Hydrogen Atom Scale Model

[Sriad]

At http://www.phrenopolis.com/perspective/atom/index.html

A scale model of a hydrogen atom: one proton, one electron, lots and lots of nothing. This webpage may not work on some older browsers.

In case any of you have forgotten you're mostly empty space.

[Surlethe]

The caption on the far right should be changed to read, "electron (might be here)"

Lame joke out of the way, I wonder if we could say that we're mostly forcefields instead of matter, since the electromagnetic force is what holds atoms together despite all that empty space.

[Civil War Man]

Lame joke out of the way, I wonder if we could say that we're mostly forcefields instead of matter, since the electromagnetic force is what holds atoms together despite all that empty space.

If that's the case, then instead of being phantoms (as the page put it), we're all holograms.

[NoXion]

For me, having to scroll so much to the right doesn't give a sense of scale - it would be better if it was somehow presented differently. I have no "feel" of how distant the electron is.

[Noble Ire]

That's odd; the distance on my screen from the proton to the electron is barely a monitor length.

[Duckie]

That's odd; the distance on my screen from the proton to the electron is barely a monitor length.

Same here.

[King Kong]

That's odd; the distance on my screen from the proton to the electron is barely a monitor length.

My browser isn't completely compatible either, therefore we can continue to believe in the illusion that we are not mostly empty space.

Richard Dawkins wrote about how it is evolutionary advantageous to see things as solid, even though they aren't, simply because that is how we seem interact with them due to EM forces. Makes you think if other delusions might persist because of the survival benefits.

It's weird to think that I never actually touch anything; every sensation and biological process is ultimately a result of interacting EM fields.

[Noble Ire]

Richard Dawkins wrote about how it is evolutionary advantageous to see things as solid, even though they aren't, simply because that is how we seem interact with them due to EM forces. Makes you think if other delusions might persist because of the survival benefits.

It's weird to think that I never actually touch anything; every sensation and biological process is ultimately a result of interacting EM fields.

Of course, as I understand it, nothing may really be solid at all. Even protons and neutrons are composed of even smaller "bouncy particles" (correct me if I'm wrong; I've haven't taken a science course in awhile). Thus, since the term solid really can't refer to anything at all, we are free to use it as we always have.

[Ariphaos]

Is it just me, or did he use Neptune for a proton?

[Acidburns]

If your having trouble imagining the scale, note that he says that at 72 pixels an inch, it works out as 11 miles. So, grab a football, dump it outside your door and go take a long walk!

[Qwerty 42]

Is it just me, or did he use Neptune for a proton?

I was thinking the same thing.

[Molyneux]

That's...impressive.
Then again, compared with strings made of solid nothing vibrating to make up the building blocks of matter, it's not all that bizarre, I suppose...

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

That's odd; the distance on my screen from the proton to the electron is barely a monitor length.

Same here.

Ask Lonestar about it. He'll likely see both on one screen!

[drachefly]

This is silly. The intrinsic size of fundamental particles is unimportant, so long as it is extremely small. The length scale that matters is the region they are smeared over. And for electrons in atoms, that's of order 1 Angstrom. For protons, it's one hundred thousandth that.