Chemical Forums
Chemistry Forums for Students => Physical Chemistry Forum => Topic started by: north on April 24, 2006, 04:13:01 PM
-
let me be clear i know that bond wise "water" is H2O. and that it takes H2O to "produce" water.
but what i'm trying to get at is this, if electrons and protons don't change their physical states. then what is water, really?
-
what talking you?
aside from your humor ;D
so do electrons and protons change, physically? if not, what does the formation of water tell us?
picture both atoms, H2O, they come together, they produce a drop of water. now we know that at -256cel. hydrogen is liquid, at -236cel. oxygen is liquid. why then at room temp. why does the combination of the two produce a liquid?
-
Properties of compound are completely different then properties of atoms it is built off.
2+3=5, but 5 is not similar to 2 nor 3.
-
Properties of compound are completely different then properties of atoms it is built off.
2+3=5, but 5 is not similar to 2 nor 3.
that is my point. the resultant form is different from its consituents, why??
what on earth is actually happening?
-
In science there is a priciple known as the principle of emerging properties. This principle holds that upon increasing the level of complexity of an objects, the whole gains new properties which is not present in the sum of its parts.
For example, in math, consider systems of differential equations. A one dimensional system exhibits very simple behavior with trajectories either extending to infinity or approaching a fixed value. Two dimensional systems can exhibit oscillations and contain periodic orbits, which are impossible in a one dimensional system. Three dimensional systemc can exhibit chaotic behavior which does not occur in two dimensional systems.
Similarly in chemistry, molecules have properties which are different from the atoms which compose the molecules. For example, whereas an atom cannot have a permanent dipole, a molecule can posses a permanent dipole. This allows a wider variety of interactions between molecules than between atoms. This helps account for why hydrogen and oxygen are gaseous at room temperature and why water is liquid at room temperature; water's permanent dipole allows strong intermolecular interactions than hydrogen or oxygen. Other emergent properties help make water significantly different than its component atoms.
Furthermore, you are incorrect when you say that electrons and protons don't change their physical states. The electrons in water are in different quantum states than in oxygen or hydrogen atoms. Instead of filling atomic orbitals, they are now contained in molecular orbitals of different energies and symmetries. The difference is easy to see:
atomic orbitals of hydrogen
http://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/1s/index.html
atomic orbitals of oxygen
http://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/1s/index.html
http://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/2s/index.html
http://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/2p/index.html
molecular orbitals of water:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/h2oorb.html
-
In science there is a priciple known as the principle of emerging properties. This principle holds that upon increasing the level of complexity of an objects, the whole gains new properties which is not present in the sum of its parts.
For example, in math, consider systems of differential equations. A one dimensional system exhibits very simple behavior with trajectories either extending to infinity or approaching a fixed value. Two dimensional systems can exhibit oscillations and contain periodic orbits, which are impossible in a one dimensional system. Three dimensional systemc can exhibit chaotic behavior which does not occur in two dimensional systems.
Similarly in chemistry, molecules have properties which are different from the atoms which compose the molecules. For example, whereas an atom cannot have a permanent dipole, a molecule can posses a permanent dipole. This allows a wider variety of interactions between molecules than between atoms. This helps account for why hydrogen and oxygen are gaseous at room temperature and why water is liquid at room temperature; water's permanent dipole allows strong intermolecular interactions than hydrogen or oxygen. Other emergent properties help make water significantly different than its component atoms.
what other emergent properties? curious.
Furthermore, you are incorrect when you say that electrons and protons don't change their physical states. The electrons in water are in different quantum states than in oxygen or hydrogen atoms. Instead of filling atomic orbitals, they are now contained in molecular orbitals of different energies and symmetries. The difference is easy to see:
atomic orbitals of hydrogen
http://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/1s/index.html
atomic orbitals of oxygen
http://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/1s/index.html
http://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/2s/index.html
http://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/AOs/2p/index.html
molecular orbitals of water:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/h2oorb.html
what though does this tell us about water itself? in and of itself. other than it is because of a particlar molecular structure.
-
what other emergent properties? curious.
Another emergent propety is a reduction in symmetry. All atoms are roughly spherical and thus have point group Ih. Few molecules, however, are spherically symmetric and thus have different point groups (e.g. water has point group C2v). The point group symmetry affects the organization of the molecular orbitals.
what though does this tell us about water itself? in and of itself. other than it is because of a particlar molecular structure.
From a chemist's point of view, the electronic strucutre of a substance will completely determine its properties and reactivities. If you're looking for a more philosophical answer to what is water, I can't provide one. I prefer physical explanations over metaphysical ones.
-
what other emergent properties? curious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boids
-
From what I've learned this year in principles of chemistry, is that the sum of electronegativity of both hydrogen atoms is less than the electronegativity of the Oxygen atom in a water molecule. This creates a dipole. So the side of the H2O molecule that the Oxygen resides on, attracts the electrons from the Hydrogen atoms creating a pole with a negative charge. On the side with the two hydrogens a pole with a positive charge. This polarity attracts other water molecules. The negatively charged Oxygen poles are attracted to the positively charged hydrogen molecules. This kind of bonding is called hydrogen bonding and can be very strong if these bonds are in abundance, which results in the high vaporization temperature of water.
I hope this helps you
LorD of DirT
-
u dont need the sum of electronegativity of both hydrogen atoms; each hydrogen atom acts as a seperate atom.
-
u dont need the sum of electronegativity of both hydrogen atoms; each hydrogen atom acts as a seperate atom.
Ok, that would make sense because when I add up the electronegativity values for both Hydrogen's it equals 4.40 Pauling Units. This would cause the Hydrogen pole to be the negative pole, but I know thats not true.
Thanks for the correction xiankai.
-
what other emergent properties? curious.
Another emergent propety is a reduction in symmetry. All atoms are roughly spherical and thus have point group Ih. Few molecules, however, are spherically symmetric and thus have different point groups (e.g. water has point group C2v). The point group symmetry affects the organization of the molecular orbitals.
what though does this tell us about water itself? in and of itself. other than it is because of a particlar molecular structure.
From a chemist's point of view, the electronic strucutre of a substance will completely determine its properties and reactivities. If you're looking for a more philosophical answer to what is water, I can't provide one. I prefer physical explanations over metaphysical ones.
i'm not looking for "metaphysical explainations" either, for i perfer a scientific explanation myself.
let me put it this way, if the atoms themselves don't change, H2O, then what does? that allows the existence of the liquid we call "water" too exist? all the bonding and electonics cause a liquid too manifest. does this not suggest that the bonding and electronics of H2O act as a key to release an energy source that is within the space between the electrons and protons? and that this source can produce from gas, water and solids(metals for example).
your take on my comments.
-
let me put it this way, if the atoms themselves don't change, H2O, then what does?
What do you mean by "atoms don't change"?
Separate hydrogen atom have one electron on well defined orbitals. In water particle hydrogen atom doesn't have its "own" electrons - they are on molecular orbitals, so they belong to the whole particle. In case of oxygen atom some of its electrons are left on almost not changed atomic orbitals, but some of those most external (from so called valence shell) are on the molecular orbitals. Thus you can hardly say "this is hydrogen atom", at best you may say "here is hydrogen atom nucleus", as these are really not changed in the particles (well, almost).
-
let me put it this way, if the atoms themselves don't change, H2O, then what does?
What do you mean by "atoms don't change"?
Separate hydrogen atom have one electron on well defined orbitals. In water particle hydrogen atom doesn't have its "own" electrons - they are on molecular orbitals, so they belong to the whole particle. In case of oxygen atom some of its electrons are left on almost not changed atomic orbitals, but some of those most external (from so called valence shell) are on the molecular orbitals. Thus you can hardly say "this is hydrogen atom", at best you may say "here is hydrogen atom nucleus", as these are really not changed in the particles (well, almost).
okay lets go back a-bit. we know that both hydogen and oxygen are themselves, on there own, capable of producing liquids, at a low enough temp.( i think hydrogen is -256 cel. and oxygen is -236cel.).
how do we explain this state of liquidity, at very low temps., for both?
-
Intermolecular forces being strong enough to keep them together.
Same happens in water - but here intermolecular forces are much stronger, thus water is a liquid in much higher temp. And strength of these intermolecular forces in water is much higher thanks to the presence of molecular orbitals.
-
Intermolecular forces being strong enough to keep them together.
explain further.
Same happens in water - but here intermolecular forces are much stronger, thus water is a liquid in much higher temp. And strength of these intermolecular forces in water is much higher thanks to the presence of molecular orbitals.
this later.
-
Intermolecular forces being strong enough to keep them together.
explain further.
Sorry, but you have just crossed thin line where you get me irritated. What it is, an exam? I can help you understand some concepts but it is up to you to do some effort and some research.
-
The "state of liquidity" is nothing special. All molecular compounds will have a liquid state, as they will also have a solid and gas state as well. We can think of the states of matter as a competition between intermolecular forces (the forces which cause molecules to attract eachother) and thermal energy. When intermolecular forces are stronger than thermal energy, the molecules are attracted to eachother and stick forming solids (when the intermolecular forces are very strong) or liquids (when the intermolecular forces are relatively weak). On the other hand, in the gas phase, thermal energy is much stronger than the intermolecular forces so molecules interact minimally.
Water, which has fairly strong intermolecular forces due to it's permanent dipole (see previous post), exists as a liquid at room temperature because its intermolecular forces are strong enough to keep water molecules stuck to eachother at temperatures of up to 100C. Oxygen gas and hydrogen gas, on the other hand, exist as gasses at room temperature because their intermolecular forces are extremely weak and thermal energy easily separates molecules of oxygen and hydrogen. In order to produce liquid oxygen or hydrogen, one must reduce thermal energy until it becomes too weak to break the intermolecular attractions between oxygen or hydrogen molecules. This occurs at very low temperatures when there is little thermal energy.
But basically, you cannot compare hydrogen and oxygen to water because these are all separate compounds with completely different properties. By analogy, consider a cake. A cake is made from flour, eggs, baking powder, etc, yet it retains none of the properties of those materials. While I would gladly eat cake, I would not want to eat a mixture of flour, raw eggs, and baking powder. Similarly, water may be made from hydrogen gas and oxygen gas, but that does not necessarily mean that it retains the properties of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas.
After all, there are alternate routes to the synthesis of water. Water can be produced in the reaction of an alcohol and organic acid. Does this mean that water retains the properties of these materials also? No.
-
this is probably why one-particle isolated systems are easy enough to make measurements, but bring along several particles together and trying to measure each particle, and several different forces come into conflict, making it very hard, if not virtually impossible.
-
Intermolecular forces being strong enough to keep them together.
explain further.
Sorry, but you have just crossed thin line where you get me irritated. What it is, an exam? I can help you understand some concepts but it is up to you to do some effort and some research.
sorry it was some what of a dumb question :)
-
this is probably why one-particle isolated systems are easy enough to make measurements, but bring along several particles together and trying to measure each particle, and several different forces come into conflict, making it very hard, if not virtually impossible.
can i though, suggest this experiment;
take 1,ONE, hydrogen atom down too its liquid temp. and along the way( the gradual lowering of the temp.) measure what is happening to atom its self, from as many aspects as possible, from start of the experiment to the end.
-
that would be very difficult, i think. based on the uncertainity principle, the maximum error for the measurement of velocity and position of a particle at any time in space, is a constant, limited to what we can observe. that way, you cannot hope to measure the velocity of the atom accurately, and yet hope to measure the positon of the atom accurately too.
-
that would be very difficult, i think. based on the uncertainity principle, the maximum error for the measurement of velocity and position of a particle at any time in space, is a constant, limited to what we can observe. that way, you cannot hope to measure the velocity of the atom accurately, and yet hope to measure the positon of the atom accurately too.
true but;
as you drop the temp. of the atom itself the velocity and position of the atom, become more and more accurate.
for hydogen at -256degrees would you not consider this energy state, of hydrogen, a very STILL state of hydogen?
for is no the uncertainity principle based on "high energy measurments" and not low energy measurements?
the hydrogen atom maybe hard to detect, at first, but once detected should be easy to follow.
-
as you drop the temp. of the atom itself the velocity and position of the atom, become more and more accurate.
No.
for hydogen at -256degrees would you not consider this energy state, of hydrogen, a very STILL state of hydogen?
No.
for is no the uncertainity principle based on "high energy measurments" and not low energy measurements?
No.
the hydrogen atom maybe hard to detect, at first, but once detected should be easy to follow.
No.
-
as you drop the temp. of the atom itself the velocity and position of the atom, become more and more accurate.
No.
yes
for hydogen at -256degrees would you not consider this energy state, of hydrogen, a very STILL state of hydogen?
No.
yes
for is no the uncertainity principle based on "high energy measurments" and not low energy measurements?
No
yes
the hydrogen atom maybe hard to detect, at first, but once detected should be easy to follow.
No.
yes
-
Heisenberg uncertainty priniciple states that the product of the uncertainties of measurements of the conjugate quantities (for example time&energy, speed&position) can't be lower than h/4?. It doesn't state anything about energy scale, so it holds regardless of whether you are measuring resting atom position or position of atom accelerated to 0.999999c. This plus fact that observation changes state of the observed object makes answers to all your questions negative.
-
do not think of it from a god-point of view that is omniscient; think of how measurements are taken from a realistic viewpoint.
at -273.15o, the absolute zero temperature, all movement is reputed to cease. but it is a theoretical asymptopic minimum, so it cannot be reached.
the hydrogen atom maybe hard to detect, at first, but once detected should be easy to follow.
the thing is that u're trying to measure both conjugate quantities at the same point of time. making a measurement on the hydrogen atom changes its characteristics somewhat because of the method used (actually, all methods used), so after detecting it, u invariably change the hydrogen atom somewhat, its momentum or velocity, such that your next measured value for it is wrong.
-
You really can't replace scientific objectivity with stubborness...
Ever heard of hydrogen bonds? As said above, atoms do not have permanent dipoles, but molecules can have. Molecules with permanent dipoles are able to interact more strongly than those that can only interact through van der Walls interactions, because opposite charges are atracted to one another. Molecules spatially arrange themselves to maximize those interactions unless the thermal energy of the system is high enough to overrule it.
To see this from the standpoint of water, or it's characteristics is, I believe, unorthodox, because temperature is continuous beyond 0 Kelvin and ice melting at 0ºC isn't a tremendously important fact (not more than any other) in regard to the temperature at what O2 and H2 melt. It's just different relative positions in the scale that (theoretically) goes from 0 to infinity K. Is the melting point of water much more relevant than that of H2? It certainly is from a mundane point of view but not from a scientific one.
It's been said before, it's a balance between thermal energy of the system and the strengh of the bonds between the molecules or atoms that compose the system. I may be wrong, but I think there's no hidden truth here.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is world wide considered a scientific law because as to this date ther is not a single evidence that it is wrong in the conditions that it was estabilished, which are regarding particles at the quantum level. Speaking of the behaviour of single atoms and disregarding Heisenberg's principle can only be explained if there is evidence that it is wrong. If that is the case, I would be terribly eager to see those proof in a reviewed and published article. That kind of document would certainly find a space within Science.
-
You really can't replace scientific objectivity with stubborness...
Ever heard of hydrogen bonds? As said above, atoms do not have permanent dipoles, but molecules can have. Molecules with permanent dipoles are able to interact more strongly than those that can only interact through van der Walls interactions, because opposite charges are atracted to one another. Molecules spatially arrange themselves to maximize those interactions unless the thermal energy of the system is high enough to overrule it.
To see this from the standpoint of water, or it's characteristics is, I believe, unorthodox, because temperature is continuous beyond 0 Kelvin and ice melting at 0ºC isn't a tremendously important fact (not more than any other) in regard to the temperature at what O2 and H2 melt. It's just different relative positions in the scale that (theoretically) goes from 0 to infinity K. Is the melting point of water much more relevant than that of H2? It certainly is from a mundane point of view but not from a scientific one.
It's been said before, it's a balance between thermal energy of the system and the strengh of the bonds between the molecules or atoms that compose the system. I may be wrong, but I think there's no hidden truth here.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is world wide considered a scientific law because as to this date ther is not a single evidence that it is wrong in the conditions that it was estabilished, which are regarding particles at the quantum level. Speaking of the behaviour of single atoms and disregarding Heisenberg's principle can only be explained if there is evidence that it is wrong. If that is the case, I would be terribly eager to see those proof in a reviewed and published article. That kind of document would certainly find a space within Science.
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is still based on the amount of energy in either the system or atom and space, period. a specific water molecule and its position is easier to find if it is frozen ( it has not moved) than a molecule of water of steam.
the use of a multiple control system. rather than a one point control system. would be most helpful.
say for instance you have a molecule of water( at near freezing), then break off the hydrogen atom from that molecule, then control the position of that atom using multiple electron guns, three dimensionally, to hold the atom in a specific point.( to still it) then bring that atom alone to the liquidification temp. of hydrogen. as well, the space that the atom can exist is at the absolute minimum.( even if you do this alone, minimize space, the atom will lose kinetic energy and slow down)
-
that requires knowledge on where the hydrogen atom is in the first place.
but after finding out the position of the atom, the position will change; unless those electron guns can go back in time (by the time it takes for the photon that bounces off the atom to reach the detector and the electrons are fired, the atom has probably moved off already, at a very fast rate since you have not started to cool it yet.)
likewise, you can hope to predict the path the atom will move towards and fire the electron guns to hit a particular point ahead of time, but that requires knowledge on the velocity of the particle in the first place, and thus you cannot measure the position from which the atom travels through its predicted trajectory.
that theory of minimising space to reduce kinetic energy has its merits; this is the principle by which electrons occupy specific energy states, where the closer to the nucleus the electron is, the less energy it possesses.
by the way, what is your goal? i've lost track already :P
-
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is still based on the amount of energy in either the system or atom and space, period. a specific water molecule and its position is easier to find if it is frozen ( it has not moved) than a molecule of water of steam.
Common sense doesn't apply when talking about quantum phenomena because we live in a world where quantum effects aren't observable on a macroscopic scale.
-
gentleman
we can control the position of the of the hydogen atom( break off from the molecule) with the geometry of the electron guns position( and energy of the electrons used). therefore we can know the direction hydrogen atom will go and we can know speed of which the hydogen will leave the molecule. therefore both direction and speed of the hydrogen atom are simultaneously calculable.
-
yes, you can calculate both the speed and the direction of a hydrogen atom breaking off from a water molecule at the same time. i do not see any problem with that.
-
yes, you can calculate both the speed and the direction of a hydrogen atom breaking off from a water molecule at the same time. i do not see any problem with that.
great
so then an expeiment could be carried out ( not by me since i do not have the facilities or access to the facilities to carry out such an experiment) that we isolate a hydrogen atom, control its position, drop it down to the liquidifcation of hydrogen and see what happens!! is there any other reason that this expeiment could not be carried out.
it may be neccessary to add 1,2,3.. atoms of hydrogen to get a manifestation of hydrogens liquidity but i hope not,for this would add a complexity i would rather avoid.
i think, at least for me would be a fascinating and informative experiment. for it would show the mechanism by which lquidity forms. i hope.
does liquidity form because of the electron and/or of the energy within the space between the electron and proton and/or the magnetic field of the atom its self and any combination thereof. does the spin of the atom have anything to do with the liquidity of hydrogen. if so how so?
-
yes, you can calculate both the speed and the direction of a hydrogen atom breaking off from a water molecule at the same time. i do not see any problem with that.
With finite accuracy only.
-
yes, you can calculate both the speed and the direction of a hydrogen atom breaking off from a water molecule at the same time. i do not see any problem with that.
With finite accuracy only.
so it is possible.
and i'm assuming it will take some experiments to get the accuracy down pat. and once this is accomplished....
-
so it is possible.
and i'm assuming it will take some experiments to get the accuracy down pat. and once this is accomplished....
No, you will not get below Heisenberg uncertainty priniciple.
-
No, you will not get below Heisenberg uncertainty priniciple.
but he isnt trying to find the velocity at the same time; does that not make the range of accuracy for position increase asymptopically? only limit will be the instruments used i guess.
i think i get what u're driving at; search for Bose-Einstein condensate.
-
No, you will not get below Heisenberg uncertainty priniciple.
but he isnt trying to find the velocity at the same time; does that not make the range of accuracy for position increase asymptopically? only limit will be the instruments used i guess.
i think i get what u're driving at; search for Bose-Einstein condensate.
the instruments would be the limit.
lets say you have two chambers( in a pure vaccum), with a hole in the second chamber at the angle at which is calculated to be the angle at which the breaking off the hydrogen atom will move. you know angle and speed therefore you can close the second chamber after a given time. then have an electron gun at the exact angle at which the hydrogen atom will enter the second chamber so that the electron hits the hydrogen atom dead on, but with a cushioning affect on the hydrogen atom(slowing the atom down), then have a multiple electron guns to do the same, three dimensionaly.
xiankai
it could be a Bose-Einstein condensate that responsible for liquidity of hydrogen but it could be also something else. that is the fascinating part!!!
the thing is , is this , we can say how and why liquid hydrogen( and this is just the begining we havn't even touched on oxygen yet( which is liquid at -236C) and then there is molecule of then water, which is liquid at 0C) is, it is because of temp. but if someone asks a deeper question, " and this is because, of what?? we have no answer.
-
north, are you talking about a hydrogen ion (H+), a hydrogen atom (H.), or a hydrogen molecule (H2)?
With the data from this theoretical experiment, what results (velocity etc.) would be so ground-breaking? I have a feeling scientists have a good idea what happens to the molecules/atoms when they are liquified.
Melting points are all (I think!) due to intermolecular forces. Its worth having a good read-up on them. ;) I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_forces useful.
Good Luck! :)
-
north, are you talking about a hydrogen ion (H+), a hydrogen atom (H.), or a hydrogen molecule (H2)?
With the data from this theoretical experiment, what results (velocity etc.) would be so ground-breaking? I have a feeling scientists have a good idea what happens to the molecules/atoms when they are liquified.
just to be clear. this not so much about the velocity or position of the hydrogen atom( although it is important) but what this experiment is about, is to find the changes that the hydrogen atom itself goes through at extremely low temps. that manifests it liquidification,that is the ultimate point.
Melting points are all (I think!) due to intermolecular forces. Its worth having a good read-up on them. ;) I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_forces useful.
Good Luck! :)
melting point is an entirely differnet thing.
otherwise thanks for your response!!
i know what i propose is hard to wrap ones mind around, but try anyway.
look, ignor for know all complications. just think about this because hydrogen becomes extremely cold it becomes a liquid because why?? explain this beyond just because of temperature. is this not an interesting point of depth of thought!!?? i think so and that is why i propose the experiment that i do.
-
Definition of Temperature: the measure of average kinetic energy of particles in a substance.
Definition of Liquid: the state at which molecular vibrations/kinetic energy are unable to overcome intermolecular forces to a certain extent, but can still move around abit.
do note that the states of matter have no significance when describing a single atom. the states of matter arise because of the arrangement of the atoms. hence a solid state represents a closely packed arrangement of atoms, and a gaseous state represents atoms randomly moving very fast.
thus when hydrogen becomes cold, it just means that it has lost its energy, and hence cannot overcome intermolecular forces. if you are talking about a lone hydrogen atom, then the conventional states of solid, liquid, gases do not apply to it. you just measure it in terms of how much energy it possesses.
-
Definition of Temperature: the measure of average kinetic energy of particles in a substance.
Definition of Liquid: the state at which molecular vibrations/kinetic energy are unable to overcome intermolecular forces to a certain extent, but can still move around abit.
agreed
do note that the states of matter have no significance when describing a single atom. the states of matter arise because of the arrangement of the atoms. hence a solid state represents a closely packed arrangement of atoms, and a gaseous state represents atoms randomly moving very fast.
agreed
thus when hydrogen becomes cold, it just means that it has lost its energy, and hence cannot overcome intermolecular forces. if you are talking about a lone hydrogen atom, then the conventional states of solid, liquid, gases do not apply to it. you just measure it in terms of how much energy it possesses.
fair enough but my point of this experiment is still to see whether this lone atom of hydrogen( at its liquidifaction point -256C) possess any characteristics of a liquid in and of its self, in otherwords a very,very,very mi-nute drop of liquid. if it takes more atoms for the liquid state of hydrogen to show up so be it.( i have mentioned before that this might be necessary) but it would still be interesting to see what happens as we slowly add each atom, one at a time. what changes happen,why.
if the electons and protons of the atom, hydrogen, don't change in any way, shape or form whether it alone or in a molecule then the liquid form becomes the end result of a state beyond just a collection of atoms in which they themselves have fundamentally not changed.
-
i see your point.
so your "liquid" state of a hydrogen atom is the energy level at which the molecules are in a liquid state. thus when they are brought together, ceteris paribus, they should remain as a liquid.
this is not the case however. you realise that electrons and protons have an electric field surrounding them, due to the fundamental charges that they possess. it is the interactions of conflicting electric fields that lead to the different properties you observe.
also, the fields are not uniform (electrons move constantly, while protons move minutely). therefore 1+1 is not equal to 2 all the time.
with the conflicting changes in electric and thus, magnetic fields, the compound/molecule takes on different properties.
for example, you know that a change in electrical flux will make a change in magnetic flux. a hydrogen atom existing by itself will change its electric field due to the constant motion of its electron. but when u add in 2 more fields (the other hydrogen atom's electron and proton) the electric field will be distorted, will it not? that is why the properties are so different.
all these are more generally known as intermolecular or intramolecular forces, of course. they do not exist in single atoms, that is why single atoms are different from molecules/compounds/etc.
-
i see your point.
so your "liquid" state of a hydrogen atom is the energy level at which the molecules are in a liquid state. thus when they are brought together, ceteris paribus, they should remain as a liquid.
what if though, the original atom of hydrogen is at its "liquid" producing temp.(-256C) or its kinetic energy level that produces a liquid and so are all the introduced atoms added to the original hydrogen atom and that the chamber is a pure vaccum, they should remain a liquid.
this is not the case however. you realise that electrons and protons have an electric field surrounding them, due to the fundamental charges that they possess. it is the interactions of conflicting electric fields that lead to the different properties you observe.
true but they still together at the right kinetic energy level or temp. in hydrogen produce a liquid.
also, the fields are not uniform (electrons move constantly, while protons move minutely). therefore 1+1 is not equal to 2 all the time.
with the conflicting changes in electric and thus, magnetic fields, the compound/molecule takes on different properties.
the electric and magnetic fields of ALL the atom(s) would be, for the most part the same, because they are ALL at the same kinetic energy state.(-256C).
for example, you know that a change in electrical flux will make a change in magnetic flux. a hydrogen atom existing by itself will change its electric field due to the constant motion of its electron. but when u add in 2 more fields (the other hydrogen atom's electron and proton) the electric field will be distorted, will it not? that is why the properties are so different.
true adding an atom to another atom will initally have its affects not only the other(s) but also upon its self. however given the time at the right kinetic energy these inital affects will settle down, so that the molecule built will in time show a liquid property as a whole.
all these are more generally known as intermolecular or intramolecular forces, of course. they do not exist in single atoms, that is why single atoms are different from molecules/compounds/etc.
agreed
but i what i was driving at before is this, it maybe possible that one atom has within its self the ability to be a self sufficient atom to to speak, if brought down to the right kinetic energy level and if ALL subseqent atoms were at the SAME kinetic energy level as the first, then all you'd be doing is adding to the molecule until it reached a critical mass, in which, what we call a liquid, shows its self.
-
would anyone consider that because of the bonding that some sort of condensate is released because of the bonding? don't get me wrong( my fault AGAIN for being unclear) but i do appreciate that the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen is critical for the manifestation of the liquid we call water to exist in the first place. but i consider the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen to be like a "key" that unlocks some sort of energy and/or state which is the fundamental essence of the liquid we call water. for instance some sort of condensate or plasma? or what ever.
-
just to add;
the reason that i suggest some sort of condensate or plasma is because surely neither the proton or electron can be frozen( ice) but the resultant liquid, water can. in which i mean that liquid can reach states that the protons and electrons can't in and of themselves.
or is it possible to freeze either the proton or electron to become a solid in and of themselves?