electricity and atoms

jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
electricity and atoms

I was wondering...what exactly happens atomically when electricity is introduced to atoms? Like lightning or radiation or whatever else that is electrically charged. Is it that the atoms' electrons speed up, reearange, and move between the different atoms present in the electrical blast range?

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote:

jread wrote:

I was wondering...what exactly happens atomically when electricity is introduced to atoms? Like lightning or radiation or whatever else that is electrically charged. Is it that the atoms' electrons speed up, reearange, and move between the different atoms present in the electrical blast range?

Electricity is the movement of electrons. A lightning bolt is an electrical discharge when electrons flow between the charged cloud and the ground.

Atomically not much changes. Atoms contain one or more electrons, and highly conductive materials, such as metals, are often made of atoms with many electrons. Most electrons are tightly held by the protons in the nucleus, and only the outer electrons are free to move from atom to atom, which creates an electric current. You could think of the electrons as flowing over the surface of atoms, moving from one to the next. (obviously this is a simplified explanation).


In6Days
Theist
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-01-24
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote: I was

jread wrote:

I was wondering...what exactly happens atomically when electricity is introduced to atoms? Like lightning or radiation or whatever else that is electrically charged. Is it that the atoms' electrons speed up, reearange, and move between the different atoms present in the electrical blast range?

As Fish said, a flow of electrons is electricity. So lightning is a flood of electrons that have been stripped off of their atoms, and are attracted to the ground. The electrons do not actually originate in the cloud, but are stripped off of the atoms in the air. In metals, such as wire, the outer electrons are so loosely held, that they will become dislodged, and be shared amoung the nearest atoms. When an electric charge is applied to this wire, the electrons start to flow, which is again, electricity.

When you have electrically charged radiation, alpha and beta particles, amoung others, they are actually the result of changes, commonly from nuclear decay, in the composition of the nucleus of the atom. These generally are not involved in electric flow, but you mentioned radiation, so there is the basic info.

What you refer to with electrons speeding up is the absorption of a photon, packet of light. If a photon collides with an electron, the electron will gain energy, and speed up. If the light is the correct frequency, the electron that absorbs it will be dislodged from its atom, and create a flow of electricity. This is called the photoelectric effect, and won Albert Einstein the Nobel Prize for its discovery.

You might as well get some trivial with your answer Smiling .

Clearly, I have simplified some topics, but that should be the basics.


Ubermensch
Ubermensch's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
In6Days wrote: This is

In6Days wrote:

This is called the photoelectric effect, and won Albert Einstein the Nobel Prize for its discovery.

 Einstein didn't discover the photoelectric effect, it was a well known effect at the time.  He got the Nobel Prize for being the first to explain it with QM (in terms of light quanta).

Scientific illiteracy is reality illiteracy.


In6Days
Theist
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-01-24
User is offlineOffline
Ubermensch wrote: In6Days

Ubermensch wrote:
In6Days wrote:

This is called the photoelectric effect, and won Albert Einstein the Nobel Prize for its discovery.

Einstein didn't discover the photoelectric effect, it was a well known effect at the time. He got the Nobel Prize for being the first to explain it with QM (in terms of light quanta).

My mistake.  I misunderstood.  He discovered the current explanation for it.   


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Ubermensch wrote:

Ubermensch wrote:

Einstein didn't discover the photoelectric effect, it was a well known effect at the time. He got the Nobel Prize for being the first to explain it with QM (in terms of light quanta).

Einstein didn't explain it with QM but rather, his explanation is one of the milestone that set the stage for quantum mechanics... It was inspired from Max Planck's black-body radiation explanation in 1900 and was followed by Louis de Broglie generalization of wave-particle duality to every particle in 1924.

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
    Thanks for the nice

    Thanks for the nice clarification everyone. I feel a lot better about electricity and atoms. My question was prompted because I was trying to understand how electricity came into play during the Miller-Urey experiments i.e. why they used electricity in their experiments.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote:     Thanks

jread wrote:
    Thanks for the nice clarification everyone. I feel a lot better about electricity and atoms. My question was prompted because I was trying to understand how electricity came into play during the Miller-Urey experiments i.e. why they used electricity in their experiments.
Why Miller and Urey used electricity is elementary. It was a phenom present at the time and it was easily reproducible. It is doubtful such a specific stimuli is necessary for life. When Mas, Europa, Titan, and Enclades are properly explored, it will floor me if primative life is found on NONE of them. So far as we know, water+carbon=life. It's not been demonstrated to be so, yet, but we both know it is only a matter of time. Then what? What apologetic excuse comes next?

And for the record, the M-U experiment has been repeated considering obvious varibles with similar results. For your Christ's sake, why you are threatened by electricity forming complex organics is beyond me. You KNOW how we got here, GOD DID IT.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

 

And for the record, the M-U experiment has been repeated considering obvious varibles with similar results. For your Christ's sake, why you are threatened by electricity forming complex organics is beyond me. You KNOW how we got here, GOD DID IT.

 

Haha. You are hitting the nail on the hard aren't you?

I presume, (if I may paraphrase what you are saying so that I know I am understanding you correctly) that you are wondering why experiments like M-U's matter to me, if I being a theist, presumes to already know how life on earth was created?

That is often a question that I've been replaying in my head as of late. Honestly, I don't have an answer for you yet beyond the simple fact that I find the abiogenesis theories interesting and intriguing.

I understand you to be essentially challenging my intentions because they seem to repel my faith-based beliefs.

Possible Scenario: Researching the origins of life on earth without God, seems to suggest that I don't think God did it. If I did believe that God did it, then I wouldn't bother researching the scientific theories because God did it.

My reply: The key word that I hate in living according to this scenario's recommendations is "bother". I interpret this "description" to be an admission of laziness and fear on behalf of the God believer.

My personal view on this faith-challenging research is the following:

(1)If God exists, and is all powerful, and he can provide strength and salvation within his believers, then I don't see how researching and learning could somehow usurp that power of faith in God.

(2)If the faith I have is in something that is existent and true, then researching science with an open mind shouldn't shake my faith.

(3)The bible says that "man's knowledge" is lesser in comparison to God's knowledge. I am testing and learning man's knowledge for my own benefit; I don't want to just ignore it. If man's knowledge is truly lesser (as the Bible says), then I should not be deeply impacted by its knowledge in a negative way in relation to my faith.

I hope this provides you with a little insight into my thinking.

Lastly, I don't pretend to know that God created the universe; instead, I believe that he did. However, I don't believe in ignoring scientific attempts to explain how things like life and the earth came about. I want to understand the scientific theories as best I can because if I believe that God did it, and leave it at that, then what would I have to research with and learn about the origins of life on Earth?

I realize this may sound stupid or self-defeating, a pointless endeavor, if I insist on still believing in God during my research in a typically God-less field of science. But please, trust me when I say that I am trying to be open minded and un-biased all the while. I don't want to just assert God in the gaps of science.

I would much rather see the current limits of science and wonder along side the scientist with an educated perplexity and gather my own opinions about the unknown beyond. I don't think science would gripe with that.

If you want an inside look into my head, I would tell you that it seems more like a Christian leaning towards questioning his beliefs, rather than a Christian safely sheltered in bias and blind-faith.

 

 

 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   yeah cool AC / DC ,

   yeah cool AC / DC , dancing electrons

When the religious people asked the greatest scientist of all ,  "but how does it work?" he answered I don't fucking know , that's why I am a scientist ..... Smile

One of the best was nailed to a cross .... he got a bad rap .... someone lied .....


bdebruler
Posts: 9
Joined: 2008-01-21
User is offlineOffline
Ionization!

Lightning would undoubtedly cause a large number of atoms and molecules in the immediate area to become ionized, and potentially much more reactive. Some would simply lose electrons, others may react with other ions. The idea is that zapping a basic mixture of elements, gives it a nice source of starting chemical reactions, in a random way, using a source of energy that was present on early earth.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
bdebruler wrote:Lightning

bdebruler wrote:
Lightning would undoubtedly cause a large number of atoms and molecules in the immediate area to become ionized, and potentially much more reactive. Some would simply lose electrons, others may react with other ions. The idea is that zapping a basic mixture of elements, gives it a nice source of starting chemical reactions, in a random way, using a source of energy that was present on early earth.

And it has the ring of Mary Shelly, life from non-life, feel to it.

 

I can only imagine what they would have done if something went horribly wrong. . .

"It's ALIVE! No, wait. It has streptococcus. Urey, fire all the interns."