A HYdrogen atom has one valence electron. This electron is in the first electron ring or orbit which can hold two electrons. Because it only has one valence electron, it wants to become like the noble gas He, so it can become more stable. The noble gas He has 2 valence electrons, thus filling up the first energy ring. Since adding one valence electron would fill up the energy level, the Hydrogen atom wants to gain another one and will take it, or share it with another atom. So Hydrogen gas exists as H2 because there are a whole bunch of Hydrogen atoms in a system, but since they all want one more electron, they will bond with each other, and will form H2. AboveAlpha - - - Updated - - - And if you say that an Electron is NOT a Quantum Particle/Wave Form you will be laughed off this forum by anyone with a remedial knowledge of physics and chemistry!!! LOL!!! AboveAlpha
Good question, easy answer. All of it. Let's take H2. You said Hydrogen in nature tends to exist as H2. That's absolutely false and myopic. Yes hydrogen gas on Earth tends to exist as H2, and at low temperatures H2 is a common form of hydrogen. However, hydrogen exists on Earth in a much, much greater quantity as H2O. In our solar system, hydrogen is most abundant in the Sun. It doesn't exist there as H2 (mostly), it exists as a monatomic plasma. That's only our Sun, in the rest of stars we've measured it also exists as a monatomic hydrogen plasma. You can find H2 in interstellar space, as molecular clouds, but those pale in comparison to star composition. In regards to quantum behavior, I can't make any sense of your sentence, so you'd have to avoid the gibberish and make a coherent point in English.
You are quite possibly the most lacking in basic physics and chemistry members I have met here as of yet!! Let's tale this statement of yours....Quote...."However, hydrogen exists on Earth in a much, much greater quantity as H2O."...end quote 10a. H2 is A Hydrogen Elementary Molecule Gas as 2 Hydrogen Atoms share a single Orbit of 2 Electrons and when there are 2 Electrons in the First Orbit that Orbit is FULL. H20 is WATER NOT HYDROGEN GAS and the fact you would even say something this stupid amazes me!!! It is not worth talking to a person who is completely clueless. AboveAlpha
Your statement: In Nature Hydrogen tends to exist as H2. You're right, it's not worth talking to someone who thinks hydrogen existing in a liquid molecule does not mean hydrogen existing in nature (or as plasma in all the stars in the universe). Goodbye. I knew I was wasting my time.
The "unified fleld theory" describes any attempt to unify the fundamental forces of physics between elementary particles into a single theoretical framework while the relationship between energy and matter is simply the mathmatical equation of E=MC^2 that established that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. That is a huge difference between a huge amount of energy (i.e. 299,792,458 metres per second times 299,792,458 metres per second or basically 9x10^16) and an infinitesimally small amount of matter (mass). To give some physical perspective if energy was "grains of sand" it would probably require the number of "grains of sand required to fill the entire cosmos" to create a single gram of matter from energy. The very equation E=MC^2 is beyond the capability of most people to imagine and even nuclear physicist use symbols as oppose to actual numbers in doing their calculations because the numbers are so large. A large computer can crunch the numbers but they are beyond the ability of even a genius to calculate manually. Energy is so concentrated that it is almost beyond imagination. For example the gravitational force of a single grain of sand effects an entire galaxy. I don't think we can even really imagine that but we know that a grain of sand has that much gravitational energy contained in it's mass. It won't move the galaxy very much but it will move it.
Guys you should listen to AboveAlpha. He's using all the right words regarding atomic bonding, that I learned in college chemistry.
Oh, well large (and small) numbers don't frighten me. I'm a Java programmer and I have my BigDecimal class arbitrary precision arithmetic. I'm good to 300 decimal places of precision, that's how much I trust my computer to do in a reasonable amount of time, less than a minute. My only problem comes in when I have to use an advanced math function like trigonometry or square root, which I have to program manually using basic operations. Well, the E=mc2 may be unimaginable to most people but if we're using simple energy formulas this has me wondering whether there might also be magnetic formulas as well ... I don't remember what units I saw regarding magnetism that made me think of this... perhaps joule. Oh well, I'm not looking it up. As far as concentration of energy and photons go I just imagine they might use a wall of photons and when they collide it will produce massive amounts of matter ingredients. But releasing controlled photons on such scale might just be wishful thinking on my part.
An electron has got a very tiny mass, but the mass is there, so it's proper matter. Technically "matter" is all what is made by elementary fermions, the leptons, [electron is a lepton]. Furthermore, we should remind that a particle acquires a mass interacting with the Higgs field [thanks to the notorious boson which existence has been proved at CERN]. This was for accuracy.
I believe I see the problem. You're equating all particles as being the same. They aren't. I should have said from the beginning that they are "degenerate matter", that is, particles that are part of an atom. This doesn't make them matter since matter is comprised of atoms.
Now that I think about it...what is matter, at its smallest level? Matter is energy, fields and information. So, if one could convert energy into matter, you would be converting energy into fields and information, while keeping the energy. Sounds like a highly impossible complex thing. How to convert energy into a field, and information?
Yes, you can convert energy to matter, but you would need the energy equivalent of over 600,000 tons of TNT to produce 1 ounce of matter. Not very practical.
Not so fast... http://www.computerworld.com/article/2845897/scientists-raise-doubts-over-discovery-of-elusive-god-particle.html
I'm not doing any such thing. So you're using a definition of matter that no physicist alive would accept. Got that about right, haven't I?
No. it's exactly what any physicist would accept. I didn't realize you're playing a game. Maybe you should do some research instead of being silly. I should have suspected that with your massive particle post. If you're not being silly or playing a game then you know very well that what I've provided is accurate and that should be the end of it. Perhaps you might care to put up some evidence to the contrary.
Why the hell should I do that when you've produced no evidence for the affirmative? I mean hell, it ain't like it would take more than one citation from a working or retired physicist to prove me wrong.
Mass times the constant squared.... Does mass have to fall under the definition of matter?....anyway... nothing and something is the same thing IMHO.
