A problem is: a stone is composed of various size pebbles, some of which are similar to grains of sand. Some of them might be grains of sand.
One way to resolve this: a particle of powder might be composed of collections of atoms, resembling pebbles, in a matrix of atoms, equivalent to a sandy cement holding the pebbles together in a stone.
The alternative (not necessarily exclusive) is large atoms in a matrix of smaller atoms.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Size of Atoms
Did the philosopher make statements about the likely size of atoms?
A rock might be the size of one's hand. It might subdivide into, say, one million pebbles. Let's say each of those subdivides into one million grains of sand. Let's say each of those subdivides into one million particles of powder. Each of those subdivides into one million atoms.
1,000,000(pebbles)X1,000,000=1,000,000,000,000(1 trillion grains of sand) ...X1,000,000=1,000,000,000,000,000,000(1 million trillion particle of powder)
...X1,000,000=1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000(1 trillion trillion atoms)
This sounds like it could be right (in a general way).
A rock might be the size of one's hand. It might subdivide into, say, one million pebbles. Let's say each of those subdivides into one million grains of sand. Let's say each of those subdivides into one million particles of powder. Each of those subdivides into one million atoms.
1,000,000(pebbles)X1,000,000=1,000,000,000,000(1 trillion grains of sand) ...X1,000,000=1,000,000,000,000,000,000(1 million trillion particle of powder)
...X1,000,000=1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000(1 trillion trillion atoms)
This sounds like it could be right (in a general way).
Elements
According to Timothy Leary, Mendelev devised the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements in 1868. (The Game of Life, pages 11-15.)
I hypothesize that Mendel had some idea about, say, the size of atoms, when he undertook his analysis. What was science saying about that at the time, and who was saying it?
From school days, I remember that one of the Greeks hypothesized the existence of atoms. As the story went, he suggested the existence of some part of things that cannot be further divided. Is that really what he asserted? It seems a bit counterintuitive.
But, how might the philosopher have arrived at his conclusion? Here's my reasoning: Consider something like a crumbly stone. It is a single object, that is clearly composed of numerous smaller objects. The texture of one of those smaller objects is similar to the texture of the stone ... in fact, we might be able to see some of those smaller objects crumbling into still smaller objects - grains. And those smaller objects, in turn, have, again, a texture that is similar to the texture of the whole stone, in terms, say, of hardness ... and also in terms of granularity. We might be able to see - visual inspection - hints of granular patterns in a grain of sand ... and a grain of sand might even be crumbling into still smaller particles - powder.
Beyond this, simple visual detection provides limited or little information. We are left to surmise that a grain of powder subdivides in turn into something we cannot readily detect. Is that an atom?
Returning to the question of what the philosopher meant by his idea of the atom, it seems more logical, to me, to think it was such a next step in size. Or, did he have extra information. It does appear (based on more modern information) that atoms indeed are quite hard to divide. Are they harder to divide than, say, rocks? Some rocks are quite tenacious.
I hypothesize that Mendel had some idea about, say, the size of atoms, when he undertook his analysis. What was science saying about that at the time, and who was saying it?
From school days, I remember that one of the Greeks hypothesized the existence of atoms. As the story went, he suggested the existence of some part of things that cannot be further divided. Is that really what he asserted? It seems a bit counterintuitive.
But, how might the philosopher have arrived at his conclusion? Here's my reasoning: Consider something like a crumbly stone. It is a single object, that is clearly composed of numerous smaller objects. The texture of one of those smaller objects is similar to the texture of the stone ... in fact, we might be able to see some of those smaller objects crumbling into still smaller objects - grains. And those smaller objects, in turn, have, again, a texture that is similar to the texture of the whole stone, in terms, say, of hardness ... and also in terms of granularity. We might be able to see - visual inspection - hints of granular patterns in a grain of sand ... and a grain of sand might even be crumbling into still smaller particles - powder.
Beyond this, simple visual detection provides limited or little information. We are left to surmise that a grain of powder subdivides in turn into something we cannot readily detect. Is that an atom?
Returning to the question of what the philosopher meant by his idea of the atom, it seems more logical, to me, to think it was such a next step in size. Or, did he have extra information. It does appear (based on more modern information) that atoms indeed are quite hard to divide. Are they harder to divide than, say, rocks? Some rocks are quite tenacious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
