One of the most amazing facts ever - sounds like BS

Two empty cardboard boxes are mostly empty space*, yet you can't make them occupy the same space... that's a horrid over-simplification, but isn't it basically the same principle?

*OK, OK, it's air!

Not quite with enough force (neutron star/blackhole) you can fore the electrons to merge/join/bond/grind into the protons/nucleus.

Then even more weird stuff happens.

Think of it like taking the boxes then crumpling them up, they still don't go inside each other but they take up less room.
 
Not sure if he's saying that or if he's saying that gravity is like centrifugal force (ie not an individual force at all but a name for a collection of forces opposing centripetal force) or if it is just plain *******.

Either way the old phrase comes in. "Each great scientific discovery pushes us forward 100 years but holds us back 400" (or something like that...).
 
Well for me something is not right with Gravity as a force, it doesn't sit with the other forces of nature, Newton has had a crack at it, Einstein moved it along a bit but nobody is any the wiser to why we stick to the ground.

It's going to take a ground breaking approach to solve this the likes that we have never seen before. String theory has been doing the rounds for 40 years now and it's got nowhere to be honest.
 
One sugar molecule is approximately 1nm in diameter, which is 10^-9m, the edges of a sugar cube are approximately 1.5cm, or 10^-2m

This leads to nearly 1.5^7 sugar molecules along each edge of the sugarcube, ie 15,000,000, cube this to find the total number of molecules in a sugarcube, and you get approximately 3.4^21 molecules in total..


population of planet earth = 6,697,254,041
molecules in a sugarcube = 34,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Still confused?
 
As a student scientist, this doesn't surprise me a lot. The radius of an atom is around 5x10^-11 m, and that of an atomic nucleus around 1x10^-15 m. The assumption that the size of an electron is negligible can probably be made fairly soundly.

Let's have some fun with back of the envelope maths:

Volume of a sphere is 4/3 PI r^3

Therefore, volume of an atom ~ 5x10^-31 m^3

Volume of a nucleus (assuming spherical) ~ 4x10^-45 m^3

So, you could fit a generic nucleus in a generic atom's space around 1.25x10^14 times.

There are quite a few assumptions in that, but it must be ballpark. Perhaps consider that spheres don't tesselate. Assume that they adopt a hexagonal close packing arrangement, which is roughtly 74% efficient in space. (i.e. there'd be gaps in the block of nuclei if you compressed them, not sure if that's what the clip means though). You'd think that'd have a big effect? Nope, not really, so small assumptions are probably OK.

So, for every atom that exists, if you took all the space out of it, you'd be able to fit in around 1x10^14 nuclei.

In context, there are about 6x10^9 people on earth.

So how many atoms (and therefore nuclei) are there in a person? I'm going to make a pretty horrendous assumption here (scientists look away), but what if we said that humans were not 60% water, but 100% water, just to get a feel for the numbers?

An average person is about 75 kg. Water has an atomic mass of 18 (that's one oxygen at 16, and two hydrogen atoms at 1 each). One atomic mass unit is equal to 1.66x^-27 kg. This is known, it's called a Dalton (after John Dalton I think). Therefore, one molecule of water weighs about 3x10^-26 kg. Therefore, you could assume there was about 2.5x10^27 water molecules in a crazy water person (let's say a person).

Since there are 3 atoms in water, let's call it 7.5x10^27 atoms, and therefore 7.5x10^27 nuclei in one average 'water' person. That's a big number.

So what if we compress one person down, how many atoms space would we need? Since I've said there's roughly 1x10^14 nuclei in an atom's space, this would mean we would need approximately 7.5x10^13 atoms worth of space to fit a whole person's nuclei in, and for all the people in the world, around 4.5x10^23 atoms worth of space.

So how much space to 4.5x10^23 atoms need in units we recognise? Well, I said up at the top (well done for getting this far btw) that the volume of an atom is about 5x10^-31 m^3. Therefore, 4.5x10^23 atoms fit in 2.25x10-7 m^3.

OK, so that still doesn't mean a lot to us casually.

It would make a cube (assuming perfectly packed) of length about 6x10^-3 m, or 0.6 cm.

So, you could fit all the nuclei, minus the free space, in a cube that was 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6 cm.

Sure, I made a lot more assumptions than the people on the programme did, but that's not far off at all from what they claimed. Hopefully a lot of you could follow that all the way through, and it now makes sense. I haven't taken a direct route, but I've taken one that I hope makes sense, if you see what I'm saying. There's a lot of nothingness out there.

Some believe it is something, after all, it is hard to believe even in the concept of pure nothingness isn't it? How can there be nothing? What is nothing? I don't do philosophy, which is where those questions head, I'll leave that to them, as science currently doesn't have an answer.
 
Last edited:
Another cool, yet more nerdy fact: one mole of a substance contains 6x10^23 molecules.

That means 12g of carbon has 6x10^23 carbon molecules

carbon atoms, not molecules.

Atoms are singular whilst molecules are plural in the most basic of senses.

Also avagrado's number (aka the thing you are quoting) is the best estimate to the amount of atoms in such elements and is whats known in chemistry as a "mole"
 
Entirely true afaik.

A physicist once told me that it is possible to walk through a wall due to this concept.

Of course the chance of all of your atoms going into the spaces of all of the walls atoms was like 9.9 x 10^90890809789789789789798797

It's called quantum tunnelling, it's how tunnelling electron microscopes can view individual atoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope
 
Last edited:
Remember air is made from atoms like nitrogen, oxygen etc.. and so they can't go into another atom. :)

Exactly, everywhere we go on the earth's surface, we're 'wading' and pushing ourselves through a compressed gas in effect. Air, as we know it, is simply made up from a mixtures of atoms and molecules, so the smallest thing in air would be an atom of hydrogen for example (or if we're ignoring electrons, a proton). Everything between the atoms we move through, as we can understand, is nothing. The atoms are pretty close together from our perspective, but there's a massive amount of free space in a gas compared to a solid or liquid, where the atoms are very close together.

However, the point the programme was making was not just that there's a lot of space between atoms, but there's a massive amount of space within atoms themselves. There's a central nucleus, which is very small, and then orbiting electrons at a distance comparatively very far away from the nucleus. Of course, to us, it's a tiny distance, but to the tiny nucleus, it's very large.

When we touch something, we're just touching the electrons, not the nucleus. Hence some of the 'floating on your chair' comments above. Why do we not simply move through our chair if so much of it, and us is free space? The answer lies in repulsion (no, not the problem a lot of us geeky chaps have with the ladies, but of electrons). Electrons, that essentially define the size of the atom, are negatively charged. As we all know, similar charges repel, and this applies on an atomic scale too. On the atomic scale, this is a very strong force. It is one of the defining characteristics of our universe, one of the major forces of nature as we know it. Bring atoms close together, and the electrons repel each other. Of course, this isn't the only thing that can happen, or we wouldn't have any chemical reactions (essentially just a movement of electrons!), and the universe wouldn't exist as it does. So, we're sitting on our chair because the repulsive force of atoms (because of their electrons) is balancing the force of gravity (an interesting and slightly perplexing force in our universe for other reasons).

Now as I said, atoms, nuclei and electrons don't always just repel. A really important discovery in physics (and the sciences in general) came from Ernest Rutherford, a name you may be familiar with. In probably his most famous experiment, he shed light on the internal structure of the atom by firing alpha particles (a He nucleus) at a sheet of gold foil. Most of the nuclei passed straight through, but some were scattered by the gold atom's nuclei. This is a classic experiment, but still left many questions about atoms that have since been answered. If you want to read more about it, this page isn't bad.

Nowadays nuclear physics is more concerned with not the first components of nuclei (neutrons and protons), not just the components of neutrons and protons (known as quarks - not the bar in DS9), but the components of the components of the components of nuclei! My knowledge here is sparse as I do chemistry, and that's fairly detailed physics. I'm pretty sure there are some physics graduates on OcUK who could answer any questions on that.
 
Last edited:
Remember air is made from atoms like nitrogen, oxygen etc.. and so they can't go into another atom. :)

Yeah, I get that. But I wouldn't agree that "a vaccum" is the best way to describe the space between particles in an atom. Surely "a vaccum" is a description of a macro-world situation and it's definition doesn't really fit when talking about the sub-atomic? Or maybe I'm just being too picky?
 
Yeah, I get that. But I wouldn't agree that "a vaccum" is the best way to describe the space between particles in an atom. Surely "a vaccum" is a description of a macro-world situation and it's definition doesn't really fit when talking about the sub-atomic? Or maybe I'm just being too picky?

iirc the electrons though don't stay as a particle and instead are a wave covering the enter space of their orbitals.
 
Back
Top Bottom