[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
When it comes to atoms though, is there only so much chemistry can analyse before it is handed over to the physics boys and girls? I was quite happy with atoms being described as tiny billiards balls. For all practical intents and purposes, is there any real need for quarks, mesons and all the other bits that go into building an atom?
[/QUOTE]
Modern-day chemistry is the physics of electron valences. It has been since I was in school, so it’s been that way your whole life.
As for “practical intents and purposes” what does that even mean? You have no real need to use any model of atoms in your everyday life unless you do so professionally, in which case the atoms as billiard balls - which I can’t imagine they’re still teaching anywhere - doesn’t work worth a damn.
If you want to understand chemistry at any intellectual level at all, you have to start with electron valences. You can pretty much end there as well. Quarks and mesons and bits fall into the category of physics. If you want to understand physics, you can choose to understand as much or as little as you want. But you still have to start with protons, neutrons, and electrons, with the electromagnetic, strong, and weak forces, with quarks, mesons, neutrinos, and other decay particles, with matter and antimatter, and with a bunch of other stuff just to be able to read the threads on physics here on the Dope.
You don’t have to read any of those either, though. But if you do, it won’t help you to have either a false understanding of science or a non-existent understanding of science. And you’ll be missing some of the most fascinating discussion in GQ, because we have real experts posting real cutting edge science.
Exapno, the example ed gave, fitted my “practical intents and purposes” stipulation. I’m sure there will be other uses that I am unaware of, but this is what I meant, as opposed to philosophising about what matter consists of.
I have only the most fundamental knowledge of the things you have mentioned, so I imagine some of the more technical topics here on SDMB might go over my head, but if it can be explained in ‘laymans’ language, I’m sure I’ll be able to understand the basics.
With all this talk of quantum mechanics, virtual particles, quantum foam and the probabilities inherent in the sub atomic world is it safe to say at a fundamental level a vacuum as is commonly understood can not exist. The answer to the old question of something from nothing is answered by the laws of quantum mechanics as There can never be…Nothing. Do I make sense?
[QUOTE=ivan astikov] Exapno, the example ed gave, fitted my “practical intents and purposes” stipulation. I’m sure there will be other uses that I am unaware of, but this is what I meant, as opposed to philosophising about what matter consists of.
[/QUOTE]
If that’s what you meant by practical purposes, then literally everything requires more a billiard ball understand of atoms. That includes paint colors, new perfumes, artificial foods, all nanoparticle technology, all medical advances, everything you touch or see or handle in the course of a day. The lasers in CDs and DVDs alone require quantum physics. Biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy, meteorology, they’re all subsets of physics these days. Physics is more than practical: it’s fundamental.
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Neutrinos, photons, and gravitons; maybe a few spare hydrogen or helium atoms. Of course, the non-fermion stuff is just going to flit right through (I’m assuming the jar is transparent), which leaves you with basically nothing. The stuff that is spacetime isn’t stuff, although all the above stuff is embedded in it. You can’t grab space, or inspect it, or measure it directly; we can only infer its emergent properties by how things react within it.
A lot people used to claim that space was full of an invisible and immiscible fluid called the luminiferous aether which provided a medium for light to travel through, but then some obscure Swiss patent clerk came up with a crazy theory that motion is all relative and the speed of light is invariant in all directions and by all observers. You can imagine how well that went over. He also claimed that light was a particle, despite the fact that it clearly acts like a wave. Some people from Sweden gave him a nice dinner and a little money in hopes that he would just go away, but that just spurred him on, and then we had all sorts of nasty business about locking cats in boxes and quoting from James Joyce, and it all went downhill from there. You can’t even talk about physics in polite company any more, thanks to these guys.
Stranger
[/QUOTE]
Now stranger, don’t go confusing things! That crazy clerk never liked the cat anyway. And the swedes wisely (heh) decided to politely ignore that invariance talk and concentrate on the important stuff-the photoelectric effect. The ability to turn streetlights on and off all by themselves is important! Understanding the picky details is what physicists do, so that is what mattered to the swedes.
[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
Well, if “nature abhors a vacuum”, is space somehow ‘unnatural’, or just beyond our current comprehension? Surely it must consist of ‘something’?
[/QUOTE]
Ignoring the whole virtual particles and bad quotes thing, why must space consist of something? The atom content of a perfect vacuum is the same as the orangutan content of an empty grocery bag – none. “Empty” isn’t really all that odd a concept, and given the number of atoms in the universe compared the the number of potential places to put them…large areas of “empty” are pretty much required.
[QUOTE=TimeWinder]
Ignoring the whole virtual particles and bad quotes thing, why must space consist of something? The atom content of a perfect vacuum is the same as the orangutan content of an empty grocery bag – none.
[/QUOTE]
But it could be positively brimming with virtual orangutans, playing with the quantum foam.
Isn’t there a lot of empty space between atoms? For instance your chair is more empty space than stuff I thought. Or does the quantum foam play in there too?
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Isn’t there a lot of empty space between atoms? For instance your chair is more empty space than stuff I thought. Or does the quantum foam play in there too?
[/QUOTE]
Here’s an answer for you from [post=5771301]one of my favorite threads[/post].
Please pardon my intrusion but I was wondering if it would be ok for me to use (with proper attribution!) your comment about physics on my Facebook quote page, Stranger.
[QUOTE=Inner Stickler]
Please pardon my intrusion but I was wondering if it would be ok for me to use (with proper attribution!) your comment about physics on my Facebook quote page, Stranger.
[/QUOTE]
Share and Enjoy[sup]TM[/sup].
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
…A lot people used to claim that space was full of an invisible and immiscible fluid called the luminiferous aether which provided a medium for light to travel through, but then some obscure Swiss patent clerk came up with a crazy theory that motion is all relative and the speed of light is invariant in all directions and by all observers. You can imagine how well that went over. He also claimed that light was a particle, despite the fact that it clearly acts like a wave. Some people from Sweden gave him a nice dinner and a little money in hopes that he would just go away, but that just spurred him on, and then we had all sorts of nasty business about locking cats in boxes and quoting from James Joyce, and it all went downhill from there. You can’t even talk about physics in polite company any more, thanks to these guys.
