Water,a manifestation of WHAT?

[north]

i asked this in chemistry but have been asked to come here so here goes.

why, when H&O2 come together (apparently there must be 6 molecules before water appears) does this liquid manifest it's self. now i know the mechanics involved but i want to beyond this.if i separate H from O2 no liquid appears (maybe always there?) so why when H&O2 come together does a liquid appear? what is the liquid a manifestation of? also we know that both H&O will become liquid(that is another query!) on there own at sufficiently low temperatures,now when i bring the two (elements) together it seems that the temperature for liquefaction rises why? and why expand when frozen? does the lower temperature allow a little more fluid in? or is there an energy flow blocked so the the liquid cannot flow back so expands? do H&O work together as some sort of catalyst,in temperature and energy flow? i think that perhaps there is more going on inbetween the nucleous and the electron shell of atoms.

when you think about it,we know why and how water becomes. but we really don't know WHAT it is!

any thoughts?

 

[ram1024]

water is hydrogen and oxygen in a particular chemical configuration that exists with the "properties" of "liquid"

liquid is NOT a specific THING, rather it is a state of a certain body of an elements of complex molecules that behave in a certain matter / fashion. typically, liquids behave in slipping motion when in contact with other liquid molecules

gases push away from each other

solids cling to each other

that's the VERY basics of it.

so to say water "forms" as a liquid is incorrect. what happens is hydrogen and oxygen combine and form a molecule that exhibits "liquid" properties

 

[ram1024]

and why expand when frozen?

crystalization. it is rigid and creates "pockets"

think of it like this. take 500 lego blocks and stack them together into a cube. put that cube in a box or bag exactly its size. this is water, basically able to flow and fill every gap it finds. now take all the blocks apart and just throw them into the container you just had/made. you will not be able to get them all in the same container because of that configuration, it makes pockets and generally wastes a lot of space.

 

[north]

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?

 

[russ_watters]

what happens here?

Chemistry.

If you haven't had any, it can be a complicated answer...

 

[ram1024]

if I'm not mistaken ALL elements have "states" they acquire at different "temperatures"

these are fundamental and i think they are related to energy states of electron orbits.

electrons "jump" to different orbits depending on their energy level, at lower energy levels (temperature) atoms "jump" to a different "state" that just reacts differently to other atoms.

i don't know how much of this is theory or reality, this is just information congealed from my physics and chem classes :|

 

[Alkatran]

Think of it this way: All the molecules have a slight attraction on each other, but at high energies the can escape this attraction.

Consider a daycare: You can't keep all the children in order while they are full of energy (hot) but once they get sleepy (cold) it's childs play to get them to behave.

Water is constantly fighting the crystalisation that it tends towards. Get it?

 

[north]

guys,i appreciate the effort but we are still talking in terms of bonds etc. let me put it this way we need the bonds to produce the reaction needed to get the state of liquidity but the thing is the electrons don't change form and neither does the nucleous and yet the state of liquidity exists. to me it has nothing to do with density and bonds because the atoms themselves don't fundamentaly change in anyway shape or form and neither does it's ability bond again. we have been still talking in terms of chemistry. the only answers i get are based on chemistry which up to this point have not really answered the Ques:WHAT is water the liquid state of? the i think that chemistry is the frame work but not the interior.

Russ please go ahead i have had a little but i would like to hear what you have to say. I've tried finding more about it myself but none of the chemistry books that i have even mention liquid hydrogen at all.

 

[wespe]

Ques:WHAT is water the liquid state of?

Maybe I'm missing something but water is the liquid state of a bunch of H2O molecules.

 

[north]

as an example of what i mean see if this makes what I'm asking a little clearer. if i have a nail and i punch a hole into a tire air comes out,now for this to happen i need a tire full of air and a nail when i combine the two air comes out but the nail nor the tire tells me what the air IS and yet the air does exist.

when i bring H&O together in the right amount and mixture, i bring into existence a state of liquid and yet the atoms are NOT in of themselves in a liquid state WHAT IS this liquid state a state of? the H2O molecules are necessary for this state to become(exist) but this not explain the nature of the liquid it's self, just how i can produce it.

 

[russ_watters]

guys,i appreciate the effort but we are still talking in terms of bonds etc. let me put it this way we need the bonds to produce the reaction needed to get the state of liquidity but the thing is the electrons don't change form...

Yeah, they do (or rather, they change state). The "glue" that holds water together and we see as surface tension is called hydrogen bonds. Hydrogen bonds arise due to the asymetry of water molecules. Uneven electron distribution means uneven charge distribution, causing net positive and net negatively charged areas on the molecules. Opposites attract, so the molecules start sticking together.

When it gets colder, the molecules aren't moving fast enough to avoid lining up and sticking together in a tight chrystal structure: that's ice.

when i bring H&O together in the right amount and mixture, i bring into existence a state of liquid...

Not quite. Mixing hydrogen and oxygen (molecules) yeilds a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen molecules. They have to react to form water (burn).

..and yet the atoms are NOT in of themselves in a liquid state...

True. Single atoms aren't bonded to anything and can't be described as "solid" or "liquid."

...WHAT IS this liquid state a state of?

The word "liquid" is a word used to describe how water (or any substance) acts under certain conditions.

the H2O molecules are necessary for this state to become(exist) but this not explain the nature of the liquid it's self, just how i can produce it

Now you're not making sense. There are other liquids besides water, but in this case we're talking about water. "The liquid itself" is a collection of water molecules that act in a way consistent with the definition of a word called "liquid." Its still water, just a specific form (state) of water.

Maybe you could explain what you mean by "nature of the liquid." It sounds like you think that all liquids are the same and not just states of different types of molecules. You can see this easily enough by comparing mercury with water. Mercury and water clearly are not the same liquid.

 

[north]

Yeah, they do (or rather, they change state).
___________________________________________

but not the electrons actual form,meaning size, shape or energy doesn't change just position.
___________________________________________

The "glue" that holds water together and we see as surface tension is called hydrogen bonds. Hydrogen bonds arise due to the asymetry of water molecules. Uneven electron distribution means uneven charge distribution, causing net positive and net negatively charged areas on the molecules. Opposites attract, so the molecules start sticking together.

Not quite. Mixing hydrogen and oxygen (molecules) yeilds a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen molecules. They have to react to form water (burn).
___________________________________________

this is some of what i was thinking that the bonding of H2&O raises the liquidity temperature from it being very low to produce a liquid state to a much higher temperature.
___________________________________________
Now you're not making sense. There are other liquids besides water, but in this case we're talking about water. "The liquid itself" is a collection of water molecules that act in a way consistent with the definition of a word called "liquid." Its still water, just a specific form (state) of water.
___________________________________________
true but i just wanted to start with water, i was also thinking of oil.
___________________________________________

Maybe you could explain what you mean by "nature of the liquid." It sounds like you think that all liquids are the same and not just states of different types of molecules. You can see this easily enough by comparing mercury with water. Mercury and water clearly are not the same liquid.
___________________________________________

no they are not but i was just trying one query at a time. but it does lead me to this though,getting a little side tracked but i was eventually going there anyway. what gives any element and their combinations their texture? steel,leather, mercury,oil,wood,lead etc. I'm having a hard time thinking that it is just because of electrons,i'm thinking that it is also somehow, something else is going on. let's say for arguments sake that all textures are caused by electrons in whatever lattice the atoms are in,lets use steel for example,now if i look deep into the lattice so that i can focus on just one atom of this lattice,of course the atoms that are attached to this atom from other atoms are still there but we are so focused on the one that they are not in sight,but the electrons from other atoms are seen,now assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the electrons are are motionless state, this is a solid,would it not follow that the electrons in this steel atom must be in a metal state? which means of course that electrons actually change form. i think that electromagnetism is involved somehow,someway it has the energy and the flexibility to change form,i just think that it might be coming from the "empty space" in the atom,if not the electrons themselves,if not then something else is responsible for the texture or hardness.and this applies to all textures and states.

 

[ram1024]

electrons determine how atoms are going to come together to make elements <mostly>

the elements themselves make different molecules

different molecules stuck together make up what you deem to be "texture"

each step of this can all be traced back to the electrons that determined "how things were going to come together"

you may think of electrons as being ridiculously small, how can they be significant? understand that the rotations of the electrons in an atom is a vast amount of kinetic energy <comparatively> that and the electron bears the same charge as a proton but opposite despite being orders of magnitude smaller in size.

they use electromagnets to lift cars in wrecker junkyards. nothing else is causing the force except the motion of electrons through a coil. and this is at a visible level, these forces increase in power exponentially as the distances between them shrinks. on a molecular and atomic level, that's a VERY strong bond.

 

[north]

different molecules stuck together make up what you deem to be "texture"

each step of this can all be traced back to the electrons that determined "how things were going to come together"

you may think of electrons as being ridiculously small, how can they be significant? understand that the rotations of the electrons in an atom is a vast amount of kinetic energy <comparatively> that and the electron bears the same charge as a proton but opposite despite being orders of magnitude smaller in size.

they use electromagnets to lift cars in wrecker junkyards. nothing else is causing the force except the motion of electrons through a coil. and this is at a visible level, these forces increase in power exponentially as the distances between them shrinks. on a molecular and atomic level, that's a VERY strong bond.[/QUOTE]

___________________________________________

all well and good but let's get back to the steel focus, what is happening here,in that the texture must start to form either with the electrons or has something to do with the interior of the atom(s) otherwise WHERE does the texture come from, since all the electrons are bound forming the lattice?

 

[ram1024]

the texture is the molecule configuration, which is made BECAUSE of the electron configuration.

depending on which level you want to analyze, it's ALL making "texture". once a molecule is made it's pretty much "rigid". it's molecular bonds that flex and shift.

there is no "leather" molecule, you'd make a structure out of carbons hydrogens nitrogens etc etc to create a structure with the "properties" known as leather.

simply the electrons play a HUGE part in atomic structure, but the bulk of "mass" of a substance will always be neutrons and protons. don't forget them :D

 

[north]

the texture is the molecule configuration, which is made BECAUSE of the electron configuration.
___________________________________________

what configuration do you mean here, since all the electrons in the steel lattice are bonded?
___________________________________________

depending on which level you want to analyze, it's ALL making "texture". once a molecule is made it's pretty much "rigid". it's molecular bonds that flex and shift.
___________________________________________

i agree it takes the whole molecule to produce the form and texture as well as the position and geometry.i just think that when this happens the energy within the whole that is produced, transforms . it is not the molecule that transforms but the energy released by the molecule because of the molecule configuration.
__________________________________________
there is no "leather" molecule, you'd make a structure out of carbons hydrogens nitrogens etc etc to create a structure with the "properties" known as leather.
__________________________________________

yeah,bad example!

__________________________________________

simply the electrons play a HUGE part in atomic structure, but the bulk of "mass" of a substance will always be neutrons and protons. don't forget them .

__________________________________________

actually i havn't, but that is my fault that you may think this.

my basic thinking is this, that between the electron(s) and the protons etc. there must be more to this "empty space" for if there was no form of communication between the two, in some form, then the balance would not be kept, there must be in some sense a medium(energy) and that this energy, my thinking is electromagnetic, and that with the combination of things,temperature,pressure,reaction,configuration etc release some, all and any combinations thereof to produce all states of matter, there is the energy needed and the flexibility needed for all forms possible to be produced.this is why i think that things like liquid or solid state are caused, if you will, by the key of the whole configuration unlocking the potental form of a particular molecule or atom.

 

[ram1024]

i'm thinking that's way more complicated than it needs to be :D

but I'm glad you're pioneering. i will see your name in a sci-journal one of these days and be all like, "yep, that guy wasn't satisfied. he went out and kicked its ass personally"

 

[north]

more complicated yes but more efficient yes.

perhaps the drop of water is just the tap barely turned on. or perhaps we could create a hole from the outer shell to the nucleous letting energy out under control or reach in and pull the nucleous through turning the atom or molecule inside out what kind of things while pulling it on the way out would happen.and perhaps then picking off any part of the nucleous that we need, just having fun

to pioneering, cheers!

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I see why they sent you to TD. What you are talking about here doesn't have any connection to reality. I'm sorry, but the things you are saying just plain aren't true. You'll need to start off with a basic education in chemistry if you're really interested in how atoms and molecules work.

One tidbit to get you started: the chemical properties of an atom/molecule are entirely due to the interactions of its electrons.

 

[north]

i'm not saying that electrons aren't important,they are but all I'm asking,as i have with the steel lattice example is that if i look close then at one atom with all the electrons even from other atoms in it's proximity that i should see a fraction of the metalic form. and that it should lead to see wether the electrons change form, or some other reason why there is a metalic form. the metalic form one would think is evident in each atom that makes up the whole.in other words let's build the lattice one atom at a time,for at some point the metalic properties would begin to show and would lead,i think to better understanding of WHAT is the root of it's metalic properties. and as soon as it does show these properties stop it and slowly back up. is this not a valid inquery?

 

[russ_watters]

i'm not saying that electrons aren't important,they are but all I'm asking,as i have with the steel lattice example is that if i look close then at one atom with all the electrons even from other atoms in it's proximity that i should see a fraction of the metalic form. and that it should lead to see wether the electrons change form, or some other reason why there is a metalic form. the metalic form one would think is evident in each atom that makes up the whole.in other words let's build the lattice one atom at a time,for at some point the metalic properties would begin to show and would lead,i think to better understanding of WHAT is the root of it's metalic properties. and as soon as it does show these properties stop it and slowly back up. is this not a valid inquery?

One problem here is you are using extremely poor grammar, which makes it very difficult to understand what you are asking. But from what I can understand of your question, the answer has already been given. I'll say it again - the properties of any material are a result of its chemical structure which is a result of the electron configuration (which is a result of the number of protons). One reason you need multiple atoms to start to see the properties of even a pure element is the properties are related to the chrystal structure and you need a specific number of atoms for a complete chrystal unit.

It is a valid inquiry, its just that you don't seem all that interested in listening to the answer.

 

[north]

One problem here is you are using extremely poor grammar, which makes it very difficult to understand what you are asking. But from what I can understand of your question, the answer has already been given. I'll say it again - the properties of any material are a result of its chemical structure which is a result of the electron configuration (which is a result of the number of protons). One reason you need multiple atoms to start to see the properties of even a pure element is the properties are related to the chrystal structure and you need a specific number of atoms for a complete chrystal unit.
___________________________________________

i just don't see it as a complete answer , we know that free electrons are just that free electrons,there are no liquid or solid properties,and yet when put into an atom things change and if an atom does not have one it will,if i may,search one out,therefore the atom senses that the balance is not right. and so these electrons which apparently don't change form or cause any other type of form change can now with protons etc produce certain qualities.my point is this electrons don't change form and the nucleous does not change form and yet when i get a group of them together we get certain qualities even though the electrons nor the nucleous change form! so just because i get a group of electrons all of a sudden some quality emerges even though electrons don't change form,where then does the quality come from?!

 

[ram1024]

something itself cannot exert a force unless there is something to exert the force ON.

in essense, an atom could be a bar magnet in your left hand. there's nothing in your right hand, no matter what you do with your right hand to try and detect the properties of the bar magnet in your left hand you get nothing. now put and atom <magnet> in your right hand. by moving your right hand near your left now you can feel the attractions and repulsions that come from proximity of the two magnets (atoms).

the properties of liquid, solid, gas don't come from one atom. they come from atom interactions. just as molecular interactions would make texture

hope this analogy helps some :D

 

[russ_watters]

i just don't see it as a complete answer , we know that free electrons are just that free electrons,there are no liquid or solid properties,and yet when put into an atom things change...

A house is made of bricks, yet bricks do not posess rooms or windows. I really don't see why you are having such a hard time with this point.

electrons don't change form and the nucleous does not change form and yet when i get a group of them together we get certain qualities even though the electrons nor the nucleous change form! so just because i get a group of electrons all of a sudden some quality emerges even though electrons don't change form...

Melting point is a property. Since melting point is the energy at which atoms will break their chrystal structure, why would you think that protons and electrons should have such properties? They aren't aoms. Its axiomatic.

...where then does the quality come from?!

Asked and answered several times already. But another analogy: a brick has certain properties and a wall has certain properties. Some of them are smilar, some aren't. Some of the properties of the wall depend more on the grout (is that the word?) holding the bricks together than on the properties of the brick itself. And when you are building a house, you don't care about the properties of the individual bricks, just the properties of the wall. Same with atoms.

so just because i get a group of electrons all of a sudden some quality emerges even though electrons don't change form...

Yep.

where then does the quality come from?!

You tell me: what properties do electrons have that affect how they interact with atoms?

 

[north]

thats the thing, are the electrons changing or is something else going on. has it got something to do with the perhaps "communication" if you will between the electron and the proton etc.which is obvious that they do. and the "empty space" between the two.which may have energy yet untapped who's to say. i wish i had the facilities to investigate, I'm sure the things to be found would be fascinating.and right now nobody has the "quality" answer. just bricks and mortar answer and that is just not enough.
its fine for production considerations,you know, i need 100,000lbs of this or that. but not for those that question,want to know and just simply enjoy Discovery.

one last thing from what i understand as well is that the electron at it's center is hollow and so is the proton,although it is not as large as the electrons hollow center,
interesting...HMMM!

 

[chroot]

Electrons are thought to be geometric points. They appear to have zero size, and appear to have no internal structure or components. Certainly they are not "hollow."

Protons are thought to be composed of three quarks, which are themselves pointlike like the electron. You could say that the rest of the space inside the proton is empty, but, since particles don't behave like little billiard balls (they are probabilistically spread out in space), the notion is really misplaced.

- Warren

 

[north]

by the way Russ and others thanks for the feed back it's first time I've really had any discussion on this topic of mine it has helped a lot and i enjoyed it!

 

[north]

Electrons are thought to be geometric points. They appear to have zero size, and appear to have no internal structure or components. Certainly they are not "hollow."
__________________________________________
and yet they play such an important part. if we were to take them out of the picture completely what would happen?

from what i understand both electrons and protons have hollow centers.
___________________________________________
Protons are thought to be composed of three quarks, which are themselves pointlike like the electron. You could say that the rest of the space inside the proton is empty, but, since particles don't behave like little billiard balls (they are probabilistically spread out in space), the notion is really misplaced.

- Warren

__________________________________________

just curious, how then do we get the order of matter that we do, i mean elements etc.

 

[north]

i got the information of the hollowness of the electron and proton from Paul Marmet's site, from the paper 1A-X.

 

[chroot]

north,

I suggest you carefully consider who Paul Marmet is, what his accomplishments are, and why you should or should not believe what he says.

- Warren

 

[north]

north,

I suggest you carefully consider who Paul Marmet is, what his accomplishments are, and why you should or should not believe what he says.

- Warren

___________________________________________

i think this approach is highly inappropriate.

i will not get into a personal and/or reputation bashing session,against anyone.i would perfer that you looked at his theory on its own merits as science should be, nowadays and cold fusion is a good example,there is to much of the personal bashing i will have no part,that said to me there is nobdy above question and nor should they think themselves as above question and if you have any questions about what he has to say then i suggest you make the necessary communication.

now please let's just stick to theories and there validity and discuss.

north

 

[russ_watters]

i think this approach is highly inappropriate.

i will not get into a personal and/or reputation bashing session,against anyone.i would perfer that you looked at his theory on its own merits as science should be, nowadays and cold fusion is a good example,there is to much of the personal bashing i will have no part,that said to me there is nobdy above question and nor should they think themselves as above question and if you have any questions about what he has to say then i suggest you make the necessary communication.

now please let's just stick to theories and there validity and discuss.

north

Thats a very dangerous way of going about it. You're opening yourself up to be duped. Credibility in science is of critical importance.

 

[reilly]

Liquids are hard (to explain)

As is sometimes the case, people neglect to check out what has been done in the field of interest, and so end up doing many rounds of aimless and endless speculation. In the case of liquids, there's a long history of theory, which in full strength is formidable. A key descriptive variable is the radial distribution function, g(r) -- roughly proportional to the probability of finding a molecule at a distance r from another molecule. (Liquids, like gases are presumed to be isotropic, a characterisic honored by Nature.) For a crystal lattice, g(r) is spikey, reflecting the regular discrete structure of the lattice. For a perfect gas, g(r) = 1; molecules can be found anywhere with equal probability. For liquids, g(r) is in between, much like a damped sine wave, with g(r)=0 at r=0, reflecting a strong repulsive force for molecules very close to each other, then a maxima due to attractive forces from shell-shell interactions, a minima, a smaller maxima, and so forth. X-ray diffraction provides a method to measure g(r), and, I think, that slow neutron scattering does as well.

The game is to compute g(r) from basic molecular properties, and to relate it to the physical properties of the material. What little I know about the subject comes from D.L. Goodstein's States of Matter, available from Dover. In his Statistical Mechanics, Feynman discusses the quantum liquid, liquid helium, which can become a superfluid.

I'm sure a Google search will provide many years worth of reading. As is often the case, simple physical arguments not backed up by mathematics can be quite wrong and misleading. And the language of liquids, primarily statistical mechanics, is difficult indeed.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[north]

Thats a very dangerous way of going about it. You're opening yourself up to be duped. Credibility in science is of critical importance.

___________________________________________

Russ

it is only "dangerous" if we don't question and challenge the theory,the person themselves are irrelevent.if we talk of credibility then we would have never questioned Einstein. there is no one who knows it all and is above question and if this happens, that someone is above question, then that is a truly "dangerous" precedent.

has science become a vocation of indoctrination,where the truth of seeking of reality has been clouded with ego and reverence that is above question? if so, then our ability to be objective and discover is lost and we are headed to deevolving in thought and discovery, it is a dark age repeating it's self.

without new ideas, new perpectives by whom ever we will smother understanding and discovery which will keep us moving ahead.

lastly i suggest you e-mail Paul personaly he is open to discussion, if you have the desire to have an open mind. if your set, then don't.


i will not discuss this further.

 

[north]

As is sometimes the case, people neglect to check out what has been done in the field of interest, and so end up doing many rounds of aimless and endless speculation. In the case of liquids, there's a long history of theory, which in full strength is formidable. A key descriptive variable is the radial distribution function, g(r) -- roughly proportional to the probability of finding a molecule at a distance r from another molecule. (Liquids, like gases are presumed to be isotropic, a characterisic honored by Nature.) For a crystal lattice, g(r) is spikey, reflecting the regular discrete structure of the lattice. For a perfect gas, g(r) = 1; molecules can be found anywhere with equal probability. For liquids, g(r) is in between, much like a damped sine wave, with g(r)=0 at r=0, reflecting a strong repulsive force for molecules very close to each other, then a maxima due to attractive forces from shell-shell interactions, a minima, a smaller maxima, and so forth. X-ray diffraction provides a method to measure g(r), and, I think, that slow neutron scattering does as well.

The game is to compute g(r) from basic molecular properties, and to relate it to the physical properties of the material. What little I know about the subject comes from D.L. Goodstein's States of Matter, available from Dover. In his Statistical Mechanics, Feynman discusses the quantum liquid, liquid helium, which can become a superfluid.

I'm sure a Google search will provide many years worth of reading. As is often the case, simple physical arguments not backed up by mathematics can be quite wrong and misleading. And the language of liquids, primarily statistical mechanics, is difficult indeed.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

___________________________________________

Reilly

appreciate your in put, however whether the probabilty is this or that does not seem to me to take away from the fact that, if an electron does not change form and that neither does the atom it's self and that since the existence of the molecule and it's qualities depends on the bonds of the two elements which ties up the electrons,protons etc. then where does the qualities of the liquid come from? is it a system dynamics? and if so, with all electrons held in postion so to speak,still where does the qualities of a liquid come from, not the electrons(or maybe) then WHERE?

 

[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

 

[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

___________________________________________

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... )

 

[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