The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?  (Read 171799 times)

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1832
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
... not QM stuff.
aid=P8fZ2oSGqsg

Interesting link, but it might be better to stick to the QM stuff to answer the OP's question.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
... not QM stuff.
aid=P8fZ2oSGqsg

Interesting link, but it might be better to stick to the QM stuff to answer the OP's question.

What's QM answer to what force canceled out the attraction force between nucleus and electrons so electrons able to levitate at atom radius?

Been asked few times, haven't seen any comment on that. Why?

 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1880
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
The electrons aren't levitating at an atom's radius, they're just that big. Consider them as waves rather than particles--the wave just can't fit in a space as small as the nucleus. For the simplest case, a single proton with a single electron in the lowest energy level (a 1s orbital), the density of the electron *is* greatest right near the proton, but there is significant electron density as far as ~1 Å from the proton. Try not to think of it as a tiny particle that is either close to the nucleus OR far from it, but a smooshed-out particle cloud that is close to AND far from the nucleus.

Does that help?
If visualizing this is difficult, look at the diagrams:
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/3081/3155040/blb0606/6.20.gif
http://0.tqn.com/d/np/einstein/176-1.png
or do a google image search for "electron density orbitals" or something along those lines (that's how I found these)
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1832
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Another way of visualising the scenario is to think of the electron as a standing wave and the orbital as a line on which the wave sits.  Only a fixed number of half wavelengths will fit on that line.  Thus the electron remains in that orbital unless/until it loses/gains just the right amount of energy to shed/gain a half wavelength, and thus jump either down or up to an orbital that will accommodate its new number of half wavelengths.

I know this is an oversimplification that doesn’t include the whole picture and that experts might shoot it down in flames, but it helped me.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
You guys didn't answer the question at all.

The question is about force, what force balanced out 10^34g between proton and electron in hydrogen atoms?

But appreciate is the same, have a good one!

 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1880
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
If the electron is uniformly distributed around the nucleus, the force balances out. In this sense "orbit" is somewhat of an accurate analogy. What "force" keeps the moon away from the Earth?
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
If the electron is uniformly distributed around the nucleus, the force balances out. In this sense "orbit" is somewhat of an accurate analogy. What "force" keeps the moon away from the Earth?

A proton and an electron make a hydrogen atom. The two charges are separated by atom radius. I see the attraction force, where/what is the force to balance it?

The moon is circling the Earth, centrifugal force balanced out gravitation.

Use the same mechanism/principle, atoms will not work/form at all.

Atom structure is not similar like solar system at all, between electron and proton there are two forces at work, attraction and repelling. Much like bound by a spring.

Seems you have no clue about my ideas posted. Or you don't agree with. It's all good. 
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
... not QM stuff.
aid=P8fZ2oSGqsg

Interesting link, but it might be better to stick to the QM stuff to answer the OP's question.

You really feel/think so? Why? Because of QM is mainstream or more logical?
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1880
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
Imagine for a moment that a proton is a ball the size of a grain of sand, and the electron is a cloud the size of a zeppelin. They are both charged to the same magnitude but with opposite charge. The proton's charge is highly localized, the electron's is diffuse but somewhat "squishy." They will be attracted to each other, and eventually the two will have the exact same center. The electron cloud totally surrounds the nuclear grain and is so symmetrically distributed that every pull on one end of the cloud is exactly counteracted by the identical pull of the nucleus on the other end (both are pulled toward the nucleus, but the force is equal and opposite in Cartesian coordinates)

Any attempt to move the electron's center away from the proton's center will be opposed by the electrostatic attraction, but the two literally can't get any closer to each other, so they don't.

You may ask what is the "pressure" that keeps the electron inflated/keeps the cloud from collapsing down to a point the size of the proton. That has already been explained on this thread. Near the beginning. This is one of the many hideous faces of uncertainty. If the proton were somehow able to constrain the electron to a smaller volume, the electron's velocity would be more variable, and it would ultimately go fast enough to return to a larger area of occupancy.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Imagine for a moment that a proton is a ball the size of a grain of sand, and the electron is a cloud the size of a zeppelin. They are both charged to the same magnitude but with opposite charge. The proton's charge is highly localized, the electron's is diffuse but somewhat "squishy." They will be attracted to each other, and eventually the two will have the exact same center. The electron cloud totally surrounds the nuclear grain and is so symmetrically distributed that every pull on one end of the cloud is exactly counteracted by the identical pull of the nucleus on the other end (both are pulled toward the nucleus, but the force is equal and opposite in Cartesian coordinates)

Any attempt to move the electron's center away from the proton's center will be opposed by the electrostatic attraction, but the two literally can't get any closer to each other, so they don't.

You may ask what is the "pressure" that keeps the electron inflated/keeps the cloud from collapsing down to a point the size of the proton. That has already been explained on this thread. Near the beginning. This is one of the many hideous faces of uncertainty. If the proton were somehow able to constrain the electron to a smaller volume, the electron's velocity would be more variable, and it would ultimately go fast enough to return to a larger area of occupancy.

 A cloud the size of a zeppelin. Hit by a photon, jump out atom to become an electron?  Give me some of your lsd watered weed please.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1880
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
I am not suggesting that the electron cloud turns into a point-charge after interacting with a photon. I am also not claiming that it is easy to wrap one's mind around the first time through. However, I do think that the QM model of atoms, molecules and light is a very good one, and yes, it even becomes intuitive once you think about it enough. (lsd watered weed helps, of course)
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
I am not suggesting that the electron cloud turns into a point-charge after interacting with a photon. I am also not claiming that it is easy to wrap one's mind around the first time through. However, I do think that the QM model of atoms, molecules and light is a very good one, and yes, it even becomes intuitive once you think about it enough. (lsd watered weed helps, of course)

Finally you summed it up, good job!
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
If we  break proton in hydrogen atom into quarks, hydrogen atom will be no more. Left about 1% mass - electron and 3 quarks.

The missing mass should be converted to energy.

Agree?
 

Offline UltimateTheory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
    • Ultimate Theory of the Universe
If we  break proton in hydrogen atom into quarks, hydrogen atom will be no more. Left about 1% mass - electron and 3 quarks.

The missing mass should be converted to energy.

Agree?

This would break baryon number conservation.

Currently the only known way to extract energy stored in proton, is annihilation with antiproton.

f.e.
p+ + p- -> pion0 + pion0 + pion0 + kinetic energy spread across these particles.

Proton and antiproton have together 2 * 938.272 MeV = 1876.544 MeV
Pion0 rest mass is 135 MeV, so 3*135 MeV = 405 MeV
The rest is in kinetic energy of newly created particles.

pion0 is unstable particle and quickly decaying to

pion0 -> y + y
or
pion0 -> y + e+ + e-

Other sources mention up to 9 pions (also charged) (theoretically up to 13 mesons can be created)
So if we will have 2 pion+ and pion- and 5x pion0 it's 2*139 MeV + 5*135 MeV = 953 MeV energy in rest mass of newly created particles. The rest in kinetic energy.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 01:29:58 by UltimateTheory »
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
If we  break proton in hydrogen atom into quarks, hydrogen atom will be no more. Left about 1% mass - electron and 3 quarks.

The missing mass should be converted to energy.

Agree?


Currently the only known way to extract energy stored in proton, is annihilation with antiproton.

f.e.
p+ + p- -> pion0 + pion0 + pion0 + kinetic energy spread across these particles.

Proton and antiproton have together 2 * 938.272 MeV = 1876.544 MeV
Pion0 rest mass is 135 MeV, so 3*135 MeV = 405 MeV
The rest is in kinetic energy of newly created particles.


Find a better way, antiproton is too pricy.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Electron carries 1 negative charge, proton carries 1 positive charge.

Why proton carries 939 Mev but electron only carries so little energy?

Is that suggesting that energy is negatively charged? Stored within protons force field?

All the energy released since big bang filled space and connected it into an EM field.

All things in space/universe is connected by this EM field.

When a charged particle accelerates, its force field produce a pressure wave into surrounding EM field, travel away at light speed.

So far, do you agree the logic?




 
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 02:54:13 by jccc »
 

Offline UltimateTheory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
    • Ultimate Theory of the Universe
Electron carries 1 negative charge, proton carries 1 positive charge.

Why proton carries 939 Mev but electron only carries so little energy?

938.272 MeV proton
0.5109989 MeV electron

Is that suggesting that energy is negatively charged? Stored within protons force field?

There is no such thing as negative energy..

Antiparticle has positive energy. Dirac was mistaken. He plug Einstein equation E=m*c^2 to Planck E=h*f, and though that antielectron will have negative frequency, negative mass, etc.
But the all people who can calculate decay energy and decay modes of unstable isotopes will tell you it's wrong. Positron (antielectron) has positive energy.

All the energy released since big bang filled space and connected it into an EM field.

All things in space/universe is connected by this EM field.

When a charged particle accelerates, its force field produce a pressure wave into surrounding EM field, travel away at light speed.

So far, do you agree the logic?

No.

Pressure wave? In front of particle? There is no experiment confirming such behavior.

Charged particle is emitting photons when it's changing direction or is decelerated, or intercepted by other charged particle (like f.e. electron intercepted by proton).

f.e. if I will use Cockcroft-Walton generator to produce 10 kV, and plug electrodes to vacuum tube, electrons kinetic energy inside of tube will be 10 keV,
if such highly accelerated electron will collide with something between electrodes like piece of metal, there will be emitted photon up to 10 keV (x-ray)
and electron will be slowed down, decelerated.
X-ray will fly through tube, then through walls, then will ionize air or other material behind it, leaving trace in Cloud Chamber.
You can see it on your own eyes, if you will build Cloud Chamber and Cockcroft-Walton generator for less than $100
http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2014/6/8/how-to-build-cloud-chamber-particle-detector
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Electron carries 1 negative charge, proton carries 1 positive charge.

Why proton carries 939 Mev but electron only carries so little energy?

938.272 MeV proton
0.5109989 MeV electron

Is that suggesting that energy is negatively charged? Stored within protons force field?

There is no such thing as negative energy..

Antiparticle has positive energy. Dirac was mistaken. He plug Einstein equation E=m*c^2 to Planck E=h*f, and though that antielectron will have negative frequency, negative mass, etc.
But the all people who can calculate decay energy and decay modes of unstable isotopes will tell you it's wrong. Positron (antielectron) has positive energy.

All the energy released since big bang filled space and connected it into an EM field.

All things in space/universe is connected by this EM field.

When a charged particle accelerates, its force field produce a pressure wave into surrounding EM field, travel away at light speed.

So far, do you agree the logic?

No.

Pressure wave? In front of particle? There is no experiment confirming such behavior.

Charged particle is emitting photons when it's changing direction or is decelerated, or intercepted by other charged particle (like f.e. electron intercepted by proton).

f.e. if I will use Cockcroft-Walton generator to produce 10 kV, and plug electrodes to vacuum tube, electrons kinetic energy inside of tube will be 10 keV,
if such highly accelerated electron will collide with something between electrodes like piece of metal, there will be emitted photon up to 10 keV (x-ray)
and electron will be slowed down, decelerated.
X-ray will fly through tube, then through walls, then will ionize air or other material behind it, leaving trace in Cloud Chamber.
You can see it on your own eyes, if you will build Cloud Chamber and Cockcroft-Walton generator for less than $100
http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2014/6/8/how-to-build-cloud-chamber-particle-detector

Awesome! Thanks!

Please comment on the following thoughts.

The strongest positive force field in nature is very next to a proton.

The strongest negative force field is also very next to a proton, composed by negative charged energy/enertron.

Energy is thought to be infinity small negative charged particles each carries a fiction of an electron's charge.

In nature, proton attracts all negative charges, electrons and enertrons compete accelerating to proton. Enertrons win the race, it has more charge to volume ratio. 

Enertrons form a ball around proton, density = 1/r^3 from proton. Electron levitate at atom radius where protons attracting force equals to enertron ball repulsion force.

 

Offline UltimateTheory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
    • Ultimate Theory of the Universe
Electron you can see in Cloud Chamber as trace made by particle, especially when it has large kinetic energy (f.e. electron from beta decay-).

Unlike your particle.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If you were to have a pole mounted in the centre of a pool and were to generate a wave around the periphery that moved toward the centre it would be interesting to see what the effect would be. Water is a good medium for modeling wave-like phenomena.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
This site has some interesting representations of what matter waves may look like.

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-wave-structure/wave-structure-la-freniere.shtml
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
This site has some interesting representations of what matter waves may look like.

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-wave-structure/wave-structure-la-freniere.shtml

Unfortunately, those plots are nonsense.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3931
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
This site has some interesting representations of what matter waves may look like.

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-wave-structure/wave-structure-la-freniere.shtml

Unfortunately, those plots are nonsense.

I didn't say they were valid. What interests me are inward traveling waves and what effects they would produce. Throughout the universe we have converging gravitational waves. This could be represented by a perfect sphere with a perfect spherical cavity at its centre.
« Last Edit: 19/07/2014 19:55:18 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Please comment on the following thoughts.

The strongest positive force field in nature is very next to a proton.

The strongest negative force field is also very next to a proton, composed by negative charged energy/enertron.

Energy is thought to be infinity small negative charged particles each carries a fiction of an electron's charge.

In nature, proton attracts all negative charges, electrons and enertrons compete accelerating to proton. Enertrons win the race, it has more charge to volume ratio. 

Enertrons form a ball around proton, density = 1/r^3 from proton. Electron levitate at atom radius where protons attracting force equals to enertron ball repulsion force.
You already have my thoughts on some of this. I.e. first off you're talking about something that doesn't exist so it's either imaginary, like a unicorn, or it belongs to a New Theory. If it's the later then this is the wrong forum. If indeed it is a new theory and this is a new particle from that theory then you could at least tell us where this notion came from. I.e. what made you start talking about a thing called an "enertron" and then refuse to tell us what it is every time I've asked you what it is? It's hard to help you when you do things like that. And you know me my friend. I do want to help you. :)

I'll go as far as I can with what I have; you wrote
Quote from: jccc
Please comment on the following thoughts.

The strongest positive force field in nature is very next to a proton.
What is the source of this force? Are you talking about the electric force? If so then that's not the strongest force in nature. The strong force is much stronger. Also since you said that it's the strongest positive force then the sign being positive means that its repulsive. However the strong force is attractive for all nucleons, both protons and neutrons. So you have a contradiction here.

Quote from: jccc
The strongest negative force field is also very next to a proton, composed by negative charged energy/enertron.
Here's where you've lost connection with mainstream science. You're asking about things that don't exist and expecting physics to give you an appropriate and correct answer. Why are you doing this my friend?
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4131
  • Thanked: 249 times
    • View Profile
Quote
inside nucleus, gravity plays a big deal due to f=m1m2/r^2

Newton's theory of gravity states that f=Gm1m2/r2

The missing term is G, which is approximately equal to 6.7×10−11 N m2 kg−2

So this comparison between gravity and the electrical field is off by about 11 orders of magnitude.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums