# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?  (Read 29570 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #25 on: 27/01/2009 15:36:15 »
And another thing.

I was up on a wiki just before writing this:)
Just to check my views, ah, sort of:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

And now I got myself a new headache:)
We used to speak of black holes as something that could happen at all times.
Then for some year ago there came that theory stating that nothing ever could fall past the event horizon, if you remember:)

Looking at the wiki now I see that it states.

"A misconception concerning event horizons, especially black hole event horizons, is that they represent an immutable surface that destroys objects that approach them.
In practice, all event horizons appear to be some distance away from any observer, and objects sent towards an event horizon never appear to cross it from the sending observer's point of view (as the horizon-crossing event's light cone never intersects the observer's world line).

Attempting to make an object approaching the horizon remain stationary with respect to an observer requires applying a force whose magnitude becomes unbounded (becoming infinite) the closer it gets."

As well as...

"For the case of the horizon around a black hole, observers stationary with respect to a distant object will all agree on where the horizon is. While this seems to allow an observer lowered towards the hole on a rope to contact the horizon, in practice this cannot be done.

If the observer is lowered very slowly, then, in the observer's frame of reference, the horizon appears to be very far away, and ever more rope needs to be paid out to reach the horizon. If the observer is quickly lowered by another observer, then indeed the first observer, and some of the rope can touch and even cross the (second observer's) event horizon.

If the rope is pulled taut to fish the first observer back out, then the forces along the rope increase without bound as they approach the event horizon, and at some point the rope must break. Furthermore, the break must occur not at the event horizon, but at a point where the second observer can observe it.

Attempting to stick a rigid rod through the hole's horizon cannot be done: if the rod is lowered extremely slowly, then it is always too short to touch the event horizon, as the coordinate frames near the tip of the rod are extremely compressed.

From the point of view of an observer at the end of the rod, the event horizon remains hopelessly out of reach. If the rod is lowered quickly, then the same problems as with the rope are encountered: the rod must break and the broken-off pieces inevitably fall in.

These peculiarities only occur because of the supposition that the observers be stationary with respect to some other distant observer.

Observers who fall into the hole are moving with respect to the distant observer, and so perceive the horizon as being in a different location, seeming to recede in front of them so that they never contact it. Increasing tidal forces (and eventual impact with the hole's gravitational singularity) are the only locally noticeable effects.

While this seems to allow an infalling observer to relay information from objects outside their perceived horizon but inside the distant observer's perceived horizon, in practice the horizon recedes by an amount small enough that by the time the infalling observer receives any signal from farther into the hole, they've already crossed what the distant observer perceived to be the horizon, and this reception event (and any retransmission) can't be seen by the distant observer."

This seems to me as an even 'newer' definition.

Let us take this idea from the perspective of that 'in falling' observer.

I would expect him to fall 'in his time/frame' 'normally.
Without problems passing that event horizon, even though he would be 'dismembered' by the gravitational forces that lurks there.

As otherwise nothing ever could come over that event horizon.
And I don't think this idea is the same as the one saw last year?

I will try to look that one up too, but
Where is this proved?

By what experiments?

----

If you think of it it also seems to state that we will have an enormous amount of 'matter' resting(?) around that 'for ever receding' event horizon from the 'matters' perspective.
But never reaching any end (event horizon) ?
« Last Edit: 27/01/2009 20:02:38 by yor_on »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #26 on: 27/01/2009 16:25:42 »
I think you're right yor_on; Black Hole theory seems to be a work in progress. I can never get past the rule that total mass is conserved, even though there is a singularity that is like infinity. How does infinity + another chunk make more infinity ??

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #27 on: 27/01/2009 19:05:18 »
I think it's the same idea that I saw one year ago?
But now stated as a fact, in that wiki.

As I remember that idea said that there could be no 'new' black holes, as they all had to 'become' just after or in the Big Bang?

So how does it explain this?

"Using Chandra, scientists surveyed a sample of clusters and counted the fraction of galaxies with rapidly growing supermassive black holes, known as active galactic nuclei (or AGN).
The data show, for the first time, that younger, more distant galaxy clusters contained far more AGN than older, nearby ones. "
From http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.nl.html?pid=23101

And here is a timetable, anyone want to pinpoint when the Black holes came?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

" How can black holes destroy all traces of consumed matter and energy, as Hawking long believed, when subatomic theory says such elements must survive in some form?

Hawking's answer is that the black holes hold their contents for eons but themselves eventually deteriorate and die. As the black hole disintegrates, they send their transformed contents back out into the infinite universal horizons from whence they came. "

So according to Hawkins there won't be any mass transformed into energy then?
So maybe we are talking 'condensed matter' inside those, growing, black holes?

As I have great trouble seeing light as containing all 'information' of its state as 'matter'.
If the information isn't seen as the precise amount of energy needed to replace all that 'matter' disappearing/transformed.

If this is right and light is defined by its waves?
How would that 'information' be encoded?

(if it was something more to it than only its energy content.)

And would black holes then be the last place still containing 'fresh' energy.
As it should be extremly condensed inside 'there'?

« Last Edit: 27/01/2009 19:13:55 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #28 on: 27/01/2009 19:45:27 »
Also it seems that hawking radiation allows the negative part of the spontaneous 'pair particle creation' in space to reduce the mass of the black hole. That means that it actually have to pass the event horizon.
The positive particle will then be what creates the radiation?

---

Why I say that it has to pass the event horizon, is because otherwise that black hole would never disappear.
That as its creation was in the big bang and no amount of matter outside the event horizon (that this negative particle might destroy while 'never' coming to that 'receding' event horizon) would mean anything to that 'original' black hole.

Do I make sense here.
Or?
----------

Doesn't that mean that Black holes are tapping the universe of energy?
Or how does it keeps its 'balance'?

A black hole is defined as releasing no light/information.
And it doesn't, as the positive particle will be outside the EV and the negative goes away into the Black hole.

But it still ...must... communicate somehow.
To allow the 'balance' between this spontaneous 'nano timed' creation of particle pairs in empty space.
And the negation of mass that will answer inside that event horizon, to keep the universe balance of energy the same.
I find my views rather sane when reading this:)

Am I getting this wrong?

--

Is this an example of entanglement?
But it seems also as some sort of 'communication'?

Very strange:)

---------
« Last Edit: 27/01/2009 20:38:50 by yor_on »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #29 on: 27/01/2009 19:57:16 »
I don't think anyone has it exactly right yet. That's why it keeps changing. It seems that the event horizon has different consequences depending upon where it is described. Wiki has trouble keeping up:

The black hole information paradox results from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It suggests that physical information could "disappear" in a black hole. It is a contentious subject since it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that information cannot be destroyed. [1]

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #30 on: 27/01/2009 20:09:43 »
Maybe entanglement is the explanation?
But then it also seems as if the universe will know when one 'side' of this entanglement is destroyed?
And that it will treat that outside 'times' jurisdiction.
« Last Edit: 27/01/2009 20:14:50 by yor_on »

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 112
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #31 on: 28/01/2009 10:48:32 »
The more I'm learning the more I realize how complex the matter of black holes is. But I will know it.

Mass is not energy. It can be converted to energy but it's not energy itself.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #32 on: 28/01/2009 11:26:07 »
The more I'm learning the more I realize how complex the matter of black holes is. But I will know it.

Mass is not energy. It can be converted to energy but it's not energy itself.
Can you visualize the conversion process; or is it that one instant it is mass; the next instant it is energy.

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 112
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #33 on: 28/01/2009 13:34:06 »
If you're referring to nuclear reactions on stars like our sun then yes matter is converted into energy. However the reaction does not go with an energy to matter conversion. Matter just changes in form i.e Hydrogen <-> Helium.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #34 on: 28/01/2009 13:53:35 »
If you're referring to nuclear reactions on stars like our sun then yes matter is converted into energy. However the reaction does not go with an energy to matter conversion. Matter just changes in form i.e Hydrogen <-> Helium.
Yes; but one thing becoming another thing over a period of time involves a process. There are intermediate steps in processes. Can you imagine the process by which matter becomes energy. John Wheeler imagined a process where the core of matter gave up its energy and disappeared into a sort of space foam. I didn't like that scheme.

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 112
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #35 on: 28/01/2009 14:12:26 »
That doesn't sound too scientific. My assumption is that if you look into the sub sub sub atomic particles you'll find that they are made of energy. Now my other assumption is that there is only one type of energy from which atoms are made. It can be felt as warmth but differs from potential and kinetic energy. It may be kinetic energy but I wouldn't be too quick to make that conclusion.

What makes sub atomic particles different is how this energy behaves. As at now I assume this behavior may be frequency of motion or type of motion or both.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #36 on: 28/01/2009 14:58:01 »
What makes sub atomic particles different is how this energy behaves. As at now I assume this behavior may be frequency of motion or type of motion or both.
When we allow electrons and positrons to collide we see them become photons of electromagnetic energy. Maybe the energy was photons all along; maybe it was just trapped in a pattern to form the electron and positron.

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #37 on: 28/01/2009 16:19:18 »
Mass is not energy. It can be converted to energy but it's not energy itself.
Infact. Mass is not "energy", is "energy in a fixed region of space".

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #38 on: 28/01/2009 16:34:25 »
Mass is not energy. It can be converted to energy but it's not energy itself.
Infact. Mass is not "energy", is "energy in a fixed region of space".
I like your description, lightarrow, especially that two photons moving relative to each other form a system that is itself mass.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11732
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #39 on: 29/01/2009 06:57:08 »
So if light is the equivalence to mass?

Does space 'bend' inside a particle accelerator?
And photons near the Sun traveling away, shouldn't they create gravitational effects too?

Have we measured that?

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 112
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #40 on: 29/01/2009 09:37:53 »
Vern, that is quite possible. I've always believed that atoms are made of energy. In fact we might just be on our way to make matter out of energy if we understand this secret. Photon energy or not but it must be something in those lines.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #41 on: 29/01/2009 12:43:50 »
So if light is the equivalence to mass?

Does space 'bend' inside a particle accelerator?
And photons near the Sun traveling away, shouldn't they create gravitational effects too?

Have we measured that?
I don't know how we could determine whether space bends inside a particle accelerator.

We know that there is more gravity than there should be in most galaxies. I don't know if the calculations account for the thousands of years worth of photons and ions thrown out by those galaxies. That is a good question, but we generally assume that the amount of gravity resulting from the thrown out debris would be small relative to the total mass of the galaxy.
« Last Edit: 29/01/2009 12:53:35 by Vern »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #42 on: 29/01/2009 12:52:21 »
Vern, that is quite possible. I've always believed that atoms are made of energy. In fact we might just be on our way to make matter out of energy if we understand this secret. Photon energy or not but it must be something in those lines.
I think recent experiments produced particles of mass from energy alone. I'll look for the research notes.

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 112
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #43 on: 29/01/2009 14:14:11 »
I think I would like to lay my hands on that information. It might just bring an end to all these lies about black holes.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #44 on: 29/01/2009 14:22:04 »
I think I would like to lay my hands on that information. It might just bring an end to all these lies about black holes.
Ok; here it is.  BTW they are not lying; they are true believers; but being true believers they have a stake in the outcome of debates about the existence of Black Holes.
Quote
OUT OF PURE LIGHT, PHYSICISTS CREATE PARTICLES OF MATTER
September 16, 1997
A team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing, creating particles of matter from ordinary light for the first time. The experiment was carried out at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) by scientists and students from the University of Rochester, Princeton University, the University of Tennessee, and Stanford. The team reported the work in the Sept. 1 issue of Physical Review Letters.
Scientists have long been able to convert matter to energy; the most spectacular example is a nuclear explosion, where a small amount of matter creates tremendous energy. Now physicists have succeeded in doing the opposite: converting energy in the form of light into matter -- in this experiment, electrons and their anti-matter equivalent, positrons.
Converting energy into matter isn't completely new to physicists. When they smash together particles like protons and anti-protons in high-energy accelerator experiments, the initial particles are destroyed and release a fleeting burst of energy. Sometimes this energy burst contains very short-lived packets of light known as "virtual photons" which go on to form new particles. In this experiment scientists observed for the first time the creation of particles from real photons, packets of light that scientists can observe directly in the laboratory.
Physicists accomplished the feat by dumping an incredible amount of power -- nearly as much as it takes to run the entire nation but lasting only for a tiny fraction of a second -- into an area less than one billionth of a square centimeter, which is far smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. They used high-energy electrons traveling near the speed of light, produced by SLAC's two-mile-long accelerator, and photons from a powerful, "tabletop terawatt" glass laser developed at Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics. The laser unleashed a tiny but powerful sliver of light lasting about one trillionth of a second (one picosecond) -- just half a millimeter long. Packed into this sliver were more than two billion billion photons.
The team synchronized the two beams and sent the electrons head-on into the photons. Occasionally an electron barreled into a photon with immense energy, "like a speeding Mack truck colliding with a ping pong ball," says physicist Adrian Melissinos of the University of Rochester. That knocked the photon backward with such tremendous energy that it collided with several of the densely packed photons behind it and combined with them, creating an electron and a positron. In a series of experiments lasting several months the team studied thousands of collisions, leading to the production of more than 100 positrons.
The energy-to-matter conversion was made possible by the incredibly strong electromagnetic fields that the photon-photon collisions produced. Similar conditions are found only rarely in the universe; neutron stars, for instance, have incredibly strong magnetic fields, and some scientists believe that their surfaces are home to the same kind of light-to-matter interactions the team observed. This experiment marks the first time scientists have been able to create such strong fields using laser beams.
By conducting experiments like this scientists test the principles of quantum electrodynamics (QED) in fields so strong that the vacuum "boils" into pairs of electrons and positrons. The scientists say the work could also have applications in designing new particle accelerators.
Spokesmen for the experiment, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, are Kirk McDonald, professor of physics at Princeton, and Melissinos, professor of physics at Rochester. Also taking part in the experiment were William Bugg, Steve Berridge, Konstantin Shmakov and Achim Weidemann at Tennessee; David Burke, Clive Field, Glenn Horton-Smith, James Spencer and Dieter Walz at SLAC; Christian Bula and Eric Prebys at Princeton; and seven other physicists from Rochester, including Associate Professor David Meyerhofer; graduate students Thomas Koffas, David Reis, Stephen Boege, and Theofilos Kotseroglou; research associate Charles Bamber; and engineer Wolfram Ragg.
________________________________________
CONTACT: Tom Rickey, (716) 275-7954.
« Last Edit: 29/01/2009 15:11:01 by Vern »

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #45 on: 29/01/2009 20:41:54 »
Excuse me Vern, but if in that experiment they needed electrons (massive particles) to convert photons into other massive particles, then we already knew that gamma photons with energy exceeding 1022 KeV generate couples electrons/positrons when colliding with a nucleus.
Furthermore, if we can use mass to convert photons into more mass, then it would be much more simple just to take a piece of black paper and put it under the sun (as I already wrote in a recent thread).

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #46 on: 29/01/2009 21:02:09 »
That was back in 1997 when there was a big debate going on where one group insisted that a nucleon must be part of any mass producing process. I think this experiment was to rule out the need for the nucleon. That's why they could get away with using an electron to create the great amounts of energy.

Previous experiments had used electron positron collisions to create more electrons and positrons and the particle zoo of particles. Using photons as one of the collision partners was just icing on the cake, I guess.

Yep; they could have just absorbed light into paper, but paper had nucleons in it.
« Last Edit: 29/01/2009 21:20:17 by Vern »

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 112
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #47 on: 30/01/2009 07:41:39 »
What's all this about black paper producing mass under the sun. Is that true?

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #48 on: 30/01/2009 10:24:36 »
What's all this about black paper producing mass under the sun. Is that true?
Actually, anything that absorbs energy must convert the energy into mass. In fact the only way we can observe photons of energy is to convert them to mass. So I like to think of photons as potential mass.

So; yes that is true.
« Last Edit: 30/01/2009 11:10:39 by Vern »

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 112
##### Can an electron collapse into the nucleus?
« Reply #49 on: 30/01/2009 14:08:10 »