High School Why is it possible to push your finger through butter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter arupel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Solid
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the physical principles explaining why a finger cannot penetrate solid objects, specifically referencing electrical repulsion and the Pauli exclusion principle. Participants clarify that the atomic structure of matter, characterized by stable electron configurations, prevents such penetration. The conversation also touches on intermolecular bonds, highlighting differences between ionic and covalent bonds in materials like NaCl and H2O. Ultimately, the consensus is that while atomic space is largely empty, the forces at play between atoms and their electron shells maintain structural integrity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of atomic structure and electron configuration
  • Familiarity with the Pauli exclusion principle
  • Knowledge of intermolecular forces and bonding types (ionic vs. covalent)
  • Basic concepts of physical chemistry and material states
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Pauli exclusion principle and its implications in quantum mechanics
  • Explore intermolecular forces and their effects on material states
  • Study the differences between ionic and covalent bonds in various substances
  • Watch Richard Feynman's lectures on atomic interactions and forces
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, chemistry enthusiasts, and anyone interested in understanding atomic interactions and the properties of materials.

arupel
Messages
45
Reaction score
2
Basically the vast amount of space at the atomic level is empty so on that basis of this it should not be that difficult to push your finger through a table.

Primary explanation is that it is electrical repulsion between the electrons orbits of the atoms of my finger to that of the table? How does this work?

Second possible explanation is that it is the Pauli exclusion principle. How does this work?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
arupel said:
Primary explanation is that it is electrical repulsion between the electrons orbits of the atoms of my finger to that of the table? How does this work?

What do you mean when you ask how it works? Go to YouTube and do a search for Feynman magnets. The video clip is about seven and a half minutes long.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn
arupel said:
Second possible explanation is that it is the Pauli exclusion principle. How does this work?
and since you are aware of the Pauli exclusion principle, have you checked out to what it actually says ?

Go and do what @Mister T and I have suggested and come back with any specific question on bits you don't understand :smile:Dave
 
You can also search for PF threads on the subject, where you will see that you basic premise
arupel said:
Basically the vast amount of space at the atomic level is empty
is false.
 
The simple answer is that the arrangement of electrons in your finger cannot easily electro-statically overcome the arrangement of electrons in the table because they are both already in too stable of an atomic configuration. The outer electron shells very much repel one another in a springy fashion and floor atoms hold us up by our foot atoms in this way. I say springy because there is a slight give, which is why a ball bearing bounces on a marble floor.

OTOH, atoms squeezed together with enough force and loosened with heat can interconnect. Coal squeezed into diamonds is an example. Since our fingers are partly carbon, that portion might become diamond under extreme conditions, I suppose. Ouch.

Even if you dip your fingers in water, the partly free atoms of the liquid are too stable for these electron shells to give and totally mix with the electron shells of your finger. The intact atoms of liquids or gases like air, both fluids and loosely coherent under normal temperature and pressure, merely part enough to allow the stable solid atomic configuration of your finger to pass by the liquid atoms.

Wes
 
DrClaude said:
You can also search for PF threads on the subject, where you will see that you basic premise

is false.
I have a feeling that your reply could over - simplified. The Rutherford alphascattering results suggest that it is not "false' - if you interpret the results as they were originally interpreted - that there is a lot of 'empty' space, or at least very low density stuff in the gaps between the nuclei of atoms of a solid. But I agree that simplified, mechanical models of the atomic level can be misleading.
 
  • Like
Likes DrClaude
It has to do of how strong intermolecular bonds of a material are.For example NaCl intermolecular bonds are very strong(they are ionic) and that's why NaCl has a high melting point.H20 bonds are covalent but polar so they are quite strong to be broken.O2 bonds are covalent and non-polar so they are easily broken.
 
CaptainMarvel1899 said:
It has to do of how strong intermolecular bonds of a material are.For example NaCl intermolecular bonds are very strong(they are ionic) and that's why NaCl has a high melting point.H20 bonds are covalent but polar so they are quite strong to be broken.O2 bonds are covalent and non-polar so they are easily broken.
This has nothing to do with the question asked.
 
It has . Thats why some materials are solids in room temperature , some are liquids and some are gases.
 
  • #10
CaptainMarvel1899 said:
It has . Thats why some materials are solids in room temperature , some are liquids and some are gases.
No. The question is about why you can't push your finger through a solid.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn
  • #11
Is butter a solid?
I can push my finger through butter.
 
  • #12
256bits said:
Is butter a solid?
Classification alert! :eek:
 
  • Like
Likes CaptainMarvel1899
  • #13
Nice one.
 
  • #14
256bits said:
Is butter a solid?
I can push my finger through butter.
From the point of view of the original question, you're not pushing your finger through butter. You are moving the butter aside to make room for your finger.

This thread is getting silly. Thanks to @Wes Tausend for the best answer.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
16K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
15K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
823
Replies
2
Views
624
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K