[north]

Intermolecular forces being strong enough to keep them together.

    explain further.

Same happens in water - but here intermolecular forces are much stronger, thus water is a liquid in much higher temp. And strength of these intermolecular forces in water is much higher thanks to the presence of molecular orbitals.

   this later.

[Borek]

Intermolecular forces being strong enough to keep them together.

    explain further.

Sorry, but you have just crossed thin line where you get me irritated. What it is, an exam? I can help you understand some concepts but it is up to you to do some effort and some research.

[Yggdrasil]

The "state of liquidity" is nothing special.  All molecular compounds will have a liquid state, as they will also have a solid and gas state as well.  We can think of the states of matter as a competition between intermolecular forces (the forces which cause molecules to attract eachother) and thermal energy.  When intermolecular forces are stronger than thermal energy, the molecules are attracted to eachother and stick forming solids (when the intermolecular forces are very strong) or liquids (when the intermolecular forces are relatively weak).  On the other hand, in the gas phase, thermal energy is much stronger than the intermolecular forces so molecules interact minimally.

Water, which has fairly strong intermolecular forces due to it's permanent dipole (see previous post), exists as a liquid at room temperature because its intermolecular forces are strong enough to keep water molecules stuck to eachother at temperatures of up to 100C.  Oxygen gas and hydrogen gas, on the other hand, exist as gasses at room temperature because their intermolecular forces are extremely weak and thermal energy easily separates molecules of oxygen and hydrogen.  In order to produce liquid oxygen or hydrogen, one must reduce thermal energy until it becomes too weak to break the intermolecular attractions between oxygen or hydrogen molecules.  This occurs at very low temperatures when there is little thermal energy.

But basically, you cannot compare hydrogen and oxygen to water because these are all separate compounds with completely different properties.  By analogy, consider a cake.  A cake is made from flour, eggs, baking powder, etc, yet it retains none of the properties of those materials.  While I would gladly eat cake, I would not want to eat a mixture of flour, raw eggs, and baking powder.  Similarly, water may be made from hydrogen gas and oxygen gas, but that does not necessarily mean that it retains the properties of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas.

After all, there are alternate routes to the synthesis of water.  Water can be produced in the reaction of an alcohol and organic acid.  Does this mean that water retains the properties of these materials also?  No.

[xiankai]

this is probably why one-particle isolated systems are easy enough to make measurements, but bring along several particles together and trying to measure each particle, and several different forces come into conflict, making it very hard, if not virtually impossible.

[north]

Intermolecular forces being strong enough to keep them together.

    explain further.

Sorry, but you have just crossed thin line where you get me irritated. What it is, an exam? I can help you understand some concepts but it is up to you to do some effort and some research.

   sorry it was some what of a dumb question

[north]

this is probably why one-particle isolated systems are easy enough to make measurements, but bring along several particles together and trying to measure each particle, and several different forces come into conflict, making it very hard, if not virtually impossible.

  can i though, suggest this experiment;

   take 1,ONE, hydrogen atom down too its liquid temp. and along the way( the gradual lowering of the temp.)  measure what is happening to atom its self, from as many aspects as possible, from start of the experiment to the end.

[xiankai]

that would be very difficult, i think. based on the uncertainity principle, the maximum error for the measurement of velocity and position of a particle at any time in space, is a constant, limited to what we can observe. that way, you cannot hope to measure the velocity of the atom accurately, and yet hope to measure the positon of the atom accurately too.

[north]

that would be very difficult, i think. based on the uncertainity principle, the maximum error for the measurement of velocity and position of a particle at any time in space, is a constant, limited to what we can observe. that way, you cannot hope to measure the velocity of the atom accurately, and yet hope to measure the positon of the atom accurately too.

   true but;

    as you drop the temp. of the atom itself the velocity and position of the atom, become more and more accurate.

    for hydogen at -256degrees would you not consider this energy state, of hydrogen, a very STILL state of hydogen?

       for is no the uncertainity principle based on "high energy measurments" and not low energy measurements?

    the hydrogen atom maybe hard to detect, at first, but once detected should be easy to follow.

     

[Borek]

as you drop the temp. of the atom itself the velocity and position of the atom, become more and more accurate.

No.

for hydogen at -256degrees would you not consider this energy state, of hydrogen, a very STILL state of hydogen?

No.

for is no the uncertainity principle based on "high energy measurments" and not low energy measurements?

No.

the hydrogen atom maybe hard to detect, at first, but once detected should be easy to follow.

No.

[north]

as you drop the temp. of the atom itself the velocity and position of the atom, become more and more accurate.

No.

   yes

for hydogen at -256degrees would you not consider this energy state, of hydrogen, a very STILL state of hydogen?

No.

  yes

for is no the uncertainity principle based on "high energy measurments" and not low energy measurements?

No

   yes

the hydrogen atom maybe hard to detect, at first, but once detected should be easy to follow.

No.

  yes

[Borek]

Heisenberg uncertainty priniciple states that the product of the uncertainties of measurements of the conjugate quantities (for example time&energy, speed&position) can't be lower than h/4?. It doesn't state anything about energy scale, so it holds regardless of whether you are measuring resting atom position or position of atom accelerated to 0.999999c. This plus fact that observation changes state of the observed object makes answers to all your questions negative.

[xiankai]

do not think of it from a god-point of view that is omniscient; think of how measurements are taken from a realistic viewpoint.

at -273.15^o, the absolute zero temperature, all movement is reputed to cease. but it is a theoretical asymptopic minimum, so it cannot be reached.

the hydrogen atom maybe hard to detect, at first, but once detected should be easy to follow.

the thing is that u're trying to measure both conjugate quantities at the same point of time. making a measurement on the hydrogen atom changes its characteristics somewhat because of the method used (actually, all methods used), so after detecting it, u invariably change the hydrogen atom somewhat, its momentum or velocity, such that your next measured value for it is wrong.

[bodegas]

You really can't replace scientific objectivity with stubborness...

Ever heard of hydrogen bonds? As said above, atoms do not have permanent dipoles, but molecules can have. Molecules with permanent dipoles are able to interact more strongly than those that can only interact through van der Walls interactions, because opposite charges are atracted to one another. Molecules spatially arrange themselves to maximize those interactions unless the thermal energy of the system is high enough to overrule it.
To see this from the standpoint of water, or it's characteristics is, I believe, unorthodox, because temperature is continuous beyond 0 Kelvin and ice melting at 0ºC isn't a tremendously important fact (not more than any other) in regard to the temperature at what O2 and H2 melt. It's just different relative positions in the scale that (theoretically) goes from 0 to infinity K. Is the melting point of water much more relevant than that of H₂? It certainly is from a mundane point of view but not from a scientific one.
It's been said before, it's a balance between thermal energy of the system and the strengh of the bonds between the molecules or atoms that compose the system. I may be wrong, but I think there's no hidden truth here.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is world wide considered a scientific law because as to this date ther is not a single evidence that it is wrong in the conditions that it was estabilished, which are regarding particles at the quantum level. Speaking of the behaviour of single atoms and disregarding Heisenberg's principle can only be explained if there is evidence that it is wrong. If that is the case, I would be terribly eager to see those proof in a reviewed and published article. That kind of document would certainly find a space within Science.

[north]

You really can't replace scientific objectivity with stubborness...

Ever heard of hydrogen bonds? As said above, atoms do not have permanent dipoles, but molecules can have. Molecules with permanent dipoles are able to interact more strongly than those that can only interact through van der Walls interactions, because opposite charges are atracted to one another. Molecules spatially arrange themselves to maximize those interactions unless the thermal energy of the system is high enough to overrule it.
To see this from the standpoint of water, or it's characteristics is, I believe, unorthodox, because temperature is continuous beyond 0 Kelvin and ice melting at 0ºC isn't a tremendously important fact (not more than any other) in regard to the temperature at what O2 and H2 melt. It's just different relative positions in the scale that (theoretically) goes from 0 to infinity K. Is the melting point of water much more relevant than that of H₂? It certainly is from a mundane point of view but not from a scientific one.
It's been said before, it's a balance between thermal energy of the system and the strengh of the bonds between the molecules or atoms that compose the system. I may be wrong, but I think there's no hidden truth here.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is world wide considered a scientific law because as to this date ther is not a single evidence that it is wrong in the conditions that it was estabilished, which are regarding particles at the quantum level. Speaking of the behaviour of single atoms and disregarding Heisenberg's principle can only be explained if there is evidence that it is wrong. If that is the case, I would be terribly eager to see those proof in a reviewed and published article. That kind of document would certainly find a space within Science.

     the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is still based on the amount of energy in either the system or atom and space, period. a specific water molecule and its position is easier to find if it is frozen ( it has not moved) than a molecule of water of steam. 


      the use of a multiple control system. rather than a one point control system. would be most helpful.

   say for instance you have a molecule of water( at near freezing), then break off the hydrogen atom from that molecule, then control the position of that atom using multiple electron guns, three dimensionally, to hold the atom in a specific point.( to still it) then bring that atom alone to the liquidification temp. of hydrogen. as well, the space that the atom can exist is at the absolute minimum.( even if you do this alone, minimize space, the atom will lose kinetic energy and slow down)

   

[xiankai]

that requires knowledge on where the hydrogen atom is in the first place.

but after finding out the position of the atom, the position will change; unless those electron guns can go back in time (by the time it takes for the photon that bounces off the atom to reach the detector and the electrons are fired, the atom has probably moved off already, at a very fast rate since you have not started to cool it yet.)

likewise, you can hope to predict the path the atom will move towards and fire the electron guns to hit a particular point ahead of time, but that requires knowledge on the velocity of the particle in the first place, and thus you cannot measure the position from which the atom travels through its predicted trajectory.

that theory of minimising space to reduce kinetic energy has its merits; this is the principle by which electrons occupy specific energy states, where the closer to the nucleus the electron is, the less energy it possesses.

by the way, what is your goal? i've lost track already