i’m glad i wasn’t born in the time people spoke of false things like alchemy or ”flogistine” in shcools… or the way they thought about light and calories was hilarious…

I highly recommend this documentary on Chemistry: A volatile history. So informative.

At the end of this series I now know why so much money has been spent on Fermi Lab in the United States and the new Cern Particle Accelerator in Europe. There is a real quest underway to not only make new elements heavier than uranium, but also perhaps to transform one element into another.

The age old quest to transform lead into gold has not ended. If successful the Cern Particle Accelerator could actually pay for itself by changing huge quantities of lead into gold or other more valuable elements. Very interesting with regards to what is potentially really happening at these high particle accelerators.

The history of chemistry in this series is very interesting and will no doubt motivate thousands of young people to pursue chemistry courses and careers in university.

What I enjoyed most about the series was learning about the dedication and single mindedness of the various individuals who would make the scientific discoveries after years of dedicated reasearch, thinking, tinkering, and then sudden insight and clarity. This really seems to be a trait of many men and some women who work endless hours to understand and solve a difficult problem.

It is nice to know that I am not alone in this singular drive to realize a goal no matter how difficult it is.

Arnold Vinette
Ottawa, Canada

It was Rutherford who first figured out that an atom is mostly empty space. How he figured this out was absolutely brilliant. Rather than explain to you how he figured that out myself, I would encourage you to google “Rutherford” on the internet and find out the nature of his experiments. If you have a real interest in science and want to understand how it works, you will be glad you did.

I also highly recommend the book “The Intelligent Man’s Guide to Science” by Isaac Asimov. The book is somewhat dated now, but Asimov did an excellent job of explaining to us laymen the history of science in general and how major discoveries in all fields of science came about (including Rutherford’s experiments), without talking down to the reader. Most public libraries should have a copy. Be sure you get the latest available edition. It is admittedly a very big book, but I could hardly put it down once I started reading it. I have read it several times over the years.

I’m so grateful for Documentaries.

Last year I switched from a Science Degree to an Arts Degree, Thanks to Documentaries I can still learn some Science and I don’t have to limit my learning to Arts only, There is so much more.

Thanks and Take Care. :)

I’ve realised the painfully obvious fact that there has to be a distance between the electrons due to their being of the same charge so they will repel each other, at the same time as being drawn to the nucleus with its positive charge, hence them forming the shells around the nucleus, any more electrons will be atrracted to the atom but be repelled a certain distance from the electrons already there forming the next shell etc.
This leads me to assume there must be some kind of mathematical formula for the distance the electrons keep between each other which would explain why there are constant numbers of possible electrons in each shell. I’m sure an accurate model could be made at some point with this in mind, it may not be too far from the reaches of what we already know.

You’re not being thick at all. The kinds of questions that you’re asking are important ones and no single person in this world can draw you an atom and conclusively say that every atom looks like what he has drawn. This is due to the fact that electrons are very transient and move around a LOT. Ever hear of probability density clouds? They’re an important concept in understanding that electrons can be at any place around the nucleus. The higher the energy of the electron usually means that it’s more likely to be found farther away rather than closer.

Picture the inside of a large church. Imagine that you’re standing in this church in the middle, and that at your feet there’s a basketball. That’s your nucleus. If you were to look up at the ceiling and the walls, that is where you’d find the electrons “zipping” around. The whole church is your atom. (I won’t get into the fact that electrons are standing waves because that’s beyound the scale of your questions.)

There’s a lot of space in an atom. Just plain old “empty” space. That’s a concept that you’re going to have to wrap your head around.

As for the attraction between electrons and the nucleus, gravity, as you pointed out, serves as a poor comparison. To tell you the truth I’m not comfortable with my own explanation of why electrons don’t smash into nuclei so I’ll leave it to someone else.

On a side note, something that I’ve always found interesting is something that a professor once told me. He said that if all atoms were to line up just right, if you pushed again them your hand would go through the material. Whether or not this is possible is hard to measure–the odds approach 1 in infinity.

it cant be like the gravitational pull of planets in a solar system because the planets continue to rotate at a constant distance thanks to not being disturbed by other s@#$ banging into them as atoms have to deal with, and the force of gravity doesnt make a solid mass of solar system between the planets. or is it like that in some way? it certainly looks similar judging by most impressions shown, the question is just how accurate they are, how did they come to this common model everyone has accepted?

forgive me if I seem a bit thick with some of this stuff I dont really know a whole lot about a whole lot but hey if you dont ask you dont learn

it is all about charge, i guess. it is the same as pressing magnets with same poles together. you feel resistance.

I recall an example, to “compare” powers of electric and gravity energy. when someones jumps from a building and he is accelerating toward the earth, thats gravity. what you see when he lands is the consequence of electric resistane :D

it is empty, because they did not find anything else there… i guess. But it is not so easy as to picture an electron as a tennis ball, from the little I know it is more of an tennis ball cloud, with the ball being with highest propability in its orbital