Water,a manifestation of WHAT?

[reilly]

North -- My point is that if you will study the literature, you will find the answers. Of course the molecules are distorted/perturbed; they collide for goodness sakes. Go to Goodstein's book -- there you will find how the g(r) and the properties of being fluid are related. If you find Goodstein, or equivalent difficult, I imagine the people here who know physics will be happy to help. With all due respect, do your homework .
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
(retired professor of physics)

 

[north]

Reilly

fair enough, I've ordered the book, my math skills,well let's put it this way i have one year university,tried chemistry 3 times failed 3 times,so needless to say it is my math skills that have prevented me from being where i should be, so i hope i can at least understand the philosophyof what their getting at.

north

 

[Muddler]

Hi North!

I can understand your frustration.
You have a problem and nobody seems to really understand what the question is.
I hope I can help you a bit by not talking to much math, but using analogies.

As far as I understood, you are wondering how identical things like protons and electrons can form so many different appearances in our macroscopic world (right?).
I'll try to answer this:
The basic clue to it is combination.

I hope you agree with me, that identical items can be combined in very different ways. If you take some yellow, red, and blue paint and you take single drops of each, you are able to produce countless different colours, though the individual paintparticles don't change. You agree with me so far?

Then let's go to different structures:
By taking metalbars and screws you are able to produce very different shapes and structures - though the screws and bars themselves are identical.

The same applies to atoms and molecules.

Water's main property (which is the cause for its "strange" behaviour) is its dipol-character. That means, that the oxygen draws a bit stronger at the electrons than the hydrogen does, resulting in a partial charge of the "oxygen-end" of the molecule:

        H (+)
(-) O <
        H (+)

Therefore water molecules like to arrange themselves in certain structures, depending on the availabe energy (that means temperature)

If you take the above structure to be this: <
then water molecules like to arrange in "stacks" :

<<<<<<<<

This is not a firm bond, it's flexible, therefore resulting in a fluid appearance.

But they need energy to be "movable" in such a way.
When the energy is to low (i.e. it's colder), they form hexameres (that means, six molecules form like a three-dimensional "star"), which is a cristalline structure.

You can imagine, that you can't pack those "spiny" stars as tight as the "stacks" I mentioned above, so frozen water needs more space than fluid water.

Metals have a different structure. They like to arrange themselves in symmetric "grids" (more shaped like cubes). That's a different kind of a crystalline. We imagine it to consist of symmetrically arranged cores with the electrons "floating" freely in between (resulting in the conducting properties of metal).

The "texture" of a metal is a result of inhomogenity. Natural matter is not assembled atom after atom, but kind of "grows". So you don't have one big crystal in a piece of metal, but many different crystals attached to each other and "impurification" with other substances. If you were able to create a "pure" monocristalline piece of metal (as is partially possible by now), the metal would not be textured, but seem absolutely homogenous.

The actual color and surface-property (as reflectivity) is a result of the substances' interaction with light. Depending on how light is absorbed, reflected, etc. we perceive different molecular structures to look diffently in our macroscopic world.

If you are wondering why different molecules form different structures, or why molecules are formed of protons, electrons and neutrons at all,
then I just have to say that this can be explained quite well by basic physical effects as charge-interaction etc. (but I think you know these).

I hope this is of some help for you, if I still didn't get your question right, I'm sorry! Just try again!

 

[north]

Hi North!

I can understand your frustration.
You have a problem and nobody seems to really understand what the question is.
I hope I can help you a bit by not talking to much math, but using analogies.

As far as I understood, you are wondering how identical things like protons and electrons can form so many different appearances in our macroscopic world (right?).
___________________________________________

Ans:Yes
__________________________________________
I'll try to answer this:
The basic clue to it is combination.

I hope you agree with me, that identical items can be combined in very different ways. If you take some yellow, red, and blue paint and you take single drops of each, you are able to produce countless different colours, though the individual paintparticles don't change. You agree with me so far?
___________________________________________

Ans:Yes
___________________________________________

Then let's go to different structures:
By taking metalbars and screws you are able to produce very different shapes and structures - though the screws and bars themselves are identical.
___________________________________________

Ans: true
___________________________________________

The same applies to atoms and molecules.

Water's main property (which is the cause for its "strange" behaviour) is its dipol-character. That means, that the oxygen draws a bit stronger at the electrons than the hydrogen does, resulting in a partial charge of the "oxygen-end" of the molecule:

        H (+)
(-) O <
        H (+)

Therefore water molecules like to arrange themselves in certain structures, depending on the availabe energy (that means temperature)

If you take the above structure to be this: <
then water molecules like to arrange in "stacks" :

<<<<<<<<

This is not a firm bond, it's flexible, therefore resulting in a fluid appearance.

But they need energy to be "movable" in such a way.
When the energy is to low (i.e. it's colder), they form hexameres (that means, six molecules form like a three-dimensional "star"), which is a cristalline structure.

You can imagine, that you can't pack those "spiny" stars as tight as the "stacks" I mentioned above, so frozen water needs more space than fluid water.
___________________________________________

Ans: so far so good
___________________________________________
Metals have a different structure. They like to arrange themselves in symmetric "grids" (more shaped like cubes). That's a different kind of a crystalline. We imagine it to consist of symmetrically arranged cores with the electrons "floating" freely in between (resulting in the conducting properties of metal).
___________________________________________

Ques: if the electrons are floating freely how does it keep it's balance,keep it's existence so to speak?
___________________________________________
The "texture" of a metal is a result of inhomogenity. Natural matter is not assembled atom after atom, but kind of "grows". So you don't have one big crystal in a piece of metal, but many different crystals attached to each other and "impurification" with other substances. If you were able to create a "pure" monocristalline piece of metal (as is partially possible by now), the metal would not be textured, but seem absolutely homogenous.
___________________________________________

Ques: how would i picture this absolutely homogenous state, of this kind of metal?
___________________________________________
The actual color and surface-property (as reflectivity) is a result of the substances' interaction with light. Depending on how light is absorbed, reflected, etc. we perceive different molecular structures to look diffently in our macroscopic world.
___________________________________________

ans:interesting
___________________________________________
If you are wondering why different molecules form different structures, or why molecules are formed of protons, electrons and neutrons at all,
then I just have to say that this can be explained quite well by basic physical effects as charge-interaction etc. (but I think you know these).
__________________________________________

I hope this is of some help for you, if I still didn't get your question right, I'm sorry! Just try again!

___________________________________________

Muddler

i appreciate your effort and the light perspective was something i hadn't yet considered.but let's use that to perhaps help me make myself better understood.

what i think is important here is to actually break the mould or thinking of chemistry. for instance purely on it's own,chemical reaction should produce nothing but electronic behavour.(attraction-repel) however we get more than that, we get textures,hardness softness and those inbetween, these to me are BEYOND simply electronic reactions. we get, because of this electronic behavour,water,steel and an abundance of other states in different circumstances.

by discussing i think I'm getting better at relaying what I'm thinking(or really,what I'm picturing).i can picture at a microscopic level ( in the theory of chemistry at the moment) elements that come together and that the electrons bring them together.but i have a hard time thinking that the electrons and protons ALONE account for liquidity,hardness.it's like i think that when they do come together that they release something(some form of energy,a key themselves which opens up a source)which flows,sort of a energy flux,which transforms, Because of the electronic configuration of the element and/or molecule.

in other words the basic chemistry ALLOWS for the TRANSFORMATION of energy into the form that the chemistries electronics has the potential for.

i have this feeling I'm still not clear.

Muddler thanks for your willingness to try to understand and yes it is frustrating because this is a concept problem,it is well...different.

 

[ram1024]

i think your inability to understand us stems from your misconception of how small ATOMS actually are.

atoms are NOT microscopic. they are so ridiculously unfathomably smaller than microscopic. And inside the atoms are wonderful goodies.

http://www.satirewire.com/news/may02/prizes.shtml

:rofl:

 

[north]

i think your inability to understand us stems from your misconception of how small ATOMS actually are.

atoms are NOT microscopic. they are so ridiculously unfathomably smaller than microscopic. And inside the atoms are wonderful goodies.

http://www.satirewire.com/news/may02/prizes.shtml

:rofl:

___________________________________________

i was hoping they'd find a garden hose filling a pool

it's not the size of the atoms and from chemistry that i have taken many years before i understand the concepts of chemistry i just think that elements and any combination thereof are more than the sum of their parts.

 

[Muddler]

___________________________________________

... i just think that elements and any combination thereof are more than the sum of their parts.

I think I know what your problem is now. But I don't think we will be able to find an answer here.
You deeply want to assign "supernatural" aspects to matter-interaction (which is okay! We just don't know yet!).

Of course there might be more to all the variety we see than just atomic effects, but physics alone is capable of explaining quite a lot of it.

We know how neurotransmitters make our brain work, but we still have no idea what our mind is made of. Is there a soul? What are dreams?
Maybe science will one day be able to explain all of it, maybe we will never know...

I personally have no problem in taking the explanations science gives me so far to picture why water is fluid. What I told you is sufficient for my own understanding of atomic water behaviour.

Finally it is the ability of few to be never satisfied with given answers that drives science forward...

Good luck!

 

[north]

look at what I'm saying this way.

we have a molecule that in some ways behaves as a key to a door.

i have 2H+1O and when i combine the two the state of a liquid becomes.

i look at this as a combination of a lock, when the combination is right the door opens and what comes out is liquid,secondly, even though these molecules collide, the liquid manifestation is realitivly consistent,meaning that the liquid does not come and go,it remains a liquid.all things being stable.

so far we have h2-O molecule(s) which produces a liquid because of this particular combination of elements. and yet in the theory so far there is no suggestion to either the electrons form or the form of the atoms themselves change.

so where does this lead one. no matter their configuration(and/or geometry) or that they collide,does not escape the fact that alone forms(which produce the effect) aren't changing yet the result of this combination of forms(electrons-atoms) brings forth a state which is beyond their normal capacity except at very low temperatures.and that when these two get together they "burn" WHAT is burning?

is it not possible that there is something here that could be,with deeper analysis,seen as a state of energy that as of yet has not yet been explored?

call it supernatural if you so choose,but what ever you may call it,i would say that provokes thought.

 

[Muddler]

I'm sorry, but I think you still have an inadequate image of what a liquid is.
H20 is not "becoming a state of liquidity" the moment the atoms are combined.

In fact, water is only liquid in a very narrow range of temperature (and pressure). Zero to a hundred degrees Celsius might seem a lot to us, but from a universal point of view, most of the water should be either frozen or vaporized. (actually, deeply frozen water clouds far out in space behave a lot more like fluid water, than the ice we observe here on earth, but that's not the point...)

So, a water molecule is not a liquid per se.

It only behaves like what we call "liquid" under very special circumstances (i.e. pressure and temperature)
This behaviour, manifested through its interaction with other water-molecules, is fairly explainable through its physicochemical structure (as I explained earlier).

I know, you think: "I take a piece of one gas and two pieces of another and I get a liquid" - and that might sound quite magical.
The problem is, no atom or molecule "is a gas" or "is a liquid" primarily. We usually see which appearance a certain substance has under (to us) "normal" circumstances here on Earth and automatically assign this special state to the substance in general.

This generalized image (like: "water is a liquid - no matter what") is what causes a lot of misunderstanding. If you understand that every substance can be either massive, liquid or gas, depending on the physical environment, then there should be no need for additional undiscovered effects. Of course, the subatomic mechanisms that keep atoms and molecules together are not always easy to understand, but I am convinced and satisfied by current physical explanations of why the water in my glass is liquid.
Cheers!

 

[russ_watters]

It only behaves like what we call "liquid" under very special circumstances (i.e. pressure and temperature)
This behaviour, manifested through its interaction with other water-molecules, is fairly explainable through its physicochemical structure (as I explained earlier).

Good answer, but I'd go a little further: this behavior is explainable to a very high degree of precision through its chemical structure/behavior.

 

[north]

I'm sorry, but I think you still have an inadequate image of what a liquid is.
H20 is not "becoming a state of liquidity" the moment the atoms are combined.

In fact, water is only liquid in a very narrow range of temperature (and pressure). Zero to a hundred degrees Celsius might seem a lot to us, but from a universal point of view, most of the water should be either frozen or vaporized. (actually, deeply frozen water clouds far out in space behave a lot more like fluid water, than the ice we observe here on earth, but that's not the point...)
___________________________________________

Reqest: please elaborate on the cloud point.

___________________________________________

So, a water molecule is not a liquid per se.

It only behaves like what we call "liquid" under very special circumstances (i.e. pressure and temperature)
___________________________________________

Reply: this i can follow,it makes sense,since at very low temperatures,both H&O are themselves in a liquid state.

___________________________________________
This behaviour, manifested through its interaction with other water-molecules, is fairly explainable through its physicochemical structure (as I explained earlier).

I know, you think: "I take a piece of one gas and two pieces of another and I get a liquid" - and that might sound quite magical.
___________________________________________

Reply: yes and no for i have touched on the fact that at very low temperatures that both H&O have liquid states.
___________________________________________
The problem is, no atom or molecule "is a gas" or "is a liquid" primarily. We usually see which appearance a certain substance has under (to us) "normal" circumstances here on Earth and automatically assign this special state to the substance in general.

This generalized image (like: "water is a liquid - no matter what") is what causes a lot of misunderstanding. If you understand that every substance can be either massive, liquid or gas, depending on the physical environment, then there should be no need for additional undiscovered effects. Of course, the subatomic mechanisms that keep atoms and molecules together are not always easy to understand, but I am convinced and satisfied by current physical explanations of why the water in my glass is liquid.
Cheers!

___________________________________________

Reply: but does this really explain "WHAT" this molecule is really manifesting. under certain circumstances,whether on Earth or in space the potential form is still there.

in other words, I'm not disagreeing with the forms it would take,depending on environment,which it seems is explained here but rather the essence of it's form and potential, in the first place. so the form of which it takes or environment is not so much my concern but rather the existence of this energy potential is,go deeper than it's forms,to the essence of the energy of it's forms,which is manipulated by the environment.

 

[north]

Good answer, but I'd go a little further: this behavior is explainable to a very high degree of precision through its chemical structure/behavior.

___________________________________________

but does that really ans. the question,the structure or the behavior is not really the query,rather it is the essence of existence of the substance which brings forth the forms.that is the question!? since it is beyond the atom(s) and/or electrons themselves.

 

[russ_watters]

but does that really ans. the question,the structure or the behavior is not really the query,rather it is the essence of existence of the substance which brings forth the forms.that is the question!? since it is beyond the atom(s) and/or electrons themselves.

From the standpoint of chemistry (self evident, but bears repeating) the liquid known as "water" is defined by the chemical properties of water molecules.

It really seems to me like you are looking for some deeper meaning to something that has no deeper meaning.

 

[Muddler]

Please elaborate on the cloud point

I almost regret mentioning it


I don't know too much about this phenomenon, for I am no astrophysicist, but I might find some links for you...

What I have heard is the following: giant water clouds in deep space seem to behave like viscous liquids in a way that organic molecules are able to be formed and organized in them (to stop speculations: that does not mean life or anything).
Those clouds have to be real huge, in a way that their own gravitational pressure kind of "breaks up" the crystal-structure that is normally found in ice.
(I hope I recalled this right, otherwise some scientist is going to kill me... :uhh: )

 

[reilly]

We really do not know much about the deep, deep why's of nature. Why does QM afford us such a powerful descriptive tool? Who knows? Wigner wrote about the mystery of why Nature is susceptible to mathematical analysis. Again, who knows?

But as quite a few have stressed in this thread, basic QM does an astonishing job of describing water, in its various forms, as well as the hardness of metals, the spectra of hydrogen, the secrets of chemical bonding in all its arcane forms. We can do a great job of describing Nature from a few basic ideas. Why those ideas work is anyone's guess.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[geistkiesel]

___________________________________________

Reply: but does this really explain "WHAT" this molecule is really manifesting. under certain circumstances,whether on Earth or in space the potential form is still there.

in other words, I'm not disagreeing with the forms it would take,depending on environment,which it seems is explained here but rather the essence of it's form and potential, in the first place. so the form of which it takes or environment is not so much my concern but rather the existence of this energy potential is,go deeper than it's forms,to the essence of the energy of it's forms,which is manipulated by the environment.

I don't know if this will help, but consider the developing fetus during pregnancy. Why does not the fetus just end up aa a bag of a mixture of protein? The fetus has lot of information it must structure as to provide somehow for the growing of pubic hair later, of breasts, baldness and so on. DNA is the usul knee jerk response, but this doesn't answer anything. The DNA in you tongue is the same DNA in you little toe. How does the form develop as it does? Can DNA actually be responsible for why I favored my mother's external looks, facial charateristics and so on, blond and blue, while my sister favrored our dad, fairly dark hair, brown eyes and clearly facially rsimilar? I cannot see how this can occur. There must be some unifying resonance, a habitual attuning if you will, that moderates or models things as they form.
A protein for instance, manufatctured by DNA and RNA processes in the cells can be many thousands of amino acids long. When manufactured it is strung out in a a very long thread, There may be hundreds of final shapes that are very near to a minimum potential for a random folding process, yet each unique proton always folds exactly like the trillion upon trillions of proteins that folded before the newest. All humans share identical proteins, yet it is important to realize that only one shape will be sufficient for the function of the protein. It ain't all chemistry and electronics, gravity or nuclear forces.
And water, there isn't a more importatnt chemical in the universe. There my be some that are as important as water, but the sheer simplicity of water and the infinite variety in critical fuinctions it peforms is too much to start thinking in awed terms. You will paralyze yourself if you do. Have a drink then go find your wife, she wants you to be looking for her you know..

 

[geistkiesel]

___________________________________________

Reply: but does this really explain "WHAT" this molecule is really manifesting. under certain circumstances,whether on Earth or in space the potential form is still there.

in other words, I'm not disagreeing with the forms it would take,depending on environment,which it seems is explained here but rather the essence of it's form and potential, in the first place. so the form of which it takes or environment is not so much my concern but rather the existence of this energy potential is,go deeper than it's forms,to the essence of the energy of it's forms,which is manipulated by the environment.

I don't know if this will help, but consider the developing fetus during pregnancy. Why does not the fetus just end up aa a bag of a mixture of protein? The fetus has lot of information it must structure as to provide somehow for the growing of pubic hair later, of breasts, baldness and so on. DNA is the usul knee jerk response, but this doesn't answer anything. The DNA in you tongue is the same DNA in you little toe. How does the form develop as it does? Can DNA actually be responsible for why I favored my mother's external looks, facial charateristics and so on, blond and blue, while my sister favrored our dad, fairly dark hair, brown eyes and clearly facially rsimilar? I cannot see how this can occur. There must be some unifying resonance, a habitual attuning if you will, that moderates or models things as they form.
A protein for instance, manufatctured by DNA and RNA processes in the cells can be many thousands of amino acids long. When manufactured it is strung out in a a very long thread, There may be hundreds of final shapes that are very near to a minimum potential for a random folding process, yet each unique proton always folds exactly like the trillion upon trillions of proteins that folded before the newest. All humans share identical proteins, yet it is important to realize that only one shape will be sufficient for the function of the protein. It ain't all chemistry and electronics, gravity or nuclear forces.
And water, there isn't a more importatnt chemical in the universe. There my be some that are as important as water, but the sheer simplicity of water and the infinite variety in critical fuinctions it peforms is too much to start thinking in awed terms. You will paralyze yourself if you do. Have a drink then go find your wife, she wants you to be looking for her you know..

 

[north]

From the standpoint of chemistry (self evident, but bears repeating) the liquid known as "water" is defined by the chemical properties of water molecules.

It really seems to me like you are looking for some deeper meaning to something that has no deeper meaning.

___________________________________________

Really is not meaning it is "deeper understanding" which to me is the next step,we have the basics, now it is time to ask again,in some sense, what may seem obvious, deeper questions.

 

[north]

I almost regret mentioning it


I don't know too much about this phenomenon, for I am no astrophysicist, but I might find some links for you...

What I have heard is the following: giant water clouds in deep space seem to behave like viscous liquids in a way that organic molecules are able to be formed and organized in them (to stop speculations: that does not mean life or anything).
Those clouds have to be real huge, in a way that their own gravitational pressure kind of "breaks up" the crystal-structure that is normally found in ice.
(I hope I recalled this right, otherwise some scientist is going to kill me... :uhh: )

__________________________________________

no problem, explore it, then you'll know!

 

[north]

We really do not know much about the deep, deep why's of nature. Why does QM afford us such a powerful descriptive tool? Who knows? Wigner wrote about the mystery of why Nature is susceptible to mathematical analysis. Again, who knows?

___________________________________________

as Einstein says first the Concept then the Math. both are tools that are critical to understanding,things.

___________________________________________

But as quite a few have stressed in this thread, basic QM does an astonishing job of describing water, in its various forms, as well as the hardness of metals, the spectra of hydrogen, the secrets of chemical bonding in all its arcane forms. We can do a great job of describing Nature from a few basic ideas. Why those ideas work is anyone's guess.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

___________________________________________

True, however perhaps we should get back to asking fundamental questions again and bring back the want to know rather than resting on what we do know.we have the fundamentals, let's use them to explore deeper questions.my question is not about the disrespect of what we know,rather using what we know to go deeper.from Galileo to the present, is that not precisely what we have been doing,True!?

for i find that the rewards will be fascinating.

 

[north]

I don't know if this will help, but consider the developing fetus during pregnancy. Why does not the fetus just end up aa a bag of a mixture of protein? The fetus has lot of information it must structure as to provide somehow for the growing of pubic hair later, of breasts, baldness and so on. DNA is the usul knee jerk response, but this doesn't answer anything. The DNA in you tongue is the same DNA in you little toe. How does the form develop as it does? Can DNA actually be responsible for why I favored my mother's external looks, facial charateristics and so on, blond and blue, while my sister favrored our dad, fairly dark hair, brown eyes and clearly facially rsimilar? I cannot see how this can occur. There must be some unifying resonance, a habitual attuning if you will, that moderates or models things as they form.
A protein for instance, manufatctured by DNA and RNA processes in the cells can be many thousands of amino acids long. When manufactured it is strung out in a a very long thread, There may be hundreds of final shapes that are very near to a minimum potential for a random folding process, yet each unique proton always folds exactly like the trillion upon trillions of proteins that folded before the newest. All humans share identical proteins, yet it is important to realize that only one shape will be sufficient for the function of the protein. It ain't all chemistry and electronics, gravity or nuclear forces.
And water, there isn't a more importatnt chemical in the universe. There my be some that are as important as water, but the sheer simplicity of water and the infinite variety in critical fuinctions it peforms is too much to start thinking in awed terms. You will paralyze yourself if you do. Have a drink then go find your wife, she wants you to be looking for her you know..

___________________________________________

try a systems approach to life, I've been reading a book by Fritjof Capra,"The Web of Life"(ISBN#0-385-47676-0) fascinating read,for example even non-living matter order themselves into a system.

 

[north]

Reilly

i finally got the book "States of Matter" i'll do my best to understand. but the math! I'm sure i'll learn something though.thanks for the suggestion!

north

 

[reilly]

Reilly

i finally got the book "States of Matter" i'll do my best to understand. but the math! I'm sure i'll learn something though.thanks for the suggestion!

north

Good luck -- it's a graduate level text, and, indeed, is full of difficult math. But it does, I think, give some insight into how professional physicists go about understanding matter. I think you'll find also, the use of physical intuition and "physics" as a guide to better understanding. It's the real deal. Your efforts with such a book will pay handsomely.

I suspect that questions you run into might be good issues for discussion.
Again, good for you, and good luck.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[russ_watters]

True, however perhaps we should get back to asking fundamental questions again and bring back the want to know rather than resting on what we do know.we have the fundamentals, let's use them to explore deeper questions.my question is not about the disrespect of what we know,rather using what we know to go deeper.from Galileo to the present, is that not precisely what we have been doing,True!?

Well, ok - then ask questions and propose experiments to find the answers to them. I expect what you'll find is that the questions have already been asked and the answers already found. Reading a chemistry textbook may help prevent your wasting time by spinning your wheels in place.

 

[loseyourname]

You know, I remember you asking this in the Chemistry forum, and I think the answers given there were adequate.

 

[russ_watters]

You know, I remember you asking this in the Chemistry forum, and I think the answers given there were adequate.

...and reading over that thread, we gave much the same answers here. If the properties we describe with chemistry can be adequately described by chemistry, then is meaningless to look for some other cause.

 

[north]

Well, ok - then ask questions and propose experiments to find the answers to them. I expect what you'll find is that the questions have already been asked and the answers already found. Reading a chemistry textbook may help prevent your wasting time by spinning your wheels in place.

___________________________________________

i would start with an experiment in which you take one hydrogen and oxygen atom,separately, in as complete vacuum as possible, slowly bring them down,in temperature, to the known liquidity state and analysing,i mean in minute increments with control,from as many points of view as possible,electromagnetic,movment,electron change(form),geometry of atom (form),and any energy out put or the trying to draw in energy or any shape that might imply this.also if necessary add one atom at a time and with each atom added, analyze results,slowly methodically. and if possible give it as much time as possible.

then introduce one hydrgen and one oxygen atom together at room temperature,under as controlled conditions as possible,even to the point of speed of bonding,with analysis at every point,with increments as minute as possible.with the ability of holding a set position,slower the better.

 

[north]

Russ

i was wondering,do you know what I'm really trying to get at? you've described the production of water.since you agree that the electrons don't change and the atoms themselves don't change in any way,i find that your answer is not deep enough. you mentioned that when hydrogen and oxygen get together that they "burn", well then WHAT burns? surely electrons don't and the atoms themselves don't,so what does? so the "burn" involves well nothing explainable?

 

[russ_watters]

i was wondering,do you know what I'm really trying to get at?

I suspect that not even you know what you are really trying to get at. Your question about burning is evidence that you don't understand what one means when it is said that something "burns." Ignorance is fine (everyone is ignorant of something), but you'd be well advised to learn such things before trying to push the envelope beyond them.

since you agree that the electrons don't change and the atoms themselves don't change in any way,i find that your answer is not deep enough.

What about my house analogy? A pile of wood and nails doesn't make a house, but if organized correctly, you can make a house without changing its constiuent parts. Why can't you apply that resoning to molecules?

you mentioned that when hydrogen and oxygen get together that they "burn", well then WHAT burns? surely electrons don't and the atoms themselves don't,so what does? so the "burn" involves well nothing explainable?

All it implies in chemistry is that two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule got together and are now sharing some electrons. Energy (in the form of heat) is released when this happens.

What do you think is implied by the word "burns?" Why do you believe something more must be happening? Where does "surely electrons don't..." come from? Who suggested that they do? What do you think should be happening to them? Doesn't the fact that the process is reversable, repeatable, and predictible using the tools of chemistry indicate that chemistry's explanation is sufficient?

i would start with an experiment in which you...

That's not bad. What do you think would happen in this experiment and why?

 

[north]

You know, I remember you asking this in the Chemistry forum, and I think the answers given there were adequate.

___________________________________________

actually the answers are not adequate,if you have read the forum throughly you will find a surface explanation.for as of yet "WHERE" or "WHAT" the form of liquid comes from is beyond "production". and as of now it has been a purely productionest understanding. this is beyond production,it is understanding it's(liquid,water) essence of existence,not the cause and effect(of chemistry) but rather the existence of the state after the cause and effect react, with neither having any change in themseleves and in any way change the shape or form of the constituents and yet bring forth a form completely different from themseleves.

 

[north]

I suspect that not even you know what you are really trying to get at. Your question about burning is evidence that you don't understand what one means when it is said that something "burns."
___________________________________________

and yet nobody has tried to explain! I've asked this before but it has been over-looked.please explain!

___________________________________________

Ignorance is fine (everyone is ignorant of something), but you'd be well advised to learn such things before trying to push the envelope beyond them. What about my house analogy? A pile of wood and nails doesn't make a house, but if organized correctly, you can make a house without changing its constiuent parts. Why can't you apply that resoning to molecules? All it implies in chemistry is that two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule got together and are now sharing some electrons. Energy (in the form of heat) is released when this happens.
___________________________________________

but WHY is my point,if something burns does it not mean something is the fuel? WHAT is the fuel?

___________________________________________

What do you think is implied by the word "burns?" Why do you believe something more must be happening?
___________________________________________

Why? for instance we know that at extremely low temperatures there can be a burning.if one substance is lower in temperature than the other there can be a burning effect when the two combine.

___________________________________________

Where does "surely electrons don't..." come from?

___________________________________________

nobody made the comment that they do, otherwise i would know that electrons would change form,but since nobody said anything to contrary i assume they don't,if they do tell me, if I'm wrong no problem.

___________________________________________
Who suggested that they do?

___________________________________________

nobody.
___________________________________________

What do you think should be happening to them?

___________________________________________

not necessarily anything,maybe something,it's just a possiblity perhaps. but if not then what is happening?

___________________________________________
Doesn't the fact that the process is reversable, repeatable, and predictible using the tools of chemistry indicate that chemistry's explanation is sufficient?

___________________________________________

No, because i think that production is one thing the true essence is another.
also, is this not just a basic understanding,for i find that perhaps we can get more(energy) out of atoms than we do now.

___________________________________________
That's not bad. What do you think would happen in this experiment and why?

___________________________________________

what i think would happen in this experiment is that we would find that there is a release or flow of energy that was not expected and as well, this out flow could be shaped by the passing of the out flow by the electrons themselves or maybe electrons do change,i would not be surprised and perhaps even the frezzing of magnetism into a fluid which makes it wave, which to me always was, but condenses it, also there is a depth to inside the atom it's self, could it's self flow energy,which is what i suspect.frezzing just makes it easer for the energy to flow. of course there could be ambient influence too.

but if we take it one slow step at a time the dynamics I'm sure will come apparent.even if not clear why.i'm sure the experiment will show interesting results. i wish i could be there if this done!

north

 

[north]

Russ

i would also like to know hydrogen and oxygens resting temperature,pressure and electrodynamics per atom at room temperature. and contrast this info. with liquid states at very low temperatures."WHAT" change is there, is there change in each atom!? if so,how does the change manifest it's self? in what form, specifically?

 

[russ_watters]

...the existence of the state after the cause and effect react, with neither having any change in themseleves and in any way change the shape or form of the constituents and yet bring forth a form completely different from themseleves.

You have yet to comment on my house analogy. What is it about this analogy that you consider insufficient?

and yet nobody has tried to explain! I've asked this before but it has been over-looked.please explain!

For some reason, you quoted my explanation but didn't respond to it. Here it is again: All it implies in chemistry is that two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule got together and are now sharing some electrons. Energy (in the form of heat) is released when this happens. That's combustion: burning.

but WHY is my point,if something burns does it not mean something is the fuel? WHAT is the fuel?

The hydrogen is the fuel, the oxygen is the oxidizer. Are you under the impression that the fuel must be consumed and cease to exist? It isn't.

for instance we know that at extremely low temperatures there can be a burning.if one substance is lower in temperature than the other there can be a burning effect when the two combine.

Yes. So what?

nobody made the comment that they do, otherwise i would know that electrons would change form,but since nobody said anything to contrary i assume they don't,if they do tell me, if I'm wrong no problem.

No, electrons don't burn. Refer to my bolded explanation of what it means to burn. Electrons merely change their orientation (energy level) around atoms.

not necessarily anything,maybe something,it's just a possiblity perhaps. but if not then what is happening?

Again, its explained above in bold.

No, because i think that production is one thing the true essence is another.

Huh? What do you mean by "true essence"? Again, chemistry's explanation works. If there was something else behind it, chemistry's explanation would not work.

also, is this not just a basic understanding,for i find that perhaps we can get more(energy) out of atoms than we do now.

We can: through nuclear reactions. But you need to get a handle on chemical reactions before you can have any hope of understanding what goes on in a nuclear reaction.

what i think would happen in this experiment is that we would find that there is a release or flow of energy...[emphasis added]

You use the word "energy" a lot and the context you use it in makes it apparent that you have no idea what it means. HERE is an explanation of what the various forms of energy are. Note, it breaks them apart a little more than necesary: sound is not really a form of energy, but a combination of potential and kinetic.

but if we take it one slow step at a time the dynamics I'm sure will come apparent.even if not clear why.i'm sure the experiment will show interesting results. i wish i could be there if this done!

It is difficult to contain a single atom for this purpose. A chemist would say such an experiment is unnecessary because you can glean all the relevant chemical information from watching groups of atoms. In fact, nothing much of interest would happen to that single atom in your experiment: Pretty much everything we experience in our everyday world except for the sun, nuclear power, and gravity comes from chemical interaction.

But in any case, what would happen is the electron would slowly reduce its energy level in the steps predicted by chemistry. That's it.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm going back over the thread to see if I can find more of the source of your misunderstanding. Here's a biggie:

okay it is a state. but let's go back to why then that hydrogen and oxygen both go to a liquid state at very low temperatures. there are no bonds,molecules or configurations there. what happens here?

Yes, there are bonds, molecules, and configurations there. Two hydrogen atoms stick together to form a hydrogen molecule. Why do hydrogen molecules enter a liquid state at a different temperature than water molecules? Different molecules contain different strength bonds.

Also, I keep thinking about this post:

fair enough, I've ordered the book, my math skills,well let's put it this way i have one year university,tried chemistry 3 times failed 3 times,so needless to say it is my math skills that have prevented me from being where i should be, so i hope i can at least understand the philosophyof what their getting at.

There is very little math in 1st semester chemistry. The problem you are having, as I see it, is you just plain are not listening to the explanations given to you. You are spending all your time asking these questions and not spending any time learning what is actually known. I wouldn't normally recommend it, but even if you were to simply memorize and regurgitate what your chemistry teacher was teaching you, not only would you pass the course, but you'd likely pick up at least some understanding of the subject. Right now, it seems like you're ignoring the subject of chemistry entirely. It may even be due to frustration - you had some trouble the first time, so now you don't want to try agan. Maybe you hope that by asking these questions, you can avoid learning chemistry. Sorry, but you can't. Chemistry is tough. It takes some effort. If you truly want to understand the nature of molecules and atoms, you're going to have to learn it.

And even if there is some 'deeper meaning' to all of this or something else going on, it doesn't matter: you must learn the chemistry first. I'll let you in on a little secret: there is more going on (though its really not all that relevant here). But you are nowhere near ready for it.

 

[north]

I'm going back over the thread to see if I can find more of the source of your misunderstanding. Here's a biggie: Yes, there are bonds, molecules, and configurations there. Two hydrogen atoms stick together to form a hydrogen molecule. Why do hydrogen molecules enter a liquid state at a different temperature than water molecules? Different molecules contain different strength bonds.
___________________________________________

bonds are important otherwise water would not exist.
and bonds in my chemistry book is ALL they talk about. the book does not tell us why the end result leads to water other than the bonds involved.there is a "cause"-the bonding of H2&O,the "effect"-liquid state, if this true then from here it follows that for this liquid state to exist then the bonds must remain intact.so looking at this from a different perspective WHAT would happen if you were to slowly break this bond,slowly pull them apart? how would it's liquid state behave? it would cease to be, but just before the bonds break, what changes in the liquid's state form would happen? once the liquid ceases to be then slowly bring them back together so that,at minute increments,the liquid state forms again and repeat this until we can see precisely what happens. just keep going back and forth,in this way we could see why the bonding of H2&O brings forth a liquid state in the first place.
___________________________________________
Also, I keep thinking about this post: There is very little math in 1st semester chemistry. The problem you are having, as I see it, is you just plain are not listening to the explanations given to you. You are spending all your time asking these questions and not spending any time learning what is actually known. I wouldn't normally recommend it, but even if you were to simply memorize and regurgitate what your chemistry teacher was teaching you, not only would you pass the course, but you'd likely pick up at least some understanding of the subject. Right now, it seems like you're ignoring the subject of chemistry entirely. It may even be due to frustration - you had some trouble the first time, so now you don't want to try agan. Maybe you hope that by asking these questions, you can avoid learning chemistry. Sorry, but you can't. Chemistry is tough. It takes some effort. If you truly want to understand the nature of molecules and atoms, you're going to have to learn it.
___________________________________________

my chemistry course which i took was concerned more with how many moles to produce such and such.
___________________________________________

And even if there is some 'deeper meaning' to all of this or something else going on, it doesn't matter: you must learn the chemistry first. I'll let you in on a little secret: there is more going on (though its really not all that relevant here). But you are nowhere near ready for it.

___________________________________________

where this "meaning" comes from i don't know,it's as I've said before a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" oh i know more is going on but it's ALL related to bonds and with geometry,temperature,electronics,pressure etc. and obviously what I'm asking must be beyond all this because the question that I've asked has not been answered and neither is the question "what burns" when they get together,for you have not answered it still as of yet. you brought it up but fail to give an explanation,i can't help but think that you don't really know the answer.as for what I'm ready for or not ready for, i can't be doing to bad since I've asked a fundamental question that as of yet can not answered! sometimes someone looking in from the outside or someone within but stepping back a bit can see things others don't. because it can be easy to miss the obvious or if not obvious then a different perspective.