Macroscopic properties of matter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the emergence of macroscopic properties of matter, particularly in relation to the number of atoms involved and the transition from quantum to classical behavior. Participants explore various scales, from individual atoms to larger aggregates, and the implications for physical properties and behaviors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that macroscopic properties begin to emerge at around 1000 molecules, while noting the challenges of working with very small numbers of molecules.
  • Others propose that the distinction between macroscopic and quantum behavior may relate to mass rather than the number of atoms, referencing the Planck mass as a significant threshold.
  • One participant questions whether matter can be compressed to the Planck length and discusses the nature of protons and quarks in black holes.
  • Another participant challenges a previous claim regarding quantum states, asserting that larger quantum states exist, such as those of electrons in metals.
  • There is a mention of mesoscopic physics, which studies the transition from atomic to bulk properties, indicating that there are no clear boundaries in this transition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of macroscopic properties, with no consensus reached on the specific conditions under which these properties emerge. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the relationship between quantum mechanics and macroscopic behavior.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the ambiguity in the OP's question and the lack of well-defined answers in the context of the transition from atomic to macroscopic scales. The discussion highlights the complexity of defining boundaries in mesoscopic physics.

Naveen345
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
When do macroscopic properties of matter come into picture?
When we consider 2 atoms, 20 atoms, 200 atoms or 200000000000… atoms? I hope I have conveyed my meaning?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Naveen345 said:
When do macroscopic properties of matter come into picture?
When we consider 2 atoms, 20 atoms, 200 atoms or 200000000000… atoms? I hope I have conveyed my meaning?

statistical effects already dominate at something like 1000 molecules... don't remember my stat mech too well though. it is pretty hard to make something with only a few hundred to a few thousand molecules and no more, no less. it is also hard to apply these to useful technologies.

however for real materials, finite size confinement starts having effect at relatively easily observable length scales: 1-1000 nm.
 
When do macroscopic properties of matter come into picture?

When you say macroscopic, do you mean classical behavior versus quantum? I've heard the bridge between these two comes in just about the Planck mass, which is roughly 10^-8 kg. You can split your atoms up any which way you want as far as I know, its not so much about the number of atoms as it is about the mass per ce. Incidently, the Planck mass is supposed to be the mass that would need to fit into one Planck length in order to create a black hole. Neat, huh?
 
DiracPool said:
When you say macroscopic, do you mean classical behavior versus quantum? I've heard the bridge between these two comes in just about the Planck mass, which is roughly 10^-8 kg. You can split your atoms up any which way you want as far as I know, its not so much about the number of atoms as it is about the mass per ce. Incidently, the Planck mass is supposed to be the mass that would need to fit into one Planck length in order to create a black hole. Neat, huh?

atom is very very hollow. But is nucleus also hollow that we can compress matter to the plank length?

Can matter be compressed even more. i am talking about the singularity at the center of a black hole.

What happens to protons and quarks there. Do they merge into each other or what?
 
What DiracPool wrote is simply false. There can be an are much larger quantum states - the electrons in a metal, for example.
 
What DiracPool wrote is simply false. There can be an are much larger quantum states - the electrons in a metal, for example.

I'm not sure which of the two points I made you are referring to as false, but here is the Wiki page I got my information from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass

If you were referring to the Planck mass and the black hole, they wrote, "The Planck mass is approximately the mass of the Planck particle, a hypothetical minuscule black hole whose Schwarzschild radius equals the Planck length."

If you were referring to the "macroscopic" comment, they wrote, "The Planck mass is an idealized mass thought to have special significance for quantum gravity when general relativity and the fundamentals of quantum physics become mutually important to describe mechanics."

Both of these quotes are under the "Significance" of the Planck mass section. Perhaps the confusion is what the OP meant by "macroscopic," but I think the OP was referring to it in the way I addressed it.
 
DiracPool, there is no gravity of any sort in the OP's question, and the Planck mass is essentially expressing G in units of kilograms. It has nothing to do with his question.

Unfortunately, his question doesn't have a well-defined answer. There is a field called mesoscopic physics that studies the transition from atoms to bulk materials, and there are not any sharp defining lines.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K