A hypothetical question about seeing an atom with the naked eye

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gangsterlover
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atom Eye Hypothetical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the hypothetical question of whether it is possible to see an atom with the naked eye, particularly if an atom could be constructed with an extremely large number of protons and neutrons. Participants explore theoretical limits, the nature of atomic structure, and the implications of advanced technology in visualizing atomic phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if an atom could be created with billions of protons and neutrons, it might be visible to the naked eye, questioning the theoretical limits of atomic structure.
  • Another participant challenges the feasibility of seeing such an atom, pointing out the extremely brief duration of atomic interactions.
  • There are suggestions that it might be possible to construct an atom that does not interact with others, potentially allowing for visibility.
  • Some participants propose the use of high-speed cameras to capture fleeting atomic events, though they acknowledge the challenges involved.
  • Concerns are raised about the limitations of photographic technology in capturing events that occur on extremely short timescales.
  • A participant asserts that the assumption of unlimited atomic numbers is incorrect, citing relativistic effects that impose limits on atomic structure.
  • Another participant expresses interest in understanding both relativistic and quantum mechanical constraints on atomic construction.
  • One participant references external sources that discuss the impracticality of creating atoms with a vast number of nucleons.
  • Questions are posed regarding the structure of atomic nuclei and the visibility of atoms under extreme conditions, such as during a supernova.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some agreeing on the theoretical constraints of atomic structure while others remain uncertain about the implications of these constraints. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the feasibility of creating a visible atom.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge various theoretical constraints, including relativistic effects and energy requirements, but do not resolve the implications of these constraints on the original hypothesis. The discussion also highlights the limitations of current technology in visualizing atomic phenomena.

gangsterlover
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
This is only hypothetical, but bare with me.

I did some searching on the interweb and found out that a drop of water has about:
1.67 × 10^21 molecules
(Source: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_water_molecules_are_in_one_drop_of_water)

Also, the amount of protons and neutrons that can be inside a nucleus is theoritcally unlimited. And the amount of electrons that can orbit the nucleus is also unlimited.

If both of these are correct, wouldn't that then mean, that if someone was to create an atom that had billions of protons and neutrons in it`s nucleus, that we then would be able to see an atom with our naked eyes.

I mean it kinda makes sense to me, what do you think?
Is it hypothetically and theoretically possible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you see something that is gone in a zillionth of a blink of the eye?
 
but there could be ways to prevent this, or in some way construct the atom so it would not interact with other atoms. Right?
 
we could use cameras that take photos million times a second. I mean besisdes the problems of it dissapearing, it this hypothetically possible
 
Why cannot there exist, for example, a lowest resolution time for a photographic apparatus as well, with effects lasting less than that time being non-discernible?
 
Please think about the idea, and not about the realistic approach to it. Please speak noob friendly. Thank you.
Let`s drop the possibility of seeing it, but is it possible to create an atom this big?
 
Not with today's technology.
Someone else on the forum might possibly be able to come up with a rough idea of how much energy it would take to make that atom (IF there are no other theoretical constraints on forming it, which I don't know about).

If it would take, for example, about the total amount of energy present in our solar system to make that mega-atom, will you still regard it as "possible" to construct?
 
gangsterlover said:
Also, the amount of protons and neutrons that can be inside a nucleus is theoritcally unlimited. And the amount of electrons that can orbit the nucleus is also unlimited.

If both of these are correct, wouldn't that then mean, that if someone was to create an atom that had billions of protons and neutrons in it`s nucleus, that we then would be able to see an atom with our naked eyes.

I mean it kinda makes sense to me, what do you think?
Is it hypothetically and theoretically possible?
No.

You started with a false assumption, that atomic number is theoretically unlimited. Relativistic effects start coming into play in large nuclei, and those relativistic effects place an upper limit on atomic number.
 
D H said:
No.

You started with a false assumption, that atomic number is theoretically unlimited. Relativistic effects start coming into play in large nuclei, and those relativistic effects place an upper limit on atomic number.
Nice to be informed of PRECISELY such a theoretical constraint I didn't know about (but kept open as a possibility)! :smile:
Are there also theoretical constraints from a "mere" quantum mechanical perspective, but that it is the "relativistic" constraint that will kick in first (or is it, perhaps, the huge energy requirement that will be the effective barrier to such constructions)?
 
  • #10
I found this thread: http://www.livescience.com/21214-atomic-nuclei-variations-estimate.html
Which pretty much blows the idea of creating an atom with that many million neutrons and protons inside the nucleus. So unfortunately this sucks...

However, if you guys/gals don't mind do you know:

1. Does the nucleus have a membrane?
2. When a supermassive supernova occurs, and when everything shrinks into the size of a corn of sand. If someone would to put that under a electron microscope(think hypothetical now please) how are the atoms organized inside then?
Any ideas? Could we see the individual atoms with a light microscope then or, what? :?
 
  • #11
gangsterlover said:
bump

Bumping after less than 24 hours is against the forum rules.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad About the position of electrons (uncertainty)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
High School Question about the size of atoms as time progressed
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Undergrad Why could magnetic monopoles exist?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Undergrad Concept underlying recent Serra-Lutz cold-to-hot experiment
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Thinking about a calendar epoch based on the field of physics
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Undergrad How do I show a skeptic that atoms/molecules actually exist?
  • · Replies 97 ·
4
Replies
97
Views
11K
Graduate Quantum particle empirical status
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Graduate Why Did We Shift from Electron Orbitals to Electron Clouds?
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
Graduate Convergence of Atomic Orbitals 2s and 2p with high Z number
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Silly questions about the behaviour of photons
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K