Chemistry
So today I was sitting in class doing a science test, when an interesting question came to mind. I had finished our chemistry test on the periodic table, elements, ionic compounds and all that fun stuff about 45 minutes early and I was a bit bored. So I started thinking. If elements are the smallest particles possible, then what is inbetween them? The first answer that comes to mind is air, but that doesn't make sense at all, because air is made up of elements. So there is my question: What is in between elements?
I really like chemistry...I find it very interesting to think that what I am studying is what EVERYTHING is made of. It's hard to explain exactly what I like about chemistry, but once I start looking at it, studying it, I seem to "lose" myself in it...I don't really know what I'm trying to say, but I just find it incredible for some reason. And something I always seem to question when I am thinking about chemistry...Who says that elements are the smallest things? And who says that the elements that we are familiar with aren't just compounds of even smaller elements that we don't have the technology to see? I mean, 2500 years ago, Empedocles (was it him?) said that there were four elements; fire, water, earth and air. Now, that theory is proven very wrong. And why, in 2500 years, won't our theory of there being 104 elements be proven wrong?
Arg, the arrogance of the human race bothers me sometimes!
But on another subject, my dad picked up a book for me that will help me prepare for my SATs. That's right, I am taking my goal of going to Philips Exeter seriously, much to the shock of many, I'm sure :D
P.S. Got your postcard today Rushan...expect and email relativly soon :)
I really like chemistry...I find it very interesting to think that what I am studying is what EVERYTHING is made of. It's hard to explain exactly what I like about chemistry, but once I start looking at it, studying it, I seem to "lose" myself in it...I don't really know what I'm trying to say, but I just find it incredible for some reason. And something I always seem to question when I am thinking about chemistry...Who says that elements are the smallest things? And who says that the elements that we are familiar with aren't just compounds of even smaller elements that we don't have the technology to see? I mean, 2500 years ago, Empedocles (was it him?) said that there were four elements; fire, water, earth and air. Now, that theory is proven very wrong. And why, in 2500 years, won't our theory of there being 104 elements be proven wrong?
Arg, the arrogance of the human race bothers me sometimes!
But on another subject, my dad picked up a book for me that will help me prepare for my SATs. That's right, I am taking my goal of going to Philips Exeter seriously, much to the shock of many, I'm sure :D
P.S. Got your postcard today Rushan...expect and email relativly soon :)
Elements aren't the smallest particles possible. If I am not mistaken, the smalles particles known to us at the moment are "quarks" and leptons.
So, more accurately an atom is made up of a nucleus and a number of electrons (which are one form of leptons). The nucleus in turn is made up of protons and neutrons. And the protons and neutrons are made up of quarks.
If you like chemistry, wait until you get into particle physics and quantum physics...now those are much more fun!!!
Looking forward to the e-mail :D
Posted by
Rushan |
November 23, 2005 5:54 PM
Really...well I guess we all learn something new everyday. I have always been told that electrons (I meant electrons and not elements through that entire post) were the smallest particles possible. So would it be quarks and leptons that are between molecules?
Our school system is very confused...just the other day I found out the the third orbit of an element can hold up to 18 electrons, and not 8, which is what we were told before. :(
Posted by
Will |
November 23, 2005 6:07 PM
Not sure that I understand the question. I think you are comfusing electrons, atoms, molecules etc.
Posted by
Rushan |
November 23, 2005 7:17 PM
It's a bit hard to explain over blog comments :) I'll try to explain in my email or when I'm talking to you sometime :)
Posted by
Will |
November 23, 2005 8:48 PM
Mmmmm gotta love when Chemistry says that "this is the way it is" and then the next day tells you "oh wait, I lied". I mean, I thought it was 2,8,8,8; then they make all of this s,p,d,f stuff up. And then they tell you about quarks. Way to go, Chemistry.
Posted by
Reese |
November 24, 2005 2:49 AM
Actually quarks and leptons are not the smallest anymore, bosons are. It has been theorized that they are the building blocks of matter, although that is quite a statement!! The Higgs Boson (smallest known particle) was discovered not that long ago as a by product of the sun's rays. They pass right through solid matter they are so small and fast. There are billions streaming through the earth and you every second! I also love particle physics and chem (until grade twelve) but music ruled out. Check out the book, universe on a t-shirt, will you would love it. It will give you a good overview of modern physics theories too:)
* altough technically you are right Rushan since the Higgs-boson is only hypothesized. http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs1.htm
Posted by
Nick |
November 24, 2005 3:36 AM
What's with the skin will? going minimalist?
Posted by
Nick |
November 25, 2005 3:27 AM
Skin?
Posted by
Will |
November 25, 2005 11:48 AM
I think she means template :D
Posted by
Rushan |
November 25, 2005 1:01 PM
She?!?!?! :)
I dunno, I just wanted a change, and this is the first one I saw :P
Posted by
Will |
November 25, 2005 4:12 PM
Geez...How much smaller are we going to get here?? But just out of curiosity...Quarks are the smallest proven particles, not counting theorys?
Since when do you visit here Constance? :) Welcome anyway, and don't feel shy to join the discussions ;)
P.S. Nick, is "The Universe on a T-Shirt" around here somewhere?
Posted by
Will |
November 25, 2005 6:08 PM
Ooops.....I thought it was Reese that asked you about the skin on your blog (that's what happens when I read blogs while trying to work at the same time!!!)
Nick, my understanding is that all known particles fall into three categories: quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons. The quarks and leptons are of a class called fermions, and are the basic constituents of all matter. The gauge bosons are the carriers of force.There is a wonderful explanation of all of this in language even I can understand at the Fermilab website. You can find the explanation here.
Constance, strings are not the smallest "known" particles because they are purely theoretical and as such have not really been observed through experimentation. Superstring theory is still only just that...a theory - part of the attempt to construct a theory of everything.
It's times like these it would be so nice to know a theoretical physicist :D
Posted by
Rushan |
November 26, 2005 11:41 PM
Sometimes I'm so glad I'm not doing theoretical stuff... It hurts my brain to think about this kind of stuff.
That and the fact that random scientists are trying to prove that theirs is smaller than the other guy's...
PWNT.
Posted by
Charlie |
November 27, 2005 4:39 PM
Hahahaha nicely said.
Posted by
Will |
November 27, 2005 4:48 PM
Constance, Will NEVER forgets anything ;) - Even I knew that you've been visiting his blog for ages because we talked about that long-forgotten story of his on a variety of occasions!
Posted by
Rushan |
November 30, 2005 7:56 AM
Do tell, you're killing me here. :$
Posted by
Charlie |
December 01, 2005 1:43 AM
So I realise this thread died out a while ago by I couldn't resist adding my 2 cents...don't forget about M theory where there exists loops of strings in 11 dimensions known as "branes". There are several types of branes, one of which is the "p-brane" (I kid you not)...
Posted by
Anonymous |
January 15, 2006 12:43 AM