Can we "fill" an atom with alpha particles?

[Meson080]

Did you mean that elementary particles have zero size?

Yes, but the concept of "size" is poorly defined at the quantum level due to the unique nature of quantum sized objects and the fact that they obey both wave and particle rules.

I don't think we should think/talk about anything which is defined poorly. Even it is not sensible to say zero or non-zero "size".

 

[Meson080]

What about dipping the atoms into the sea of alpha particles?

There is no such thing. Alpha particles are highly charged particles that are emitted by radioactive decay and immediately steal electrons from whatever material they happen to come to a stop in. You will not find a "sea" of alpha particles nor could you even make one.

Not even in "high security" condition?

I don't know what this means.

"High Security" condition = Sophisticated condition = ICU condition = Condition of forming the sea of alpha particles without bringing any conflicts (e.g the conflicts you mentioned).

 

[Dale]

I am really perplexed, Feynman says electrons can't get on top of protons, Dalespam says electrons have learned the magic of entering the body of protons (which consists of quarks). Whom shall I believe?

[The Feynman's quote has been extracted from Feynman's Lectures on Physics-Vol ll]

We are both correct. Feynman is answering a different question than what you are asking, so you shouldn't be surprised that the answers are different.

In any case, this whole line of discussion was an attempt to avoid the uncertainty principle, which is the basis of Feynman's comment. So either way, even if you think there is some conflict in our two statements, you still wind up with the uncertainty principle.

 

[Drakkith]

"High Security" condition = Sophisticated condition = ICU condition = Condition of forming the sea of alpha particles without bringing any conflicts (e.g the conflicts you mentioned).

I will not answer any "what if" questions that require us to handwave the laws of physics aside. It's pointless and will most likely lead to further confusion.

 

[Dale]

Feynman is answering a different question than what you are asking, so you shouldn't be surprised that the answers are different.

To be a little more explicit, Feynman's comments were answering the question "why is the electron not constrained to be inside the proton?" The answer is that the uncertainty principle for such a tightly constrained position for the electron would have a very high mean momentum and therefore a high mean KE.

My comments were answering the question "why is the electron not constrained to be outside of the proton?" The answer is that the Pauli exclusion principle only constrains identical fermions, so it does not constrain an electron and a proton.

The electron is not constrained to be inside the proton (Feynman) and it is also not constrained to be outside the proton (me). The two comments are perfectly compatible.

 

[Meson080]

I will read the necessary things of QM and then we can continue our discussion. I felt that the discussion would go long (without quality) without my better understanding. I will come back latter. Thank you for all your support.

Others can continue the discussion, if liked.