[rhetorics]

I've been approaching my science courses as a skeptic, and it brings up many ?'s. So, I kinda got into a back-and-forth cyclic discussion with no progress. Afterwards, I found out a better way to word it:

Gas laws: As T decreases, V also decreases. Theoretically at 0 K there is no volume. So lets say you have a gas at the following T's and V's:
V       T
10L    10k
5L      5k
0L      0k

As we all know, it's impossible for something with mass to have 0 volume - however mass is constant throughout this entire process.

Here's what I was trying to ask her:
So is it really that the sample has 0 volume? Or is it that the particles have absolutely no effect on anything, being perfectly still - making a volume only impossible to determine? I'm not simply disregaurding the presence of a volume, but suggesting the lack of ability to detect it, because mass is constant. Does this make any sense?

_____

Another few.

Lets say you have a macroscopic amount of protons and nuetrons in a sealed environment (if it were possible to do). Strictly protons and neutrons. Would the sample be invisible?

Assuming the nucleus is strong enough to hold electrons in an extremely high energy level, could an atom reach a macroscopic volume? With that much distance between the nucleus and electrons, would that also be invisible?

On top of this, I'm convinced that no one can give me any good evidence: but I can't seem to accept the concept of smallest particle. That's my problem I suppose. What's an electron made of?

How do the protons in the nucleus stay together if + vs + repel in nature?

A photon has dual properties. Packets of energy, as if they were scattered by matter. So when a photon hits an atom, electrons move to a higher principle energy level. At his point, what is the status of that particular photon? When the electron relaxes back down, is another photon created? Or is the initial one "reassembled" so to speak, and shot back out?

If a photon has a mass-like property, than wouldn't hitting an atom slow it down? What is the energy source that causes a photon to continue at C?

Why can't an electron be in between two principle energy levels? The electron seems very digital in this view, and yet, in all other instances, its a random particle. Why are these energy values so special? Would the absence of electrons in lets say, energy level 1.5 render that energy level non-existent? Is the electrons energy the means in which a energy level is determined? (Similar to the absolute zero question, is it non-existent just because it can't be measured?) If so, then why would we rely on something so random for a big part of chemistry?

Thats enough for now.. have fun..

[Mitch]

I have no clue what your trying to get at with your first question. See below for your other questions.

Lets say you have a macroscopic amount of protons and nuetrons in a sealed environment (if it were possible to do). Strictly protons and neutrons. Would the sample be invisible?

Nuclear material is the densest materials known to man, you would see it.

Assuming the nucleus is strong enough to hold electrons in an extremely high energy level, could an atom reach a macroscopic volume? With that much distance between the nucleus and electrons, would that also be invisible?

Neutron Stars in a way can be considered as a huge macroscopic atom. Although, I doubt electrons whiz around it in the tradtional sense.

How do the protons in the nucleus stay together if + vs + repel in nature?

The nuclear force is stronger than the coulomb force. That's why the nuclear force is called the STRONG force.

A photon has dual properties. Packets of energy, as if they were scattered by matter. So when a photon hits an atom, electrons move to a higher principle energy level. At his point, what is the status of that particular photon? When the electron relaxes back down, is another photon created? Or is the initial one "reassembled" so to speak, and shot back out?

You won't like this answer, but it depends on the experimental design of the experiment.

If a photon has a mass-like property, than wouldn't hitting an atom slow it down? What is the energy source that causes a photon to continue at C?

Good catch. It does slow down in matter, light only travels at C in a vacuum.

Why can't an electron be in between two principle energy levels?

Because it's quantized! You'll have to wait until you take quantum mechanics to make sense of it.

[Yggdrasil]

I've been approaching my science courses as a skeptic, and it brings up many ?'s. So, I kinda got into a back-and-forth cyclic discussion with no progress. Afterwards, I found out a better way to word it:

Gas laws: As T decreases, V also decreases. Theoretically at 0 K there is no volume. So lets say you have a gas at the following T's and V's:
V       T
10L    10k
5L      5k
0L      0k

As we all know, it's impossible for something with mass to have 0 volume - however mass is constant throughout this entire process.

Here's what I was trying to ask her:
So is it really that the sample has 0 volume? Or is it that the particles have absolutely no effect on anything, being perfectly still - making a volume only impossible to determine? I'm not simply disregaurding the presence of a volume, but suggesting the lack of ability to detect it, because mass is constant. Does this make any sense?

This is all based on the ideal gas law, which make some assumptions about gases.  One such assumption is that individual gas molecules are zero-dimensional points with no volume.  Real gases have volume so this assumption, while a good approximation, fails to accurately predict the behavior of real gases under certain conditions.  So, to answer your question, the ideal gas model makes inaccurate predictions when you are considering very low temperatures (for example, most gases will liquefy at low temperatures, something for which the ideal gas law cannot account).

Lets say you have a macroscopic amount of protons and nuetrons in a sealed environment (if it were possible to do). Strictly protons and neutrons. Would the sample be invisible?

Assuming the nucleus is strong enough to hold electrons in an extremely high energy level, could an atom reach a macroscopic volume? With that much distance between the nucleus and electrons, would that also be invisible?

For something to be visible to humans it must either be large enough to scatter visible light.  Most atoms are not large enough to scatter visible light.

On top of this, I'm convinced that no one can give me any good evidence: but I can't seem to accept the concept of smallest particle. That's my problem I suppose. What's an electron made of?

An electron is a fundamental particle.  You cannot break it into smaller pieces (or at least no one has been able to do this).

How do the protons in the nucleus stay together if + vs + repel in nature?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_nuclear_force

A photon has dual properties. Packets of energy, as if they were scattered by matter. So when a photon hits an atom, electrons move to a higher principle energy level. At his point, what is the status of that particular photon? When the electron relaxes back down, is another photon created? Or is the initial one "reassembled" so to speak, and shot back out?

This sounds a little more philosophical than scientific, but I would say another photon is created.  The emitted photon will not necessarily contain the same "information" as the original photon which was absorbed.

If a photon has a mass-like property, than wouldn't hitting an atom slow it down? What is the energy source that causes a photon to continue at C?

I think the answer is that because its rest mass is zero, it must always travel at C.  You would have to ask a physicist for a better explanation.  But, you don't need an energy source to travel at a constant velocity (remember Newton's first law).

Why can't an electron be in between two principle energy levels? The electron seems very digital in this view, and yet, in all other instances, its a random particle. Why are these energy values so special? Would the absence of electrons in lets say, energy level 1.5 render that energy level non-existent? Is the electrons energy the means in which a energy level is determined? (Similar to the absolute zero question, is it non-existent just because it can't be measured?) If so, then why would we rely on something so random for a big part of chemistry?

Yes, an energy level of 1.5 would render that electron non-existent.  Remember that electrons can be described as having a wave associated with them.  Now, consider a ring around an atom.  If the electron has a defined wavelength, an integer number of wavelengths must fit in the circumference of the ring in order for the electron to exist.  If this does not occur, then the wavefunction of the electron will destructively interfere with itself resulting in no wavefunction (i.e. no electron).

You can make an analogy to a string attached to a wall.  Like an electron, the string can vibrate only at specific frequencies (with corresponding energies).

[edit: mitch beat me to it, but I'll post my answers anyway.  I would trust him more on the nuclear chem questions, since that's his area of expertise].

[rhetorics]

I have no clue what your trying to get at with your first question. See below for your other questions.

Well my professor kept repeating "It's impossible to have zero volume, its only a theoretical value" as if I was completely confused. I was suggesting that it still had a volume, only it cannot be measured because the particles are completely still - having no effect on anything. Just wondering if that makes any sense to anyone.

Lets say you have a macroscopic amount of protons and nuetrons in a sealed environment (if it were possible to do). Strictly protons and neutrons. Would the sample be invisible?

Nuclear material is the densest materials known to man, you would see it.

Isn't it the movement of electrons that make something visible? Or is there another property dealing with the nucleus that allows it to be visible?

A photon has dual properties. Packets of energy, as if they were scattered by matter. So when a photon hits an atom, electrons move to a higher principle energy level. At his point, what is the status of that particular photon? When the electron relaxes back down, is another photon created? Or is the initial one "reassembled" so to speak, and shot back out?

You won't like this answer, but it depends on the experimental design of the experiment.

Basically, just light hitting an atom.

[rhetorics]

Lets say you have a macroscopic amount of protons and nuetrons in a sealed environment (if it were possible to do). Strictly protons and neutrons. Would the sample be invisible?

Assuming the nucleus is strong enough to hold electrons in an extremely high energy level, could an atom reach a macroscopic volume? With that much distance between the nucleus and electrons, would that also be invisible?

For something to be visible to humans it must either be large enough to scatter visible light.  Most atoms are not large enough to scatter visible light.

Well, electrons determine the size of an atom... so what if an electron was in an extremely high energy level (making a macroscopic diameter, lets say 1mm) assuming the nucleus was strong enough to hold it that far away. Would it be visible then?

On top of this, I'm convinced that no one can give me any good evidence: but I can't seem to accept the concept of smallest particle. That's my problem I suppose. What's an electron made of?

An electron is a fundamental particle.  You cannot break it into smaller pieces (or at least no one has been able to do this).

Haha yeah I know... I'm just stubborn and cant fathom smallest particle, I'm always wondering "well what's that made of?".

How do the protons in the nucleus stay together if + vs + repel in nature?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_nuclear_force

Thanks.

If a photon has a mass-like property, than wouldn't hitting an atom slow it down? What is the energy source that causes a photon to continue at C?

I think the answer is that because its rest mass is zero, it must always travel at C.  You would have to ask a physicist for a better explanation.  But, you don't need an energy source to travel at a constant velocity (remember Newton's first law).

Don't you need a energy source to reach a certain speed, even if you remain constant after you reach it? Certainly I'll need energy to reach 100mph. So if a photon is slowed, what brings it back to C?

Why can't an electron be in between two principle energy levels? The electron seems very digital in this view, and yet, in all other instances, its a random particle. Why are these energy values so special? Would the absence of electrons in lets say, energy level 1.5 render that energy level non-existent? Is the electrons energy the means in which a energy level is determined? (Similar to the absolute zero question, is it non-existent just because it can't be measured?) If so, then why would we rely on something so random for a big part of chemistry?

Yes, an energy level of 1.5 would render that electron non-existent.  Remember that electrons can be described as having a wave associated with them.  Now, consider a ring around an atom.  If the electron has a defined wavelength, an integer number of wavelengths must fit in the circumference of the ring in order for the electron to exist.  If this does not occur, then the wavefunction of the electron will destructively interfere with itself resulting in no wavefunction (i.e. no electron).

This makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks.

[Bakegaku]

Well, electrons determine the size of an atom... so what if an electron was in an extremely high energy level (making a macroscopic diameter, lets say 1mm) assuming the nucleus was strong enough to hold it that far away. Would it be visible then?

As atoms get larger, I know the lower shells are pulled in closer.  I think the size of the atom would asymptotically reach a limited size, making a macroscopically sized atom impossible.

There's also the conventional matter of the fact that a nucleus large enough to do that would be mindbogglingly unstable.

There's my two-cents for now.  I hope another forum member can clarify or expand on that while I don't have time

[Borek]

How do you want to 'observe' an atom? It is not a polished marble that reflects the light. Electron can get excited and then release energy (if it happens to be fit the gap between energy levels), but it doesn't mean you can 'see' it.

That's completely abstract, but let's think about other aspects. Assuming electron is on such high shell that the atom is 1mm in diameter, electron has to be very weakly bonded. To see 1mm sized object you have to use wavelength in the same range - and 1mm wave means a lot of energy, much more than you need to ionize the 1mm sized atom

[rhetorics]

Haha, I wasn't expecting a polish marble, maybe just some sort of color. But I believe my questions are answered. Thanks people.