The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?  (Read 171203 times)

David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #275 on: 28/02/2015 20:33:57 »
It isn't just water. Think about rock, metal, wood, etc.

With a gas, it's easy to comress it because the molecules start far apart, and the forces keeping them apart come from impact collision energy (temperature). In water you don't have that situation because the molecules are packed tightly together already, so to push them closer together you have to push against the forces that hold atoms apart. I don't understand how atoms are held apart at the distance they are, but a simple way of understanding how two things can in principle maintain a fixed separation would be to imagine two forces, one pulling two items together and the other pushing the two items apart, but with the one pushing apart decaying more quickly over distance. This results in strong repulsion when they get close together, but there will be a distance apart where the two items attract and repel each other equally, and that's where they will naturally sit. It's easier to pull them apart from there than it is to push them closer together, so breaking them apart can be done with relatively low force while trying to compress them is extremely hard and gets enormously harder for each extra bit of compression.

[Note: I have not posted to this thread at all, but my posts (along with some others around them) were moved here from a different thread as they were part of an off-topic conversation.]
« Last Edit: 01/03/2015 20:55:07 by David Cooper »

alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4714
• Thanked: 154 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #276 on: 28/02/2015 22:36:13 »
what thing do you know? why water is not compressible if there is 99% empty space in atoms?

Water is compressible - it just takes an extremely high force to compress it to a significant degree.

right, 10^-10. why? if it is 99% empty. what force canceled pressure?

What makes you think it's 99% empty? In my glass, it's 100% water. Your failure to understand molecular orbital energetics is sad, but by no means unique. That's what distinguishes scientists from the ineducable.

jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #277 on: 28/02/2015 22:56:13 »
what thing do you know? why water is not compressible if there is 99% empty space in atoms?

Water is compressible - it just takes an extremely high force to compress it to a significant degree.

right, 10^-10. why? if it is 99% empty. what force canceled pressure?

What makes you think it's 99% empty? In my glass, it's 100% water. Your failure to understand molecular orbital energetics is sad, but by no means unique. That's what distinguishes scientists from the ineducable.

what is water? h2o, 3 atoms together, each atom has a nucleus, has electron orbitals, and 99.99% empty space. isn't that's the standard model?

search?q=atom+standard+model&espv=2&biw=1242&bih=606&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=

jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #278 on: 28/02/2015 23:08:13 »
Pseudoscience is disputing established science with claims that do not stand up to scrutiny. I think it's on topic. It exemplifies the lack of understanding that leads to pseudoscience. It can also be tied to a lack of understanding of the history and philosophy of science. This is a typical case. If jccc thinks it is extraordinary that so much space could exist in atomic structure then the orbital distance between the sun and neptune must also be wrong.

jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #279 on: 28/02/2015 23:17:03 »
Pseudoscience is disputing established science with claims that do not stand up to scrutiny. I think it's on topic. It exemplifies the lack of understanding that leads to pseudoscience. It can also be tied to a lack of understanding of the history and philosophy of science. This is a typical case. If jccc thinks it is extraordinary that so much space could exist in atomic structure then the orbital distance between the sun and neptune must also be wrong.

any solar systems share planets? solar systems are light years apart. atoms are packed together. solar system works on gravity. atom system works on electrostatic force, 10^40g attraction between proton and electrons, what force keeps them apart?

alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4714
• Thanked: 154 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #280 on: 01/03/2015 00:58:28 »
If you have any pretensions to being educable, the first step to understanding quantum physics is to realise that whilst you can derive classical physics from quantum mechanics, you can't derive quantum mechanics from classical physics. You have to set aside all your preconceptions and accept the universe as it is, not as you would like it to be.

Wisdom grows from humilty, not arrogance.

jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #281 on: 01/03/2015 01:35:04 »

isn't standard model says there is 99.99% empty space within atoms? how empty space stands any pressure?

how many volts is in between proton and electron in a hydrogen atom? why there is no discharge? is the empty space such a good insulator?

alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4714
• Thanked: 154 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #282 on: 01/03/2015 08:02:01 »

isn't standard model says there is 99.99% empty space within atoms? how empty space stands any pressure?

I have a tent which is 99.9% empty space but still stands up in the wind. You need to start from observation and develop your model to fit the truth. Or you could buy into quantum mechanics and use the model that others have developed over the last century or so.

And don't forget Eddington's dicta:

The student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast.

If a physicist fell through the floor and rematerialised downstairs, he would consider it no more than an extremely improbable event.

....which would be merely amusing if it didn't actually happen, which makes it interesting and useful.

« Last Edit: 01/03/2015 08:03:43 by alancalverd »

jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #283 on: 01/03/2015 08:14:17 »

isn't standard model says there is 99.99% empty space within atoms? how empty space stands any pressure?

I have a tent which is 99.9% empty space but still stands up in the wind. You need to start from observation and develop your model to fit the truth. Or you could buy into quantum mechanics and use the model that others have developed over the last century or so.

And don't forget Eddington's dicta:

The student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast.

If a physicist fell through the floor and rematerialised downstairs, he would consider it no more than an extremely improbable event.

....which would be merely amusing if it didn't actually happen, which makes it interesting and useful.

your tent has frame to support it. how much pressure can a tent support?

alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4714
• Thanked: 154 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #284 on: 01/03/2015 08:33:36 »
You are getting there. Abandon the Bohr atom (most of us did so in the 1950s) and think orbitals.

evan_au

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4122
• Thanked: 245 times
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #285 on: 01/03/2015 10:24:17 »
Quote
isn't standard model says there is 99.99% empty space within atoms?
I think this is being quoted backwards.

The standard model says that the nucleus is about 1/100,000 of the radius of the atom (eg: Hydrogen radius: 120pm; proton radius: 0.87 fm).

But the electron is not a point particle; it is not even a particle with a fairly well-defined radius (like the proton). It does have some wave-like or probabilistic properties, which smears it out over the entire volume of the atom.

So the atom volume is not empty - it is filled with electron(s).

Quote
how empty space stands any pressure?
The volume of an atom is filled with the negative electron(s), and this electron will repel the negative electron(s) of any atom approaching closer than a specified distance. This distance may be empirically determined by X-Ray diffraction, deviations from the Ideal Gas rule at high pressures, etc.

In principle, this length could also be calculated from the Schrodinger wave equation, but it gets horribly complex for molecules larger than a Hydrogen atom (ie all of them).

Electrostatic repulsion withstands considerable pressure.

jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #286 on: 01/03/2015 12:06:23 »
Electrostatic repulsion withstands considerable pressure.

what repulsion is between nucleus and electrons? i only can see attraction there.

alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4714
• Thanked: 154 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #287 on: 01/03/2015 16:43:43 »
You can't make an egg from an omelette, and you can't predict quantum phenomena from classical electrostatics.

You have to start with the fact that atoms are finite, construct mathematical models consistent with that observation, and see if they can predict other observed phenomena, including classical (continuum, mesoscopic) physics. To everyone's delight, quantum mechanics does this very well, which is why we use it.

jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #288 on: 01/03/2015 16:56:05 »
you use it because you have nothing better to use.

so far you can't use it to answer any of my questions on the last 2 pages.

i explained gravity, light and atomic structure, what's your debunk?

can you proof that light is not gravitational wave produced by exited atoms?

JohnDuffield

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 488
• Thanked: 1 times
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #289 on: 01/03/2015 17:27:02 »
why? if it is 99% empty. what force canceled pressure?
See Einstein's Leyden address where you can read this: "recognition of the fact that 'empty space' in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty". Space isn't empty. You can curve it and stress it. When you compress a spring, the energy is stored in the bonds between the atoms. It's effectively stored in the space between the atoms. And mindful of what evan said, when you dig down deep and look at an electron, it's "just field". It's the same for everything else. That's why it's quantum field theory. Yes the proton has this three-part central structure, but its electromagnetic field is part of what it is. And you can read Einstein describing a field as a state of space. So atoms aren't 99% empty space. They're 100% space!
« Last Edit: 01/03/2015 17:34:31 by JohnDuffield »

JohnDuffield

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 488
• Thanked: 1 times
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #290 on: 01/03/2015 17:39:47 »
is his fart sweet to you?
No. It's just that I'm something of a "relativist", I've read a lot of Einstein's material, there's some interesting stuff in there. Like space is this ghostly gin-clear elastic that you can curve and stress. Hence the stress-energy-momentum tensor "describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime". Note the shear stress term.

did he said if you can't explain it to a six years old, you don't understand it?
He is supposed to have said "'You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother"

jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #291 on: 01/03/2015 19:26:11 »
i wondered about why laser is pointing for so long. now if laser is gravitational wave produced by all atoms vibrate at same direction, of cause it is pointing. expends a little due to medium/air on the way. the force is not pushing or puling but vibrating, energy able to transfer without contact.

i want to take the time thank this awesome forum, and every dear member. when i joined i have little clue, now i learned a lot science. everyone is my teacher in some way. Thank You! forever.

evan_au

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4122
• Thanked: 245 times
Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #292 on: 01/03/2015 20:29:43 »
Quote from: jccc
can you proof that light is not gravitational wave produced by excited atoms?
Maxwell* showed that light is a transverse electromagnetic wave. We see this confirmed in practice, as we see that the speed of light is affected by εr (which affects the electric field) and μr (which affects the magnetic field), when it passes through some material like glass.

At the scale of a single atom (electrons + nucleus), the electric field is far stronger than the gravitational forces. So changes in electron orbitals can store and release far more electromagnetic energy than they can store and release gravitational energy. The energy of light (as measured by the photo-electric effect) agrees with the energy of photons being electromagnetic, rather than gravitational.

We have good astronomical evidence that gravitational waves do exist, but to be big enough to measure, they require extreme conditions like two closely orbiting neutron stars. (Much more massive than an orbiting electron & nucleus!) Scientists have spent over \$US300M on making detectors that are sensitive enough to detect the existence of gravitational waves on Earth (eg see LIGO). So far, they have not been sensitive enough.

So the solar cells on many peoples roofs, costing \$USthousands, and generating useful amounts of power are a clear demonstration that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, and not a gravitational phenomenon.

*By accident, I discovered a statue of James Clerk Maxwell, while wandering the streets of Edinburgh. The base is inscribed with his famous equations - but hidden around the back, presumably because they may scare the general public?
« Last Edit: 01/03/2015 20:36:34 by evan_au »

PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #293 on: 01/03/2015 20:30:13 »
Quote from: JohnDuffield
He is supposed to have said "'You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother"
Wrong. I checked with an Einstein historian and was told that it's a myth.

PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #294 on: 01/03/2015 20:37:36 »
Quote from: jccc
can you proof that light is not gravitational wave produced by exited atoms?
That's easy. First of all if it was then the gravitational wave detector LIGO would be detecting gravitational waves all the time. Light is an electromagnetic wave which means that it's not a gravitational wave. An electromagnetic wave interacts differently with matter than does gravitational waves to. We can see light but we can't see gravitational waves. Light waves have different sources than gravitational waves do. If the source of a gravitational wave was increased but not that for light then the light intensity wouldn't change but that for the gravitational wave would. etc.

Everything that goes into the theory of electrodynamics is different than that which goes into gravitation and/or GR so if you knew both of these theories like Evan and myself then there'd be no question about it.

jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #295 on: 01/03/2015 21:25:37 »
are you sure? our eyes detect gravity wave all the time. the source/atom has to vibrate at high f to produce visible light. only atoms able to vibrate at high f. a little ball weights 1g will take a lot energy to vibrate at such high speed.

if you put a bell in vacuum, put gravity wave detector in the center, knock the bell and you should detect gravity wave.

the wave is electrostatic force in nature, so we call it em wave?

jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3918
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #296 on: 01/03/2015 22:33:51 »
jccc why do you have this fixation on electromagnetism being a source of gravity? Show us some real evidence. Amaze us! That is exactly what would happen if you could demonstrate the validity of such an idea. However the bar is high and any theory would need peer review. It's a lot of work. Are you capable of providing such evidence?

jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #297 on: 01/03/2015 22:39:34 »
did you read page 12 and 13? have any questions?

start from atomic structure, if H atom is build by electron and proton only with 99% empty space, why there is no discharge? why matter is not compressible?

alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4714
• Thanked: 154 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #298 on: 01/03/2015 22:41:07 »

can you proof that light is not gravitational wave produced by exited atoms?

A gravitational wave would be detectable on the exit side of a thin sheet of metal.

alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4714
• Thanked: 154 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #299 on: 01/03/2015 22:45:29 »
did you read page 12 and 13? have any questions?

start from atomic structure, if H atom is build by electron and proton only with 99% empty space, why there is no discharge? why matter is not compressible?

A big "if", and wrong. As you say, you have to start with atomic structure and develop a physical model that explains it. Pretending that it can't happen isn't allowed, because it does happen. So your chosen model is wrong because it doesn't explain the obvious facts. You can't derive quantum mechanics from classical electrostatics.

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #299 on: 01/03/2015 22:45:29 »