is deterministic. I mean even with quantum mechanics you'll end up with a final result, no matter what happened inbetween. Right?

I'd actually agree that there is randomness inherent to the system of evolution.

How can something be random if it's bound by laws. You said it yourself...

The same laws do govern everything.
What do you mean, why isn't everything the same? Everything does act in the same way in the same situation.