An atom consists of 99 % empty space. Why are we, and other matter, not transparent?
354495
A complex question that needs a highly simplified answer.\n\nA photon of light has different energy depending on the type of light, some light does go through us, but that ight is not visible to us.\n\nX-rays for example pass through things nicely, however they can be blocked sometimes by dense material (such as bone and metal), X-rays are a higher energy than visible light.\nEven higher energy is Gamma rays... a photon of this form of light can theoretically pass through several metres of lead, sometimes more.\n\nAt the other end of the spectrum is Infra red light, which is just outside our visibilty, when you feel it, it is heat. Consider that it can be easily insulated just by putting some sort of thick barrier between you and it.\nAlpha and beta radiation are such low energy that they are actually particles (fast travelling helium, and protons respectively). an alpha particle can be blocked by a thin piece of paper. A beta particle can be blocked by your skin.\n\nNow... visible light is between the extremes of theose above. As an experiment hold a torch to the palm of your hand and you can actually see light coming through. SO some light does get through. But most of it does not.\n\nVisible light is a happy medium with just enough energy for us to see. Any more energy or any less energy in the light and life would be difficult\n\nConside that if we could only see gamma rays then we would not see much at all, because the gamma rays would not bounce off anything.\nAt the other end, if we could only see beta particles then the world would be very dark because all the beta particles would be absorbed before they reached us.
170260
Space is not a perfect vacuum devoid of particles, atoms, or molecules, it is a partial vacuum.  It is just that the density of matter in space is so small that it doesn't apply pressure against the balloon. If the balloon pops, the air inside the balloon is dispersed at the molecular and atomic level since air is comprised mostly of molecules: O2, CO2, CH4
873154
Substances exist if they have a volume. Anything that has no volume is only imaginary.\nMasses exist in a form of volume structure with a mixure of space substance.\nHence,some masses are so small that they  cannot be visible. That doesnot means they dont exist or that they are considered massless because of being so small. This has been a misconception in the case of Photons. The atomic mass structure shown in the Periodic talble of elements is basically made up of complex atomic structures.. Never the less the atoms are all composed of the same substance,and all these substance have volume.\nSo atoms exist as they do because they are entity with volume. If it it was not so, they would not exist in our physical world.\n\nNow if they are substances outside of the Universe which are different,we have no scientific way presently to observe them.\n\nSo when Physics theories talk about masseless substance such as Photon and neutrinos etc. they are only conjecturing. And I only believe what appears to be real with actual positive proof.\n\nThe states in which atomic structures appears depend on their response to gravity pressure.and the temperature inside the atoms.\n At different temperature mass structure can appear as solid ,liquids ,gas or a gaseous ionized state called plasma.And most important of all the state of space substance which is the fifth state of matter.\nThese five states of Nature had been pondered upon by the Ancient Greeks such as Aristotle and others.
514555
Space consists of nothing!\n\nSpace is mostly empty, with a spattering of matter in the form of galaxies, which are drifting further and further away from each other as time moves in the +ve direction.\n\nMatter and energy are mutually convertible.\n\nTime is the fourth dimension, and an important function of entropy or the running down of things.\n\nAs time moves in the +ve direction i.e. forward, entropy increases, things get run down and the energy dissipates over the expanding universe, as does matter, that means that as time goes by, the average density of the universe as we know it reduces, the matter-energy per unit area also reduces.\n\nAs time moves backward, entropy reduces, the space reduces to a point and matter and anti-matter coalesce to nothingness.\n\nst
453117
How can you have something if nothings there? Atoms are made up or protons, neutrons, and quarks which are the basic building blocks of matter. Well at least until someone discovers there made up of something else lol!
62346
the atom is the most basic unit of matter
749920
Yes, that's why.  The first answerer is correct, too--we can't make a lens powerful enough to see an atom--but the reason why we can't is that the wavelength of visible light is larger than an atom.
874263
Particle theory of matter suggests that matter is made of tiny pieces with much space. One support for the idea is when they learned to shoot   particles, and most of them went right through, very few hit a nucleus. They were using a sheet of gold.
468423
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRUE VACUUM... PERIOD!\n(exerpt from a previous answer)\nContrary to popular belief, empty space is not empty, and it is certainly not a vacuum. In fact, a true vacuum has never been created, anywhere, where the atomic count is zero.\nresearch it, its true.\n"Empty" space actually contains an average of 1 hydrogen atom for every 32 cubic centimeters of space, this data is per NASA.\n\nIn our own Milky Way, space is more dense with 1 hydrogen atom for every 1 cubic centimeter.\n\nOne day the misinformation of space as a vacuum will finally die out.\n\nSo YES, a dead body would decompose eventually, How long would depend on the bodies proximity to other planetary bodies such as the sun, the earth,etc., and how long it stayed in space before falling into an orbit around one of those entities.\n\nspread the knowledge
524044
Light is not actually a physical substance.  It is made up of photons.  Photons are electromagnetic energy.  They contain no mass, no electrical charge, and last indefinitely.  \n\nLight needs to reflect off of something else to be visible.  Everything we see around us is reflecting light.  When we see something, we are actually seeing light.  In fact, light is all our eyes can actually see.  We are never actually seeing the object -- just the light reflected from it.\n\nIn space, there is a void.  No atmosphere.  No particles to reflect the rays as they spill through space.  That is why in space you can't see the rays of light pass by.  They have no mass of their own, and they have no concentration of particles in their path to reflect their energy.  \n\nYou might consider some of the links below:
928403
You must be one of those people who only believe in things they can tactilely handle.  The world of incredibly small objects will be a philosophical challenge, but I'm sure you're up to it.   \n\nFirst, let me give you the short and easy answer:  \n\nThe entire universe runs on a few very simple mathematical equations.  The solution of these equations is extremely difficult, but they perfectly predict and describe physical reality (when solved perfectly), so we're pretty happy with them.  \n\nMathematically speaking, orbitals and electrons exist, and because they exist and have certain properties, they must obey certain rules.  One of those rules is that only two electrons can ever fit into the same orbital, and they have to have opposite spin.  Any random orbital may have zero, one or two electrons but no more because if you tried to shove a third (or more) electron into an orbital, the orbital would vanish.  Think of it this way... its the only way that the elctrons can forever coexist without ever crashing into each other or falling apart in a chaotic state, because electrons (by Coulomb's law) HATE each other and strive to maintain maximum distance from one another while all trying to get close to the positively charged nucleus, which they LOVE.\n\nNow for the long answer:\n\nBefore you can accept that two electrons go into an orbital, you need to be able to accept that electrons exist.  JJ Thompson is credited with discovery (though not postulation of) the electron in his famous cathode ray experiments.  Electrons are evidenced regularly on a macroscopic scale through the use of electricity (the name is not coincidental!) and in such interesting objects as scanning tunneling microscopes and electron microscopes.  Robert Miliikan managed in 1901 to measure the charge on the electron in his oil-drop experiments.\n\nAn important piece of information came through Ernest Rutherford's (and his students Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden) experiments on gold foil wherein they demonstrated that the mass of an atom resided in a small region of space in its center, which had a positive charge.  Later, Niels Bohr proposed that electrons reside in orbits around the nucleus, which would contain the protons and neutrons (both already demonstrated to exist independently).  The usefulness of Bohr's model was widely realized because it could predict experimentally observed phenomena, such as why atomic emission spectra have discrete lines while blackbody radiators give broad spectra.  \n\nA key moment in Bohr's theory was the existence of discrete energy states (that is, well-separated) that electrons could exist in.  The electrons could change energy levels, but could not occupy any energy states between those energy levels. The idea was hardly unique to Borh, having originated with Max Planck and Albert Einstein in reference to photons; yet its application to the atom was Bohr's own contribution.\n\nThis theory was pretty good, but it was a little rough.  Many very good physicists decided to work on the combination, including Paul Dirac and Erwin Schrödinger.  The final equation describing the behavior of quantum systems (and in particular atomic structure and the resultant properties) is known as the Schrödinger equation.  Solution of the Schrödinger equation provides perfect agreement with experiment (i.e. Balmer series of hydrogen) where the solution is exactly possible, and within experimental error where it is not. The Schrödinger equation is a simple, elegant, yet frighteningly hard mathematical equation relating the energy of a system to its wavefunction descriptor (remember, Einstein already showed wave-particle duality):\n<Ψ | H | Ψ > = E\n\nMax Born showed that if you multiply the wavefunction ( Ψ) from the Schrödinger equation by itself (i.e. Ψ*Ψ ) you will get a shape that corresponds to the region of space in which electrons that can exist in that level of energy (wavefunction) mo
838195
Good question - it depends on which theory you want to use. Currently, it is estimated that there are 5 hydrogen atoms per cubic metre. But this does not necessarily mean that there is "nothing" between these atoms.\n\nAccording to quantum physics, even the space that we most often referred to a a vacuum, may be composed of various exotic unobservable (for now) components.\n\nIn quantum physics a vacuum is not the same thing as "nothing." One theory supposes that all space is filled with the Higgs Ocean composed of an undetected Higgs field.\n\nThe current idea in quantum physics is that the only place where there is "nothing" is between the strings making up all matter and energy. The concept of "nothingness" is a complex and extensive subject and very difficult for us to visualize.\n\nOf course there is much more to these concepts than a few words in a brief paragraph can relay.\n\nGood Luck
250715
Atoms do have empty spaces but these spaces are according to their size not ours let me elobrate first that we are not composed of atoms we are composed of cells if any one says atoms then tell that person that atoms are non living whereas cells are living some part of our body are dead cells like nails hairs dead skin at the knuckles etc but the rest is all living cells.\n\n\nThings don't fall through other things because they are levitating on an electrostatic field! I am not kidding! When you sit on a chair, you are not really touching it. You see, every atom is surrounded by a shell of electrons. This electron cloud presents a rather negative face to the world. Remember that like charges repel each other. When two atoms approach each other, their electron shells push back at each other, despite the fact that each atom's net charge is 0. This is a very useful feature of nature. It makes our lives a lot easier.\n\nNow the question you should be asking is, if atoms push away from each other, why doesn't the entire universe just blow away from itself? The answer is that some, actually most atoms' electron shells are not full. When two atoms come together and have empty spaces in their electron shells, they will share electrons to fill in the spaces in both of their shells. Yes, the electrons really do go back and forth between atoms and they do so pretty fast. Electrons tend to be kind of mobile, which is also a very nice feature of nature, since without it your walkman would not work. Once both atoms' outer shells are full due to this electron sharing, they go back to their usual repulsive behavior. This, by the way, is how we get molecules and the secret to understanding Chemistry. It's all about the electrons!
1057782
If all matter is over 90% empty space, then there should theoretically be small vacuums throughout the entire universe.  However, such a vacuum would be impossible to detect, contain, or sustain.\n\nPerhaps beyond the edge of the universe, a perfect vacuum exists.  All the matter/energy ever can only take up so much space.  However, there is no way to observe or reach that vacuum either.\n\nMmmm... uncertainty!
606473
Quite frankly, we don't know. Like listed above, there is a variety of smaller particles that we have been able to smash an atom into. However, each time we build a bigger smasher, we get new particles. The thought is that there is a fundamental particle that is no longer divisible, but I don't think science has commited to it yet.
1124878
It is all throughout space if it exists.  You can't see it because...well...it is dark ;0)
278842
Disregard butchtroll, he doesn't know anything and is obviously just guessing.\n\nA absolute zero, although practically impossible to reach, it is theoretically very easy to calculate. Just assume that all particles have a velocity of zero, and calculate the lowest potential structure according to the lennard-jones potential and possible electro-static potential. The result concludes a structure quite similar to crystals at living-room temperature.\n\nButch - practically as in cannot be obtained through anything but theoretical experiments. Although, temperatures can actually be achieved that is sufficiently low to allow, in some degree, to regard matter as having a temperature of absolute zero. Theoretically, if such matter should exist, it would affect the universe in any significant way. That the universe cease to exist if absolute zero was reached, would be a prerequisite, not a result. You can do that math yourself and see if it is possible - or borrow the particle similator program I've written.\n\nmore: I find it funny that you preach about humility, after calling me an idiot. Especially after mixing different types of energy together and calling the lot for temperature. Sure, if an atom contain absolutely no energy, it would collapse into a black hole. But temperature is NOT a measure of total energy.\n\nyet more: Still you call me an idiot, and still you attempt to call humiliary high ground. I'm not saying I know everything myself - but wheter temperature is all energy, or just momentum of "particles", is pretty far from'everything'. As a student in nanotechnology, I can honestly say that, you sir, are blinded by your own feeble knowledge of physics. Temperature of matter is usually described as the summation of vibrational, momentum, rotational energy and phonons. NOT electronic excitation or any kind of potential energy.\n\nYour question was inane, and I *did* answer it. Nothing would happen with the universe if a cloud of hydrogen would suddenly come into existence with a temperature of zero kelvin. If you don't understand what I'm writing, just say so, instead of stating that I didn't answer your question.\n\nWhat do you attempt to prove with your citation? You seem lost, sir?\n\nWhat do you need a value of? What the temperature of the solid hydrogen would be after 1 second? Sorry, but I don't care enough to calculate how much a certain amount of hydrogen crystal would increase in temperature from background radiation.