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 171667 times)

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
When we put matter into liquid nitrogen, atom's orbital/shell/wave should crash like a glass doom under high pressure,
Forget it. The interaction between proton and electron in an atom has nothing to do with thermal excitement.
Anyone made you believe it, has studied physics on comics...

--
lightarrow
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
When we put matter into liquid nitrogen, atom's orbital/shell/wave should crash like a glass doom under high pressure,
Forget it. The interaction between proton and electron in an atom has nothing to do with thermal excitement.
Anyone made you believe it, has studied physics on comics...

--
lightarrow

The strong attraction force fade away under QM laws seems more comic to me and lot others.

So far we don't even sure if the electron is orbiting, is that a fact?

 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
At 0 degree k, all particles stop motion, certainly there would be no orbiting or standing wave happening, how could  two opposite charges in atom keep a distance?

Strong force bond positive and negative quarks together, why not bond electron into nucleus?

Thinking about it often times got me very emotional, why why why? Pull my hairs off, pull more. I hate science.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
The strong attraction force fade away under QM laws seems more comic to me and lot others.
What is "strong attraction force"? And what do you mean "fade away under QM laws"? If they are what I think they are then any comic appearance is merely ignorance of the subject matter.

Quote from: jccc
So far we don't even sure if the electron is orbiting, is that a fact?
No. That's not a fact. We are very sure about what's going on. Electrons in atomic orbitals have a very specific meaning in quantum mechanics. "orbit" is just doesn't have the same meaning I QM than it does in classical mechanics. I've already explained many times what it means so I won't repeat myself.

Quote from: jccc
At 0 degree k, all particles stop motion,...
That's not true. First off it's not phrased as "0 degrees K". That's a common misunderstanding. It's phrased as "0 K". There's no "degrees" when it comes to Kelvin. 0 K only means that all atomic and molecular motion ceases. It doesn't refer to subatomic particles like electrons.

Quote from: jccc
... certainly there would be no orbiting or standing wave happening, how could  two opposite charges in atom keep a distance?
This is a mistake based on your misunderstanding of what 0 K means.

Quote from: jccc
Strong force bond positive and negative quarks together, why not bond electron into nucleus?
Because the strong force only acts between nucleons. That's because gluons mediate the strong force and gluons only mediate the strong force between quarks and not between electrons and nucleons/a nucleus.

I wish you'd consider a serious study of physics rather then being all over the place haphazardly. You're going to get frustrated like this as I see you getting now. If you learn it like us physicists do then you'd learn a lot more.
« Last Edit: 26/07/2014 18:15:07 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
The explanation for why an electron does not fall into the nucleus comes from a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Put simply, it states that you cannot know the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. More rigorously stated, the product of the uncertainty of the position of a particle (Δx) and the uncertainty of its momentum (Δp) must be greater than a specified value:

ΔxΔp≥ℏ2


Now, as the electron approaches the nucleus, it's uncertainty in position decreases (if the electron is 10nm away from the nucleus, it could be anywhere within a spherical shell of radius 10nm, but if the electron is only 0.1nm away from the nucleus, that area is greatly reduced). According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, if you decrease the uncertainty of the electrons position, the uncertainty in its momentum must increase. This increased momentum uncertainty means that the electron will be moving away from the nucleus faster, on average.

Put another way, if we do know that at one instant, that the electron is right on top of the nucleus, we lose all information about where the electron will be at the next instant. It could stay at the nucleus, it could be slightly to the left or to the right, or it could very likely be very far away from the nucleus. Therefore, because of the the uncertainty principle it is impossible for the electron to fall into the nucleus and stay in the nucleus.

In essence, the uncertainty principle causes a sort of quantum repulsion, that keeps electrons from being too tightly localized near the nucleus.

Quantum repulsion? My head is exploding.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Why is moving object slow down and stop? Because it get's tired.

Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons? Because there is quantum repulsion at work.

See the similarity?

In quantum world, black is white, white is black. Don't ask me why, it just be that way.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Joey,

Before I respond I want to ask you a question. Your response will determine if and how I help you again. I only say "if" because I ask these questions of you so that I'm able to properly respond to your many questions. Okay?

Question: Why don't you ever answer any of the many questions that I ask you? I only ask them so I can better respond to the questions you ask me. So when you don't respond you're only hurting yourself.

Quote from: jccc
Is there any attraction force stronger than proton and electron at atom radius distance?
No.

Quote from: jccc
Yes, when the distance decreased.
That's incorrect because in your question you wrote at atom radius distance which means at a particular fixed distance. When you said "when the distance decreased" you changed the question making it an unfair question.

Quote from: jccc
Electrons orbiting or not? Is there always acceleration between nucleus and electrons?
You should know the answer to this by now. Why do you keep asking it? I already told you that the concepts of velocity and acceleration at distances so small have no meaning whatsoever. I'm spending my summer doing a review of quantum mechanics using the text Introduction to Quantum Mechanics - Second Edition by David J. Griffiths. After the author derives the expression between d<x>/dt and the wave function on page 16 the author writes
Quote from: David J. Griffiths
What are we to make of this result? Note that we're talking about the "velocity" of the expectation value of x, which is not the same thing as the velocity of the particle. Nothing we have seen so far would enable us to calculate the velocity of a particle. It's not even clear what velocity means in quantum mechanics: If the particle doesn't have a determinate position (prior to measurement), neither does it have a well-defined velocity.

Since you keep asking questions such as Electrons orbiting or not? I can't see an end to it. Therefore I won't be responding to them again.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Pete, I went to college study physics and organic chemistry for 3 years. Bad bad score.

Don't remember your other questions, if I had the answers, should be replied.

All my confusion is very simple, my mind cannot imagine how subatomic world functioning according to what I read.

Is there a book less math more explanation about atomic structure? Everything I read online helped me little.
Such as quantum repulsion stuff. Not one place has a straight/decent answer to OP's question. How do you think I found this forum? I googled the OP"s question. So many people are like me, very simple and basic question.



 


 
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Pete, I went to college study physics and organic chemistry for 3 years. Bad bad score.
Then you know math and physics then. That helps me a great deal.

Quote from: jccc
All my confusion is very simple, my mind cannot imagine how subatomic world functioning according to what I read.
It's not just you, Joe. Nobody understands it. That's how the Shut up and calculate rule came to be created.

Quote from: jccc
Is there a book less math more explanation about atomic structure? Everything I read online helped me little.
Such as quantum repulsion stuff.
What are you talking about when you write quantum repulsion stuff? This is the kind of question I've been asking all this time that never gets answered.

Quote from: jccc
Not one place has a straight/decent answer to OP's question.
That's because everybody thinks differently.

Quote from: jccc
Why is moving object slow down and stop? Because it get's tired.
No object in existence is like that. E.g. if you had an object in a vacuum in flat spacetime in an inertial frame and it had a constant velocity to start then it's velocity would remain at that velocity until something brought it to a stop. It would require doing work on the body to bring it to a halt.
« Last Edit: 27/07/2014 00:48:27 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline JSS

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Quantum Mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with WHY things happen. It is strictly a mathematical method for predicting things by assuming everything to have quantifiable properties, statistically found to be in certain ranges. Why any of it works is NOT the business of QM.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
The explanation for why an electron does not fall into the nucleus comes from a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Put simply, it states that you cannot know the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. More rigorously stated, the product of the uncertainty of the position of a particle (Δx) and the uncertainty of its momentum (Δp) must be greater than a specified value:

ΔxΔp≥ℏ2


Now, as the electron approaches the nucleus, it's uncertainty in position decreases (if the electron is 10nm away from the nucleus, it could be anywhere within a spherical shell of radius 10nm, but if the electron is only 0.1nm away from the nucleus, that area is greatly reduced). According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, if you decrease the uncertainty of the electrons position, the uncertainty in its momentum must increase. This increased momentum uncertainty means that the electron will be moving away from the nucleus faster, on average.

Put another way, if we do know that at one instant, that the electron is right on top of the nucleus, we lose all information about where the electron will be at the next instant. It could stay at the nucleus, it could be slightly to the left or to the right, or it could very likely be very far away from the nucleus. Therefore, because of the the uncertainty principle it is impossible for the electron to fall into the nucleus and stay in the nucleus.

In essence, the uncertainty principle causes a sort of quantum repulsion, that keeps electrons from being too tightly localized near the nucleus.

Quantum repulsion? My head is exploding.

Pete,

I googled those answers, not my words.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: JSS
Quantum Mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with WHY things happen. It is strictly a mathematical method for predicting things by assuming everything to have quantifiable properties, statistically found to be in certain ranges. Why any of it works is NOT the business of QM.
Predicting things is what is meant by explaining why. I used to believe the same thing that you just said but have been tilting the other way recently. For example; using quantum mechanics one can explain the nature of why alpha decay occurs and I recall that it can also predict the lifetime of radioactive nuclei that decay by alpha decay. It'd say that's a why question which has an answer.

You can also say that relativity is a mathematical model to. That doesn't mean you can't explain why moving clocks run slower than stationary ones.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
May God have mercy, put a quantum grenade in my head ASAP.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4130
  • Thanked: 249 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
In fusion reaction, two atoms impact so hard, even two nucleus crashed into one, how come electron escaped from the crash?
Before nuclear fusion is initiated, the Deuterium* gas is heated to somewhere around a million degrees (F, C or K, whatever you prefer...).

At these temperatures, the atoms are completely ionised, so the electrons have already escaped from the nuclei.

When two Deuterium nuclei run into each other with sufficient velocity to overcome their electrostatic repulsion they can approach within 1 femtometer. At these distances, the attraction of the strong nuclear force is greater than the electrostatic repulsion. The two deuterium nuclei can then fuse to form a Helium nucleus.

The electrons have not escaped from this reaction, as they were not present around the Deuterium nuclei at the start of the fusion reaction.

If you cool down the reaction products to room temperature, the plasma will cool into a mixture of neutral Helium atoms and Hydrogen molecules, with the electrons in a cloud around the positive nuclei.

*Sometimes a mix of Tritium & Deuterium is used, but it's easier to explain the D+D=He reaction.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
In fusion reaction, two atoms impact so hard, even two nucleus crashed into one, how come electron escaped from the crash?
Before nuclear fusion is initiated, the Deuterium* gas is heated to somewhere around a million degrees (F, C or K, whatever you prefer...).

At these temperatures, the atoms are completely ionised, so the electrons have already escaped from the nuclei.

When two Deuterium nuclei run into each other with sufficient velocity to overcome their electrostatic repulsion they can approach within 1 femtometer. At these distances, the attraction of the strong nuclear force is greater than the electrostatic repulsion. The two deuterium nuclei can then fuse to form a Helium nucleus.

The electrons have not escaped from this reaction, as they were not present around the Deuterium nuclei at the start of the fusion reaction.

If you cool down the reaction products to room temperature, the plasma will cool into a mixture of neutral Helium atoms and Hydrogen molecules, with the electrons in a cloud around the positive nuclei.

*Sometimes a mix of Tritium & Deuterium is used, but it's easier to explain the D+D=He reaction.

Thank you AU. You sound like work closely in this field.

At that high temperature, electron escape away from nucleus attraction force field? Why not escape into it? Is there a force field around nucleus that keeps electrons at certain distance? So no matter how energize electrons can only move outward from nucleus?

Isn't strong force quite mystery? Why gluons glue positive and negative quarks together not electron? Is quark really carries -1/3 or +2/3 charge? Why is add 3 quarks mass is not equal to proton mass? How to measure quarks mass?

What is quantum repulsion? Are you going to hate me? Please don't, it's my head's fault.
 

Offline Insentient

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Uncertainty
« Reply #165 on: 05/01/2015 19:17:47 »
The uncertainty can be explained as follows...We live in a certain dimension of our own consciousness, and our consciousness has a certain limit to what we are able to observe...We know that the universe is not governed by our consciousness, but we are unable to grasp the fact that we are governed by the universe...When we see an electron behave as a particle, it is because that is what the universe needs us to observe, but this does not mean that's what is actually happening. It just means that we asked a question, and had to get a lie for an answer, because if we don't get an answer, it's a lot worse than getting lied to...Every cause needs to have an effect, otherwise we wont be able to function in our consciousness of time...In the grand scheme of things, there are secrets that the universe needs to keep...We are the uncertainty  ;)
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Uncertainty
« Reply #166 on: 05/01/2015 19:41:40 »
Quote from: Insentient
The uncertainty can be explained as follows...
First off, welcome to the forum. It's always nice to see a new member join. In the second place, that is not correct. You're using the term uncertainty incorrectly. The uncertainly in a quantity is really the standard deviation in a physical observable and that's not what you were describing. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

The uncertainty of an observable depends on the state that the quantum mechanical state that the system is in. If uncertainty was what you described then that wouldn't be the case.

Again, welcome to the forum! :)
 

Offline Insentient

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Thanks for the welcome! :) and thanks for the link also.., but the observer effect still holds the position of uncertainty (The position, and velocity of an object can not be quantified at exactly the same time)... well actually they can... It's just the wave length we determine, is actually our wave length, no matter what 'instruments' we use...We are stuck in a dimension 'like fish are stuck in a fish tank'.., and all the Latin symbols only get you so far before the realization occurs that we have enough information to build a 'spaceship' to get us the hell out of here!..Then we find out how the real math works ;)
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
At that high temperature, electron escape away from nucleus attraction force field? Why not escape into it? Is there a force field around nucleus that keeps electrons at certain distance? So no matter how energize electrons can only move outward from nucleus?
The more energy the electrons have, the less they are bound to the nucleus. It's not a force field but Schrodinger equation (solved  :)).

They can however interact with a nucleus in the same way as in LHC or other collider: high energy electrons are shooted against nuclei to explore their inside; the more energetic the electron is, the less its (wavefunction) wavelenght is, so it can explore and reveal smaller parts of the nucleus.

So, if you heat up hydrogen atoms at very high temperatures, you will ionize them, the electrons will move even faster, colliding with fast moving nuclei, and at very very high temperatures the electrons will begin to explore the nuclei's inside and to reveal quarks, and to generate new particles, even more exotic and massive and in even more number, in the collisions.

--
lightarrow
« Last Edit: 08/01/2015 22:53:18 by lightarrow »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
jccc, I'm happy to discuss this topic further, but let's do it on this thread only.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
If electrons stick to the protons, atoms will become neutral particles. Therefore matter will not form. Nor the universe.

The nature is God. Its creation beyond wonder.

As human, we wonder why? Why is electron and proton, the strongest force source in nature, not stick together within an atom?

I heard of two theories, QM, which I can't understand. The other one, you pretend you don't understand.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
Let's say for the moment that there is some negatively charged fluid other than electrons that was attracted to positively charged nuclei. A few questions immediately arise:

1) Why wouldn't the nucleus attract enough of the negatively charged fluid that it would become neutral, and no electrons are needed?

2) Is the entire universe negatively charged, or is there another as-yet-unobserved positively charged something that balances this out?

3) How can this fluid be observed?

If we assume that quantum mechanics is not a good model of the way things work on atomic/molecular scale, then we need to find new solutions for mysteries such as:

1) How do atoms interact to make molecules?

2) What is responsible for the bright line spectra of all the elements? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum)

3) When the double slit experiment is performed with beams of electrons, why does it generate an interference pattern?
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Let's say for the moment that there is some negatively charged fluid other than electrons that was attracted to positively charged nuclei. A few questions immediately arise:

1) Why wouldn't the nucleus attract enough of the negatively charged fluid that it would become neutral, and no electrons are needed?

2) Is the entire universe negatively charged, or is there another as-yet-unobserved positively charged something that balances this out?

3) How can this fluid be observed?

If we assume that quantum mechanics is not a good model of the way things work on atomic/molecular scale, then we need to find new solutions for mysteries such as:

1) How do atoms interact to make molecules?

2) What is responsible for the bright line spectra of all the elements? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum)

3) When the double slit experiment is performed with beams of electrons, why does it generate an interference pattern?
1. The Earth can carry as much sea water as you can supply. The electron's force density/strength is equal to the   fluid density at atom radius.
2. The space is negative charged compare to matter/planet.
3. EM wave needs the fluid to exist.

1. Electron grabbing war is on going all the time.
2. Light is produced by electrostatic force vibrating in the space fluid. Every element has its own set of force density/strength due to their charges.
3. I am not sure yet, but I am sure electron is particle, not wave.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
1. The Earth can carry as much sea water as you can supply. The electron's force density/strength is equal to the   fluid density at atom radius.
But water doesn't repel itself. If you think this negative fluid gathers around the nucleus, presumably the effective charge of the nucleus would be less than a naked nucleus in the absence of negative fluid. How would this "electrons floating on sea of negatively charged space" work for heavier atoms, where there is a multiply charged nucleus and many electrons? How much negative space gets pulled close to the nucleus as it is bigger and more positively charged?

2. The space is negative charged compare to matter/planet.
So space is all negative, and matter is 50% positive 50% negative? How much negative charge is there in the space? This doesn't make much sense to me...

3. EM wave needs the fluid to exist.
So all of the experiments that couldn't find the aether are wrong?

1. Electron grabbing war is on going all the time.


2. Light is produced by electrostatic force vibrating in the space fluid. Every element has its own set of force density/strength due to their charges.
That might work as a qualitative description, but it breaks down when we consider the quantitative description. If it were just an issue of force constants (like springs) we wouldn't see the same harmonics as are observed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series)

3. I am not sure yet, but I am sure electron is particle, not wave.

Glad to hear you are able to admit you are unsure about some things, but why are you so sure the electron is not a wave?
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
1. If there's only one positive change and 10 negative charges in the universe, will the negative charges gather around the positive charge?  Heavier nucleus have more positive charge, form denser space fluid balls, electrons are float at atom radius.

2.Who told you that the universe has same amount positive and negative charges?

3. Could be all wrong, they don't understand that the ether is charged, light speed is not constant, temperature and medium density involved.


1.

2. ??

3. Electron is a charged particle. It turns in EM field. It has mass. EM wave/light is moving force, no mass, no charge. 
« Last Edit: 08/02/2015 00:37:53 by jccc »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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