this question has me stumped...

Sort of general answer: It depends on what the molecules are in. Molecules are separated by the medium they're in and by the vagaries of electric charge.

Molecules are made up of atoms, which aren't really made up of solid things. They're really more like what you'd see if you looked down the end of a vibrating guitar string - a series of nodes where the vibrations of the string met or cancelled each other out. In some cases we call the constituent nodes 'particles' - but atoms are not solid, they're wave forms held together and apart by electro-magnetism - sort of

The nodes don't really have a fixed position or an orbit around a solid nucleus, but are in state of superposition of all possible positions, with a higher or lower liklihood of them actually 'being' at any point depending on certain variables.

But the above is very, very simplistic. It depends on temp', what the molecules are of and all sorts of other things. Can you define your question a bit more?

MelT

 

Both atoms and molecules are surrounded by electron clouds. Individual atoms, whether alone or in molecules, never actually touch due to the fact that the positively charged nuclei repel. It is the movement and sharing of electrons between atoms that form the chemical bonds in molecules and hold atoms near each other. The same concept is applicable to intermolecular interactions.

Side note - If lots of energy is applied, nuclei actually due touch each other and either fission or fusion occurs

 

I don't know where we were going with it either...

As Doug has said, whether particles interact by touching, sharing particles, or don't touch at all, is down to electric charge. Think of the constituent elements within any molecule (a mixture of chemicals, or one 'pure' chemical) as being able to share electrons or repel/attract each other like bar magnets. They aren't separated by a vacuum, but by electromagnetisim and in some cases the generalised medium of 'air', itself a complex mix of chemicals, which molecules may or may not interact with.

An iron bar for example tends to lose electrons in oxygen, and in so doing the metal will change nature and become rusty. The nitrogen and all the other chemicals in air are constantly interacting in one way or another with what they enshroud.

In a vacuum there's still a vast field of interaction of quantum particles and chemicals in space. And at this point I have to stop as I too have lost the plot and cant remember the point of this

MelT and some very good bud

 

Funny, I've been thinking the same damn thing

Think more of a vacuum like space. There are a few hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter, but what is between them? It can't be air, because air is just the mixture of gases in an atmosphere. Since there is no air between the atoms in a vacuum, what is between them? Just....emptiness? I doubt there are too many IMFs out there to account for the "empty space." Something like water, one might think of H2O molecules floating around in a "liquid," but obviously the molecules are close enough together to not really have any space between them (most who haven't taken chemistry can't really comprehend how small atoms are....hell, even some who HAVE taken chemistry can't comprehend it )



Maybe dark matter?

 

Way out in the vacuum, where there are only a few atoms in a square foot, there are still virtual particles constantly being created and annihilated. These virtual particles are created in pairs (where one particle has positive energy and the other particle has negative energy) and after a very short amount of time they recombine and annihilate. This process is constantly occurring all over the universe, so even the "empty" parts of space aren't really empty.

 

Why not toss in anti matter and dark matter.

 

the answer is... strings.

 

no its rubber bands

 

Jesus.

 

i was actually serious.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOzP6XhtAXo]YouTube - Michio Kaku on String Theory 3[/ame]

 

Since there's pressure in our atmoshere, do atmos float around in the air? Do heavy atoms float? Why do heavy atoms float, but a lot of heavy atoms together not float?

 

Probably cuz the mass of a single atom isn't large enough to be pulled down by gravity, while a bunch of atoms together has enough mass to be affected by gravity

 

Plenty here have a good grasp of QM and general physics, ask away

MelT

 

Has the warping of space time been proven? It seems like it'd be pretty simple to calculate the numbers needed to prove so, but at the same time I think it could be confused with something else, say a scientist theorizes that all mass produces what we know as gravity, you would get the same exact results.

 

The essay that is linked to in the original post was interesting, whoever wrote it obviously has some varied experience in academia, as its way longer than it really needs to be, and over analyzes the f out of everything.

It seems to be a critique of the way we label math and science, as well as of our method for explaining time, and cause/effect.

What stuck out for me, or at least what I think he's trying to say, is that the way we conceive time, and end up hyper focused on explaining what we see in ONE, ISOLATED moment, causing us to stop trying to explain the system as a whole, first, and why it would behave the way it does.

I really enjoyed the thread's convo, and I'm among those who had a difficult time in chemistry class, visualizing how exactly the atoms of a metal are composed of smaller objects, all flowing around each other, at some ridiculously large, almost in-comprehensible speed. Anyway...

Using the same metallic object, could one say that all the atoms are immobile, until exposed to a chemical that releases, or adds another electron? One of the things I haven't been able to fit into this "world view" of mine, is how electricity is spread through conductive material, and how that contrasts to chemical reactions, involving electrons... ?

And lastly, I see this guy's critique as a sort of adjunct to the current best "scientific model," as it sits on top (or at least tries to) and challenges some of the assumptions, that allow that model to exists. It seems that further efforts may be able to better explain certain anomalies found in space, or at least shake up the framework a bit, encouraging "theorists" to try and take in everything (instead of focusing on an instant), perhaps establishing more top-down theories that don't automatically dissect everything, or start at the smallest objects first.

 

Time...ah...time........

Time is a localised illusion of continuity in a particular 'direction' of space time - we can't really have time without space in our own Universe. It isn't immutable, and it does vary vastly relative to the POV of both the observer and the observed, their relative speed, and also the gravity of nearby bodies. Time could speed up or slow down, relatively speaking, and we would be unaware of it.

Time isn't quite like gravity in that it's an inherent property of a thing or things within our Universe, it's a property of 'reality', or space-time - but, as above, it is something that will vary from observer to observer. Many people (myself included) believe in 'block time', that we are in a time-directional Universe 'suspended' within something which isn't subject to time. Relative to it, all our future and past exist at the same moment and are not subject to arising or passing away.

MelT