[lightarrow]

Ok, I'll try to break it down.

1. I wrote "Are you saying that only a 'quark gluon soup' will 'break down' atoms.
And that photons can't do that to a single atom.
Well, I was wondering in what way radiation (photons) might 'break down' a atom.
shouldn't it be able to? "

About 'quark gluon soup' I don't think physicists knows a lot more than the bare name, and you want to discuss the effects on an atom? Optimist!  []
Photons can break down an atom by:
a) giving it enough energy to expel electrons through electromagnetic interaction;
b) kick off electrons through Compton scattering (higher energies);
c) collide with nuclei breaking them apart (even higher energies)
... don't know (even higher energies);

2. " I understand what you say about temperature being a statistical concept .
But as soon we have photons interacting with a atom it will be a 'real' concept again, right? " (that is, a 'working again' concept)

Can you make a specific example of what you want to say? For example (don't know): "Given a single free atom in space....interacting in this way...with a photon...is it possible to say that the atom's temperature is varied?" or anything else, but very specific, please.

3. What then followed was just me wondering where that definition might have originated.

You mean the definition of temperature? It comes from thermodynamics, which consider macroscopic, not microscopic, objects. Temperature is defined as the Average kinetic energy of the particles when they are in thermal equilibrium, that is when they have already exchanged their energies in a way that depends on the system considered, for example for an atomic gas the distribution of their velocities must be a Maxwellian. Do you find a simple way to extrapolate from this the concept of temperature for a few or, worse, for a single particle?

I wrote "Am I right in assuming that this reasoning goes back to that nothing can be seen as having any values without having any 'interaction' and subsequent, or, 'observation'."

This has "half" to do with the concept of temperature; half because it doesn't consider the fact that temperature is defined for macroscopic objects only.

[yor_on]

Ok, I'll try to break it down.

1. I wrote "Are you saying that only a 'quark gluon soup' will 'break down' atoms.
And that photons can't do that to a single atom.
Well, I was wondering in what way radiation (photons) might 'break down' a atom.
shouldn't it be able to? "

About 'quark gluon soup' I don't think physicists knows a lot more than the bare name, and you want to discuss the effects on an atom? Optimist!  []
Photons can break down an atom by:
a) giving it enough energy to expel electrons through electromagnetic interaction;
b) kick off electrons through Compton scattering (higher energies);
c) collide with nuclei breaking them apart (even higher energies)
... don't know (even higher energies);

2. " I understand what you say about temperature being a statistical concept .
But as soon we have photons interacting with a atom it will be a 'real' concept again, right? " (that is, a 'working again' concept)

Can you make a specific example of what you want to say? For example (don't know): "Given a single free atom in space....interacting in this way...with a photon...is it possible to say that the atom's temperature is varied?" or anything else, but very specific, please.

3. What then followed was just me wondering where that definition might have originated.

You mean the definition of temperature? It comes from thermodynamics, which consider macroscopic, not microscopic, objects. Temperature is defined as the Average kinetic energy of the particles when they are in thermal equilibrium, that is when they have already exchanged their energies in a way that depends on the system considered, for example for an atomic gas the distribution of their velocities must be a Maxwellian. Do you find a simple way to extrapolate from this the concept of temperature for a few or, worse, for a single particle?

I wrote "Am I right in assuming that this reasoning goes back to that nothing can be seen as having any values without having any 'interaction' and subsequent, or, 'observation'."

This has "half" to do with the concept of temperature; half because it doesn't consider the fact that temperature is defined for macroscopic objects only.

Thanks Lightarrow, I can see why you balked at my question(s)
So temperature is a concept for macroscopic objects.

Can one define what happens as 'temperature' when one isolate a atom and then 'shoot' photons on it with a laser?

Reading what you wrote I started to look for it on the net.
I must admit that until now I've never wondered about what the properties/interactions of just one atom might be though.
http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08041422
But they define it as a molecule?

Why?
It is one atom and photon(s) interacting?

To be a molecule they must treat the photons as particles it seems to me?
((My kind of scientists:

Yes SC, a joke, a most harmless joke...
( Now seen to most bravely running for cover, while swearing to itself that never more lend itself to be expressed at a physics forum

And it seems very reasonable to see temperature as a macroscopic object/expression.
And not expect the same behavior at a quantum level:)

Depressingly little do I know:)
But most happily so:

-------

This article is interesting too.

If one read to the end where it state that " researchers could poke atomic-sized holes in the membrane and use the system to study how single atoms or ions pass through the opening."
"This could serve as sort of an artificial analog of an ion channel in biology," McEuen said -- or as a way to measure the properties of an atom by observing its effect on the membrane. "You're tying a macroscopic system to the properties of a single atom," he said, "and that gives opportunities for all kinds of single atom sensors."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080922122519.htm

[lightarrow]

Thanks Lightarrow, I can see why you balked at my question(s)
So temperature is a concept for macroscopic objects.

Can one define what happens as 'temperature' when one isolate a atom and then 'shoot' photons on it with a laser?

Temperature cannot be defined; you can define the atom's mass, momentum, energy (kinetic or else) but not its temperature. We have also discussed it a little here:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16205.0

Reading what you wrote I started to look for it on the net.
I must admit that until now I've never wondered about what the properties/interactions of just one atom might be though.
http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08041422
But they define it as a molecule?

Why?
It is one atom and photon(s) interacting?

To be a molecule they must treat the photons as particles it seems to me?
((My kind of scientists:

It's a new kind of quantum system (we know only the most simple ones), called "molecule" to mean a sort of "aggregate" among the atom and the photons. I had never known about it before, very interesting!
Photons can never be treated as waves only or as particles only and this is another example; you need QED to treat this system.

[geoff]

yor-el
hi in reply to your liking the idea of a light bulb stripping electrons ,it fairly easy with low energy levels .in my understanding every layer of electrons in an atom is held by an electrostatic attraction that equates to electron volts the more layers the higher the voltage ,suppose a black hole could thoought of as one single atom with all mass that falls into it dividing into nuclei and electrons ,how many shells of electrons w(c)ould there be apply e=mcsquared thatb is a lot of energy at what point would the attractions break down and it be striped  of its layers ,I dont think I would want to be near by .
its one atom that will not be affected by HUP indeed it might affect the observer.
that was what I was thinking

[geoff]

sorry yor-on
yor el
if I remember right was supermans father.
Geoff

[yor_on]

It's cool
I see how you thought now.

And I still like that atom.
Son:

----
Btw: Didn't mean to sound arrogant.

I did like the idea.
A good imagination is cool.

[geoff]

Hi Guys
Thanks for your conversation ,
I have Learned a great deal and now possibly see temperature as a different concept when applied to a single atom ,If I understand it right .
Temperature is the interaction between atoms in groups ie in molecules .
but when you get to the atomic level then energy is the currency of temperature ,be it from photons or any other source .
So effectivly then atoms dont melt or cannot melt at any enegy level ,but they can be smasshed ie cern etc .
Is it possible then for the constituent parts be totally destroyed ?
or am I into the realms of matter anti matter?


Geoff   

[lightarrow]

Hi Guys
Thanks for your conversation ,
I have Learned a great deal and now possibly see temperature as a different concept when applied to a single atom ,If I understand it right .
Temperature is the interaction between atoms in groups ie in molecules .
but when you get to the atomic level then energy is the currency of temperature ,be it from photons or any other source .
So effectivly then atoms dont melt or cannot melt at any enegy level ,but they can be smasshed ie cern etc .
Is it possible then for the constituent parts be totally destroyed ?
or am I into the realms of matter anti matter?


Geoff  

I don't know how to totally destroy an electron if not with a positron (I don't mean that this is the only possibility, but that I don't know).

[Rocky6419]

Hi everyone, here I can tell you why atoms are not melted:
Atoms are not melted because atoms by themselves are not connected with any other atom and the state of matter is dependent that many atoms are connected with each other, so there is no such thing in it that is going from solid to liquid.

[yor_on]

Ouch, seeing all those fat yellow moons the TNS update left after it in my posts. I like this a lot better.

:)
=

There used to be, if I don't remember it wrongly, a global setting changing this behavior, that has disappeared, just as Lightarrow. And I miss them both :)

[alancalverd]

Melting is the transformation of a solid into a liquid. An atom is neither a solid nor a liquid but could be a part of either.