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 171742 times)

Offline jccc

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


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.

solar cells transfer gravity wave into current all the time. green leaves transfer gravity wave into food.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If opposite charges are meant to combine then why does the neutron decay? I have deja vu here.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
If opposite charges are meant to combine then why does the neutron decay? I have deja vu here.

why people got married? never seen divorce?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If opposite charges are meant to combine then why does the neutron decay? I have deja vu here.

why people got married? never seen divorce?

You aren't here to learn.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
the most beautiful thing in the universe is not mystery, but your mind.

without mind, there's nothing.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile


solar cells transfer gravity wave into current all the time. green leaves transfer gravity wave into food.

Repeating an obvious untruth won't make it true, or even amusing.
 

Offline jccc

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


solar cells transfer gravity wave into current all the time. green leaves transfer gravity wave into food.

Repeating an obvious untruth won't make it true, or even amusing.

are you talking about qm? graviton or photon? I told you long ago.
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #307 on: 02/03/2015 14:42:42 »
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.
That's why I said supposed.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
You can only claim an atom is >99% empty space if you insist that electrons each exist at a single point. They don't. They exist as a probability cloud. Those clouds interact in various ways and are responsible for the lack of compression you think should be present.

« Last Edit: 03/03/2015 08:29:41 by Ophiolite »
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
i claim nothing.

i ask if standard atomic model is correct, why matter is not compressible? why there is no discharge within atoms?

obviously atom is not 99% empty space. the space between nucleus and electrons must have a force field that balances the attraction so electron able to stay floating.

haven't see any legit answer, do you have 1?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
You are still asking the question backwards. Here is the modern formulation:

The atom has a finite diameter. From what we know of its structure, can we derive classical electrostatics?

The answer is yes. Quantum mechanics (which provides an accurate description of atomic structure) degenerates to classical electrostatics (an adequate approximation of the behaviour of charged bodies) when the separation between charged bodies is large. 

Beware of using outdated models in science. Not everyone understands them anymore, and some may think you are being obtuse..
« Last Edit: 03/03/2015 12:07:41 by alancalverd »
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
you are at it again.

why is matter not compressible? why is no discharge within atoms? if stand model is correct?
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Pete is the only 1 has the merit to admit he has no answer to my questions.

you act like a kid of science. Please remember everything you posted in this thread will be reading by many.

ever thought how your students will think about your postings?
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
why is matter not compressible?

It is compressible - it just puts up a very good fight, though it doesn't do so well in neutron stars, and it loses comprehensively in black holes.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
if atom is like alan's tent, give 100 atm alan will become a meat ball.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
if stand model is correct?

For the third and final time, what you call the "standard model" is WRONG for the very reason you give. Please take a deep breath and give your brain a chance to recover!

If a hypothesis does not fit the facts, the hypothesis is wrong. In the case of the atom, everyone else, from the dumbest schoolboy to several Nobel prizewinners,  recognised this about 100 years ago which is why we have quantum mechanics instead of classical electron orbits.

This is a science board. Scientists abandon models that don't work, so don't expect anyone here to play with your outdated and broken toys. I'm sure there are boards where people happily repeat nonsense ad infintum in the hope that someone will take them seriously, and I'm sure you would be a welcome guest.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
you are kidding yourself again.

can you debunk any thing i posted about gravity, atomic structure and light? what are you waiting for?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd
For the third and final time, what you call the "standard model" is WRONG for the very reason you give.
I missed what he said and your response. Are you saying that the "standard model" as he thinks of it is wrong or are you saying that the actual standard model is wrong and if so, why?

By "Standard Model" I mean the one defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
you are kidding yourself again.

can you debunk any thing i posted about gravity, atomic structure and light? what are you waiting for?
It's not our responsibility to prove you wrong, it's up to you to show us evidence in support of your theory. So far, little if any has been presented.

It isn't good enough to simply challenge someone to prove a negative. If you seek acceptance, you will be required to provide your own evidence. Saying "prove me wrong" will get you nowhere.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
you are kidding yourself again.

can you debunk any thing i posted about gravity, atomic structure and light? what are you waiting for?
It's not our responsibility to prove you wrong, it's up to you to show us evidence in support of your theory. So far, little if any has been presented.

It isn't good enough to simply challenge someone to prove a negative. If you seek acceptance, you will be required to provide your own evidence. Saying "prove me wrong" will get you nowhere.

did we had encounter at page 10? read it again.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd
For the third and final time, what you call the "standard model" is WRONG for the very reason you give.
I missed what he said and your response. Are you saying that the "standard model" as he thinks of it is wrong or are you saying that the actual standard model is wrong and if so, why?

By "Standard Model" I mean the one defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

I have no idea what he calls the standard model, but if it predicts that the electrons will fall into the nucleus, it's obviously wrong because they don't. Or if it doesn't but he thinks it does, he's an idiot. Either way, there's little point in discussing the matter with him.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd
I have no idea what he calls the standard model, ...
The standard model has less to do with atoms and more to do with interactions. Essentially the Standard Model is the theory that describes all of the known elementary particle interactions except gravity.

Quote from: alancalverd
... but if it predicts that the electrons will fall into the nucleus, it's obviously wrong because they don't.
For the most part you're correct. However that is not always the case. For example; In one of the quantum states of the hydrogen atom, the electron has a finite probability of being found inside the nucleus. See
http://physicspages.com/2013/01/23/hydrogen-atom-probability-of-finding-electron-inside-the-nucleus/

This is possible because is some of the quantum states that hydrogen can be in the wave function is not zero at r = 0.

Don't mention this to jccc because he'll just start all over again with his puerile talk of magic. Lol.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile


can you debunk any thing i posted about gravity, atomic structure and light? what are you waiting for?

See #326 above.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
that's cool.

for the sake of science, i became pest, amoeba, virus, idiot, whatever you like.

i understood gravity, light and atomic structure, and magnetism.

my dreams are completed.

Thank You All!
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
To transmogrify into a butterfly you must undergo a metamorphosis.

on a more serious note how do electrons survive floating in this negative charged eather

hit and run?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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