Splitting the atom

[tansy]

What happens when an atom is split? Do the quarks disintegrate...that is, can they individually be smashed to smithereens so to speak? Or are they totally unbreakable? Just wondering, because once they thought an atom couldn't be broken apart. I just wonder how far down that things can be in effect 'shattered'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What happens when an atom is split? Do the quarks disintegrate...that is, can they individually be smashed to smithereens so to speak? Or are they totally unbreakable? Just wondering, because once they thought an atom couldn't be broken apart. I just wonder how far down that things can be in effect 'shattered'.

What happens (roughly) is that protons and neutrons are dislodged so that you get one or more smaller atoms, some free particles (e.g. neutrons) and energy (photons). In as much as quarks can be considered to be particles, they're 'fundamental' - they don't break down, and they have the odd property that, being bound by the strong nuclear force, you have to put in so much energy to separate one from another that a new quark can be formed to partner each one you're trying to separate; this means you'll never 'see' them on their own.

At this scale, treating these things as particles is very much a convenient approximation of a more complex and subtle state of affairs rather than an indication of 'the way things really are'.

 

[tansy]

What happens (roughly) is that protons and neutrons are dislodged so that you get one or more smaller atoms, some free particles (e.g. neutrons) and energy (photons). In as much as quarks can be considered to be particles, they're 'fundamental' - they don't break down, and they have the odd property that, being bound by the strong nuclear force, you have to put in so much energy to separate one from another that a new quark can be formed to partner each one you're trying to separate; this means you'll never 'see' them on their own.

At this scale, treating these things as particles is very much a convenient approximation of a more complex and subtle state of affairs rather than an indication of 'the way things really are'.

Thank you . Is that what gluons are? The strong nuclear force? Or is that something different? (I do love these names btw...utterly 'charming'..and 'quark' is a kind of German cheese LOL. Words to be conjured with..)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thank you . Is that what gluons are? The strong nuclear force? Or is that something different? (I do love these names btw...utterly 'charming'..and 'quark' is a kind of German cheese LOL. Words to be conjured with..)

Yes, gluons are the exchange particles or carriers that mediate the strong interaction and manifest the strong nuclear force - or, at least, the world behaves as if that's the case.

 

[tansy]

Yes, gluons are the exchange particles or carriers that mediate the strong interaction and manifest the strong nuclear force - or, at least, the world behaves as if that's the case.

Thank you again

Umm, I watched an interesting documentary years ago where it was saying (I think, it was so long ago) that originally there were something like three basicgases from which everything else since has derived, as various atoms joined together and so forth.
Anyhow, I just thought I'd google this, save asking so many questions on here, but was rather blinded by science.

So could you tell me what was absolutely originally 'there'...was it gases made up of protons, neutrons, quarks etc...plus dark matter, dark energy, neutrinos, or what? And then, I think it was hydrogen plus a couple of other gases which joined and perhaps split (I really can't remember the details, I'm afraid), to make up all the elements in the universe?
I am assuming that the universe is basically made out of energy of one sort or another, which kind of converts to solid matter, or gas or liquid. Or maybe other things as well, like electricity

Would it be possible for you or someone to put this in VERY simple terms for me, please? Would the quarks and stuff like that have come before the atoms or what?

I'm sorry, this must all be very simple, basic stuff to all of you. But I only did physics up to age just about 14 and it was all (as far as I remember) simple stuff like fulcrums and ripple tanks (wave frequencies, I guess they were telling us about), oh and resistors and stuff with electricity. But all that stuff never answered things I wanted to know. I remember getting quite a high grade in first year secondary school physics and the teacher was quite surprised. But I thought, well, this stuff is obvious, if one's played on a see-saw in the park, or watched boats go through the water, or chucked stones in a pond, then mere observation would teach you that. We were never told how this might be applied to things in a practical way. I suppose I never thought (or felt I wasn't allowed) to ask questions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Would it be possible for you or someone to put this in VERY simple terms for me, please? Would the quarks and stuff like that have come before the atoms or what?

OK, I'll have a go, but it was quite a busy time (although a very short time), so it will only be crude summary.

It started so hot and dense that the four fundamental forces are thought to have been merged into a single 'super' force and there were no particles to speak of. After a hundred-billionth of a second of incredibly rapid expansion, a quark-gluon plasma formed and the other elementary particles (electrons, muons, tau, & their neutrinos, photons, and W & Z bosons) appeared as a seething mass of particles & anti-particles popping into existence and annihilating again. The superforce broke down into the four fundamental forces and, after about a millionth of a second, and the quarks & gluons calmed down enough to make protons and neutrons and their anti-particles. There was a tiny excess of particles over anti-particles (1 in 30 million), so when things cooled down a bit and the annihilation stopped, mainly matter was left. After about a second, most of the electrons and positrons had also annihilated each other, leaving an excess of electrons.

After a some minutes, a few neutrons & protons combined to make helium and deuterium nuclei, but most protons stayed single (i.e. hydrogen nuclei).

After ~379,000 years(!), things had calmed down enough for electrons to attach to the nuclei and make hydrogen atoms and a trace of helium and deuterium. This also meant light could now travel a significant distance without bumping into free electrons, and the universe became 'transparent' - this is the earliest detectable light and makes up the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

From then on, heavier elements (known in astronomical circles as 'metals', although it's basically everything other than hydrogen & helium) only appeared when enough hydrogen had accumulated (by gravity) in one place to form a star where atomic fusion could combine hydrogen and helium nuclei into new elements. The really heavy elements are produced when stars explode as supernovae.

Wikipedia has more detail.

'Dark matter' is a label for a phenomenon that makes galaxies and larger cosmological structures behave as if they have more mass around them than can be seen. It could be due to matter we can't see, or an unexpected behaviour of gravity at very large scales. Most focus is currently on looking for the kind of matter that could produce this effect, but there are new ideas and hypotheses being proposed and studied all the time.

'Dark energy' is the name for whatever is causing the expansion of the universe to unexpectedly accelerate. Something seems to be making space itself expand. Again, there are plenty of ideas for what might cause this; the problem is finding ways to test them.

 

[tansy]

OK, I'll have a go, but it was quite a busy time (although a very short time), so it will only be crude summary.

It started so hot and dense that the four fundamental forces are thought to have been merged into a single 'super' force and there were no particles to speak of. After a hundred-billionth of a second of incredibly rapid expansion, a quark-gluon plasma formed and the other elementary particles (electrons, muons, tau, & their neutrinos, photons, and W & Z bosons) appeared as a seething mass of particles & anti-particles popping into existence and annihilating again. The superforce broke down into the four fundamental forces and, after about a millionth of a second, and the quarks & gluons calmed down enough to make protons and neutrons and their anti-particles. There was a tiny excess of particles over anti-particles (1 in 30 million), so when things cooled down a bit and the annihilation stopped, mainly matter was left. After about a second, most of the electrons and positrons had also annihilated each other, leaving an excess of electrons.

After a some minutes, a few neutrons & protons combined to make helium and deuterium nuclei, but most protons stayed single (i.e. hydrogen nuclei).

After ~379,000 years(!), things had calmed down enough for electrons to attach to the nuclei and make hydrogen atoms and a trace of helium and deuterium. This also meant light could now travel a significant distance without bumping into free electrons, and the universe became 'transparent' - this is the earliest detectable light and makes up the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

Wikipedia has more detail.

'Dark matter' is a label for a phenomenon that makes galaxies and larger cosmological structures behave as if they have more mass around them than can be seen. It could be due to matter we can't see, or an unexpected behaviour of gravity at very large scales. Most focus is currently on looking for the kind of matter that could produce this effect, but there are new ideas and hypotheses being proposed and studied all the time.

'Dark energy' is the name for whatever is causing the expansion of the universe to unexpectedly accelerate. Something seems to be making space itself expand. Again, there are plenty of ideas for what might cause this; the problem is finding ways to test them.

Wow, that's great..thanks very much! I think your condensed explanation is almost as impressive as the formation of the universe itself . That gives me a better basis to try and understand things better .
One question (for the time being LOL) - you say that the 'four fundamental forces' are thought to have been merged into a single 'super force' before there were really any particles - so what were the four fundamental forces? Or perhaps that was part of your explanation and I didn't quite get it?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Wow, that's great..thanks very much! I think your condensed explanation is almost as impressive as the formation of the universe itself . That gives me a better basis to try and understand things better .
One question (for the time being LOL) - you say that the 'four fundamental forces' are thought to have been merged into a single 'super force' before there were really any particles - so what were the four fundamental forces? Or perhaps that was part of your explanation and I didn't quite get it?

The four fundamental forces are the two nuclear forces, the Strong Force - which binds quarks into protons & neutrons, and protons & neutrons in the nucleus; and the Weak Force - which doesn't bind things together like the other forces, but mediates certain processes, such as radioactive decay. These are very short range forces, only acting over sub-atomic distances. The Strong Force that binds protons & neutrons into nuclei is the spill-over or 'residual' force from the binding of the quarks, and it's this energy that is released in nuclear fission (when atoms are split).

Then there's the two 'everyday' forces, the Electromagnetic force - which binds things with electric charge, such as electrons to nuclei, binds atoms & molecules together, is responsible for electricity & magnetism, and is mediated by electromagnetic waves (a spectrum of photon frequencies making radio, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultra-violet, X-rays, and gamma rays); and the Gravitational Force, which attracts matter together according to its mass.

Both these have indefinite range, but only gravity is significant over very long ranges because the electromagnetic force acts on charge differences and most large bodies have little or no net charge. Gravity is the weakest force by many orders of magnitude. The Electromagnetic force is the main force in our daily lives - it holds everything together, makes things feel solid or liquid, allows us to see, and to use electricity & magnetism to do stuff (technology). It provides the energy of combustion, chemical energy (batteries, etc), and solar energy.

There is some debate about gravity - Einstein successfully modelled it as the curvature of spacetime, but quantum mechanics, which models the other forces, needs it to be another quantized force, and it's hard to see how that can be done (although there are plenty of ideas).

It's fair to say that all everyday experience can be explained by electrons, protons, neutrons, and electromagnetism (and gravity). There's plenty of other stuff, but it's either well below human scales, well above them, or not noticeable (e.g. we don't notice the odd cosmic ray, or the billions of neutrinos that stream through us every second).

Just as electricity and magnetism seem very different but are aspects of the same electromagnetic force, so electromagnetism and the weak force seem very different, but they have been shown to merge into a single combined 'Electroweak Force' at high energies. All four forces (assuming gravity turns out to be a quantized force) are expected to combine at exceptionally high energies - such as at the big bang.

 

[tansy]

The four fundamental forces are the two nuclear forces, the Strong Force - which binds quarks into protons & neutrons, and protons & neutrons in the nucleus; and the Weak Force - which doesn't bind things together like the other forces, but mediates certain processes, such as radioactive decay. These are very short range forces, only acting over sub-atomic distances. The Strong Force that binds protons & neutrons into nuclei is the spill-over or 'residual' force from the binding of the quarks, and it's this energy that is released in nuclear fission (when atoms are split).

Then there's the two 'everyday' forces, the Electromagnetic force - which binds things with electric charge, such as electrons to nuclei, binds atoms & molecules together, is responsible for electricity & magnetism, and is mediated by electromagnetic waves (a spectrum of photon frequencies making radio, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultra-violet, X-rays, and gamma rays); and the Gravitational Force, which attracts matter together according to its mass.

Both these have indefinite range, but only gravity is significant over very long ranges because the electromagnetic force acts on charge differences and most large bodies have little or no net charge. Gravity is the weakest force by many orders of magnitude. The Electromagnetic force is the main force in our daily lives - it holds everything together, makes things feel solid or liquid, allows us to see, and to use electricity & magnetism to do stuff (technology). It provides the energy of combustion, chemical energy (batteries, etc), and solar energy.

There is some debate about gravity - Einstein successfully modelled it as the curvature of spacetime, but quantum mechanics, which models the other forces, needs it to be another quantized force, and it's hard to see how that can be done (although there are plenty of ideas).

It's fair to say that all everyday experience can be explained by electrons, protons, neutrons, and electromagnetism (and gravity). There's plenty of other stuff, but it's either well below human scales, well above them, or not noticeable (e.g. we don't notice the odd cosmic ray, or the billions of neutrinos that stream through us every second).

Just as electricity and magnetism seem very different but are aspects of the same electromagnetic force, so electromagnetism and the weak force seem very different, but they have been shown to merge into a single combined 'Electroweak Force' at high energies. All four forces (assuming gravity turns out to be a quantized force) are expected to combine at exceptionally high energies - such as at the big bang.

That's really great - thanks again. Yes, I had heard of weak and strong forces before in relation to something or other, but had forgotten about them.

Would you mind if I copied and pasted your explanations and save them onto my computer so that I can refer to them again at my leisure?

Thank you very much for patiently explaining all this

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's really great - thanks again. Yes, I had heard of weak and strong forces before in relation to something or other, but had forgotten about them.

Would you mind if I copied and pasted your explanations and save them onto my computer so that I can refer to them again at my leisure?

Thank you very much for patiently explaining all this

You're welcome, help yourself.

I'll just add a disclaimer that this is my understanding of the current mainstream view of these topics, gleaned from books and various online sources - I'm not an expert, nor a physicist by training, and I do make mistakes

 

[tansy]

You're welcome, help yourself.

I'll just add a disclaimer that this is my understanding of the current mainstream view of these topics, gleaned from books and various online sources - I'm not an expert, nor a physicist by training, and I do make mistakes

Thanks . No matter if you're not totally expert, or not totally accurate - you've given me a good basic run-down by the looks of it, enough so that I can investigate in a more orderly way. Because what tends to happen is, one watches or reads about something which is interesting or fine as far as it goes, but then when one wants to find out more, it's a bit tricky to know quite how to find out more, or one gets bogged down in all sorts of incomprehensible stuff LOL

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. what tends to happen is, one watches or reads about something which is interesting or fine as far as it goes, but then when one wants to find out more, it's a bit tricky to know quite how to find out more, or one gets bogged down in all sorts of incomprehensible stuff LOL

Yes; bear in mind that popular science sites tend to put up 'clickbait' headlines that go way beyond the studies they report, and the articles they write often get important points wrong - it pays to read the abstracts of the original papers (most of which are readable), because popular science writers are up against deadlines and may not be particularly familiar with the topic they're writing about...

It also pays to be sceptical of those who claim certainty in the absence of overwhelming evidence (interestingly, some of them tend to accuse everyone else of that - it may be projection, or perhaps 'John The Baptist Syndrome' - seeing themselves as a [persecuted] voice crying in the wilderness).

 

[tansy]

Yes; bear in mind that popular science sites tend to put up 'clickbait' headlines that go way beyond the studies they report, and the articles they write often get important points wrong - it pays to read the abstracts of the original papers (most of which are readable), because popular science writers are up against deadlines and may not be particularly familiar with the topic they're writing about...

It also pays to be sceptical of those who claim certainty in the absence of overwhelming evidence (interestingly, some of them tend to accuse everyone else of that - it may be projection, or perhaps 'John The Baptist Syndrome' - seeing themselves as a [persecuted] voice crying in the wilderness).

Yes, actually, a lot of the time one has to work by 'rule of thumb' in a way. On a very simple level, one could turn on a light switch, and it works 10000 times, so one assumes that that 'rule' is 'fixed'. Then the 10001st time, the light does not come on.. So then one will thing, hm, there's something else at play here (assuming one has never had the experience of a fuse blowing or whatever). Imagine if you didn't know what a solar eclipse was seeing they happen so infrequently.
I remember winding someone up in our house group at church once. For some reason we got talking about whether a three-legged table or stool could stand up. He said it couldn't. I said, yes it could, if the legs were in the right place, or something like that. But I was having him on really, because I knew what he was saying really..point is, I like trying to think around things. Sometimes people might say a certain thing is impossible (and maybe give a reason why), but it sees to me that most things that seem 'impossible' there is a way round it. Probably people in the Middle Ages thought it was impossible to fly to the moon. I do try to keep my mind open to things. But there are a lot of things one has to go by on the assumption that they're true as far as it goes, whilst keeping open to further developments.