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 171641 times)

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Answer those questions, you'll closer to truth. Don't you agree?

How the photon transmitted to wave and become a particle? What's the mechanism? How electron emits photon?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Answer those questions, you'll closer to truth. Don't you agree?

How the photon transmitted to wave and become a particle? What's the mechanism? How electron emits photon?
I believe I asked you first to explain why a photon can't become a particle. To respond with another question without answering mine is acting like mine was unworthy of an answer. Nevertheless, I will be waiting for your answer when and if you have one. If you don't have an answer, I will simply move on.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
My theory is the space is charged fluid. All things are within it.

Positive charged nucleus attract the negative charged fluid to form atoms. The density of the fluid is Df=1/r^3. Electrons also attracted by positive charged nucleus and stable at atom radius where the attracting force is equal to the repel force. A demo
aid=P8fZ2oSGqsg

The electrons around the atom is like bond by a spring, need force to push in or pull out from the nucleus. Now if a force is applied, the electron will vibrating and produce pressure/EM wave across the space around it.

Every element has certain charge and bonding strength, therefore unique spectrum.

I don't understand the text book, how electron emits photon, be appreciate if you can explain the detail/logic.   
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2768
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
My theory is the space is charged fluid.
That's not a theory. It's a speculation/hypothesis. You should learn the difference between the two. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Quote from: jccc
Positive charged nucleus attract the negative charged fluid to form atoms.
What holds this charged particle together? If it's composed of charge and all like charges repel each other, what's holding them together?

Quote from: jccc
The electrons around the atom is like bond by a spring, need force to push in or pull out from the nucleus.
Why? What is responsible for the repulsive force? Since your electron is moving around inside the atom its accelerating. Since accelerating charge radiates energy why doesn't the energy radiate away and the electron spirals into the nucleus. Since we don't observe that it contradicts your theory. Why?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2768
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Ethos_
I believe I asked you first to explain why a photon can't become a particle.
It seems to me that he was saying that a photon "isn't" a particle. It's obvious why a photon can't transform into a particle with non-zero rest mass if that's what you had in mind. There'd be a violation of the conservation of momentum in one or more frames of reference.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
My theory is the space is charged fluid.
That's not a theory. It's a speculation/hypothesis. You should learn the difference between the two. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Quote from: jccc
Positive charged nucleus attract the negative charged fluid to form atoms.
What holds this charged particle together? If it's composed of charge and all like charges repel each other, what's holding them together?

Quote from: jccc
The electrons around the atom is like bond by a spring, need force to push in or pull out from the nucleus.
Why? What is responsible for the repulsive force? Since your electron is moving around inside the atom its accelerating. Since accelerating charge radiates energy why doesn't the energy radiate away and the electron spirals into the nucleus. Since we don't observe that it contradicts your theory. Why?
1. OK, just my theory.

2. Nucleus is positive charged, electron and space fluid are negative charged.

3. In my model, electrons are not moving around but bonded by nucleus attraction force and the space fluid balls repel/float force. Did you watch that video? Seems you still don't know what I am trying to picture, sorry about my poor English.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
If Coulombs's law stands universally, we should assume that every atom or charged particle are connected by their force field across the whole space.

An atoms force field does not end at atom radius, but extend to infinity. In whole, an atom or planet maybe electrically neutral, but Every charge within has its own force field beyond distance, those forces overlapped to produce chemical bonding, magnetism and gravity.

 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
If proton is in fact built by U and D quarks, then maybe the proton is like one small woman sleep between two fat man. It happens in real life. At least, the 3 quarks could electrically form into a group that we called proton.

We should assume all nucleus have some degree of polarity according their unique charges carried and the structure of all quarks stick together.

An iron atom maybe is a small magnet, the positive pole of the nucleus attract dense space fluid to form a force field that its density/strength drop off at 1/r^3, that matches the observation, and fits Coulombs law.



 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4130
  • Thanked: 249 times
    • View Profile
My calculation will be N/16N^2=1/16N photons per second. That means every 16N seconds detect 1 photon.

You can do some quick "sanity checks" on the answer:
A) Double the number of photons emitted per second (eg by putting a second candle in the center of the sphere), and you should double the number of photons detected. However, with the proposed answer of 1/16N, the number of photons will halve. This does not compute.
B)  Reduce the radius of the detector. The number of photons detected should reduce. However, with the proposed answer of 1/16N, the number of photons does not change. This does not compute.
C) Increase the radius of the sphere, while leaving the detector size unchanged. The number of photons should reduce. In the proposed answer, the number of photons does not change. This does not compute.

So I conclude that the proposed answer of 1/16N fails all 3 sanity checks.

The alternative answer from chiralSPO is N/(16R2). This passes tests A & C.  2 out of 3 is a much better score.
(It does not pass test B, because the radius of the detector is assumed fixed at 1 meter, rather than being parametrized with a variable like radius r, and area πr2. There is also an approximation here that is more accurate if r is much smaller than R.)

 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
My calculation will be N/16N^2=1/16N photons per second. That means every 16N seconds detect 1 photon. I'll never able to take a picture of the flame. Does that gives you doubt that light is not particle but wave of energy?

Jcc
I appreciate you are searching for understanding, but there are some gaps in your understanding of basic maths etc that you need to address.

[^2=1/16N photons per second. That means every 16N seconds detect 1 photon. I'll never able to take a picture of the flame. Does that gives you doubt that light is not particle but wave of energy?

Forget the photograph, patent the control mechanism.
You genuinely have a means of controlling the candle output so that when the detector is 1 meter away you can reduce the candle output to 1photon/sec?
Wow, respect.
Or am I missing something?

I apologise for my lighthearted answer, I should have been more direct. To add to the points made by evan:
The assumptions you use for your formula include an embedded definition of the number of photons/sec coming out of the candle. Thus with the detector at 1m you have 1photon/s, at 2m you have 2photons/s, etc. this clearly cannot be. You have built a feedback loop into your assumptions.
If you assume a more reasonable number of photons say 10^15 your formula says you have to move your detector to 10^15m and at that distance you are unlikely to see a candle let alone photograph it. In this case you and evan will no longer be at loggerheads. I was brought up on a sliderule so like evan I try to use sanity checks as often as possible.
Until you address the problem of your misunderstanding of maths and formulation of ideas you will meet only with frustration and misunderstanding in these discussions.

Thank you for your invitation to read your posts on atomic structure, gravity and magnetism. If you agree to address your misunderstanding, as above, I will read them.
Thank you
« Last Edit: 10/02/2015 15:18:42 by Colin2B »
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
There is a picture of elephant right in front of your faces.

Seems you only see the tail of it. Good eyes!
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Ethos
The photon can represent itself in either manner, wave or particle. Traveling thru space the photon is transmitted as a wave but becomes a particle when the wave function collapses. If you are suggesting that the photon can't become a particle, give us your source as evidence.

I think this is an oversimplification that risks letting in the sort of argument that jccc seem to be having trouble with.

If you regard a photon not as something that can change between a wave and a particle, you can run into trouble that might not be there if you see it as something that is neither a wave nor a particle, but is something we do not (yet) fully understand which can appear as one or the other, depending on how we observe it.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Ethos
The photon can represent itself in either manner, wave or particle. Traveling thru space the photon is transmitted as a wave but becomes a particle when the wave function collapses. If you are suggesting that the photon can't become a particle, give us your source as evidence.

I think this is an oversimplification that risks letting in the sort of argument that jccc seem to be having trouble with.


That's a valid point Bill, describing the photon wave/particle duality is the question here. Because we have yet to fully understand the process by which the photon can represent itself as either particular  entity at any given moment in time or circumstance, we are left with an incomplete description of the phenomenon.

Why and how the wave function collapses is something I've yet to understand myself. I'm not sure if anyone does but this collapse of the wave function is the prominent view today and until a better model comes along, I view it as the best example of reality.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Quote
Why and how the wave function collapses is something I've yet to understand myself. I'm not sure if anyone does but this collapse of the wave function is the prominent view today and until a better model comes along, I view it as the best example of reality.

It seems as though "wave function collapse" is becoming an outdated term in some circles. When I used it in another forum, I was told to "get up-to-date and think decoherence".  :)
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Quote
Why and how the wave function collapses is something I've yet to understand myself. I'm not sure if anyone does but this collapse of the wave function is the prominent view today and until a better model comes along, I view it as the best example of reality.

It seems as though "wave function collapse" is becoming an outdated term in some circles. When I used it in another forum, I was told to "get up-to-date and think decoherence".  :)
When I think about the definition for the word "coherence" and it's antithesis "decoherence", I concede that this definition may be a little more accurate. However, using the word "collapse" is not that far from the same meaning. Where collapse refers to a falling apart, decoherence suggests more of a disconnection or more correctly; "a less connected state". So I would agree that "a less connected state of being" might be a better definition. And the term "decoherence" or "scattered" would be a fair description.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2015 23:00:25 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Why and how the wave function collapses is something I've yet to understand myself. I'm not sure if anyone does but this collapse of the wave function is the prominent view today and until a better model comes along, I view it as the best example of reality.
Check out Jeff Lundeen who says wavefunction is real, and is something that right there in the lab. Going on from that, I think wavefunction collapse is real too. Conceptiually, I think it's something like the optical Fourier transform:


http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/fourier/fourier.html

Sorry if I've said this before, but think of a photon as something like a subterranean seismic wave. It travels  through space rather than through rock, but it takes "many paths". So it goes through both slits of the dual-slit experiment. But when you detect it at one slit you do something like an optical Fourier transform on it and turn it into a dot. So it goes through that slit only. And when you detect it at the screen you do something like the optical Fourier transform to it and turn it into a dot. Try to imagine feeling a seismic wave with a stick the size of a mountain range. If you absorbed the whole seismic wave and if your stick was pointy, you might think the seismic wave was pointlike. Weak measurement work by Jeff Lundeen et al is something like mapping out the seismic wave with a lot of little sticks. His PhD supervisor was Aephraim Steinberg who heads up another team. See his webpage too and especially this depiction of a photon going through both slits:

 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
A particle, should be either at rest or at speed v without extra force apply on it.

If it is moving, it moves along straight line. If it hits something, it may pass through/halfway, reflect or deflect. It will lose momentum/speed anyways.

Does any light or EM wave ever slowdown?

If light is particle, how a particle hits mirror and reflect back? What bounces it back? The electron? The nucleus? The empty space within silver atoms?

May truth sets our minds free sooner.

 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2768
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
A particle, should be either at rest or at speed v without extra force apply on it.
You don't know that. What we experience is only what our senses are able to tell us and they're only able to give us an average of what is really going on. Particles don't really have a position as a function of time. What we observe to be like that is merely our senses averaging what they're detecting.

Still not willing to learn quantum mechanics, huh?
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
A particle, should be either at rest or at speed v without extra force apply on it.
You don't know that. What we experience is only what our senses are able to tell us and they're only able to give us an average of what is really going on. Particles don't really have a position as a function of time. What we observe to be like that is merely our senses averaging what they're detecting.

Still not willing to learn quantum mechanics, huh?

If you can tell me how an electron emits photon, I can learn faster. Agree?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2768
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
If you can tell me how an electron emits photon, I can learn faster. Agree?
That's not the way life works. If we could learn quantum mechanics that way then there'd be no reason to read textbooks or take courses on the subject. That's a fact that you've never been able to grasp.

Anyway, see http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05070.htm   

It might help you.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Pete,

This thread is the most asked question in every science forum. I searched them all and QM is the only answer I found. I also puzzled all my life about gravity and magnetism.

I believe you already read my hypothesis about all 3 in the past few pages. I am seriously eager to learn your thoughts about them.

I said you are my teacher and always will be, please take my word.

 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
If you can tell me how an electron emits photon, I can learn faster. Agree?
That's not the way life works. If we could learn quantum mechanics that way then there'd be no reason to read textbooks or take courses on the subject. That's a fact that you've never been able to grasp.

Anyway, see http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05070.htm   

It might help you.
Does it helps a pest?
You don't consider yourself a pest do you? How on earth could you come to such a conclusion.............tongue in cheek! ;) ;D
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
If you can tell me how an electron emits photon, I can learn faster. Agree?
That's not the way life works. If we could learn quantum mechanics that way then there'd be no reason to read textbooks or take courses on the subject. That's a fact that you've never been able to grasp.

Anyway, see http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05070.htm   

It might help you.
Does it helps a pest?
You don't consider yourself a pest do you? How on earth could you come to such a conclusion.............tongue in cheek! ;) ;D

Pete says so, I trust him a lot besides QM.
If you trust him, and you should for he is quite knowledgeable, then take his advice and read a few of the links he's provided. If you give QM a chance, you might learn enough some day to have one of those extraordinary WOW moments of scientific revelation. Give it a chance.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Share me your WOW please, don't be a teaser.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Share me your WOW please, don't be a teaser.
Those WOW moments don't come cheaply, one must involve themselves deeply in research and study. Neither Pete nor I can just snap our fingers and reveal anything to a student that is unwilling to put forth the time and effort. A word to the wise is sufficient.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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