A rather strange, irrelevent, if slightly head-melting question

Foxhound38

So this is something I was wondering for a while. We all know the basic structure of the Atom. I've learned the the electron going around the nucleus can (and this is the way the person put it) "appear to be in two places at once". So here's the question: if you were to blow up a single Atom to the point where you could actually see it, what would it look like?

5uspect

I think your confusing the issue.
You can't compare an atom to a macro object. The Bohr model etc are simply mathematical or descriptive models for making the concept usable on a practical level.

For you to see an object you require photons bouncing from or being radiated from it. You can imagine these as small bullets whizzing about but that is not what they are.

Similarly with an atom the image of electrons, protons and neutrons as billiard balls is simply a descriptive device.

kevmy

Usually the way the electron is described in basic quantum physics (if there is such a thing) is that it is more cloud like than anything else. ie. there is a large probability than the electron is somewhere within the cloud.

This kinda goes back to the Uncertainty Principle stating that you can't know position and speed of the electron at the same time so generally it move of a vague - it sorta in that region going about that fast in that general direction.

Capt'n Midnight

electrons are strange beasts

some say it could be smeared out over the whole universe, but mostly near the atom in question
some say they are mini black holes
some say there is only one electron with a lot of overbooking

biko

If the nucleus of the atom was the size of a ping pong ball (about 4 cm) the electron cloud would be 2 km away and 4km across.

Mr. Gruff

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

electrons are strange beasts

some say it could be smeared out over the whole universe, but mostly near the atom in question
some say they are mini black holes
some say there is only one electron with a lot of overbooking

All we know is that they make up The Stig.

IDCI

Foxhound38 wrote: »

So this is something I was wondering for a while. We all know the basic structure of the Atom. I've learned the the electron going around the nucleus can (and this is the way the person put it) "appear to be in two places at once". So here's the question: if you were to blow up a single Atom to the point where you could actually see it, what would it look like?

alot more than that actually.

Nobody knows tbh. Down at that level you get into the very core of questions such as "what is matter/gravity/electromagnetism/etc.?" and the honest truth is no-one knows. We have devised models to explain the behaviour of atoms, but even they are pretty hairy.

Put it this way, we characterise everyday objects by colour, texture etc. But what causes its colour? Usually, the effect of the interactions of the molecules & structures in the object with the incoming electromagnetic radiation from the sun*. So really, our brains just interpret objects by analysing what happens to incident light after it has interacted with the object, and our eyes are limited to analysing the wavelengths in the visible spectrum.

And what causes its texture? We touch things and say they're solid, when actually what we're feeling (on an atomic level) is surface energies and inter-atomic forces at work. With our current understanding of atoms, we feel like we're touching an object long before the nuclei/electrons of the atoms in our fingers come near the nuclei/electrons of the object surface. Otherwise things would really start to get interesting every time we tried to pick stuff up!

So basically, there are multitudes of other ways to look at objects and structures. For one we can use infra-red and ultra-violet detectors, so we're already analysing interactions we couldn't see with just our eyes. We can also focus beams of electrons, x-rays, ions etc. on objects and look at how they interact with the sample - this can be very complicated, very informative, and is still IMO 'looking' at the object, just in a different way to how most people consider it. For example, if I said that a given electron 'looks' like a photon of a particular energy level when a sample is hit with a beam of electrons, you mightn't be too happy with that answer, but technically I'm right!

*excluding all radiation sources except the sun, for the sake of simplicity.

lisbon_lions

I have great difficulty visualising or accepting the Copenhagen interpretation, in that the act of observation determines the state and position of an electron?

I mean, considering the schrodingers cat experiment, are we to believe the cat is both alive and dead until we open the box and observe?

I think Everetts many world interpretation is easier to digest and seems somewhat 'cleaner'.

But, what do I know? - I certainly dont understand quantum mechanics.

bonkey

lisbon_lions wrote: »

I mean, considering the schrodingers cat experiment, are we to believe the cat is both alive and dead until we open the box and observe?

I think Everetts many world interpretation is easier to digest and seems somewhat 'cleaner'.

Under the many-world interpretation, the cat is both alive and dead before and after you open the box....just in different "worlds". It even says that you will find both outcomes...but in any given world there will be only one outcome.

If anything, I would have said that its more headwrecking.