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 171859 times)

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
you mean you cannot point out what part of my theory is NOT logical?
How can a soup of silly things be considered a theory? Or you are kidding us all? You are doing it, say the truth...
But I can't understand those who keep ansering you losing their time ...

--
lightarrow
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1880
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
Re: None
« Reply #376 on: 20/03/2015 18:39:26 »
How can a neutron (which is comprised of two down-quarks and an up-quark) turn into an electron (which is itself a fundamental particle)?

I'm not exactly sure of the mechanism, but neutrons are know to decompose into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. If you crunch the numbers, I bet the mass-energy, charge (this one's easy) and spin (angular momentum) are all conserved.

Any QED experts want to shed light on this one?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Because the electron field is produced by the Proton?

or by simply being so small the electron is relatively fell into the Proton, how big do you imagine this atom to be?

« Last Edit: 21/03/2015 12:41:44 by Thebox »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile

How can a soup of silly things be considered a theory? Or you are kidding us all? You are doing it, say the truth...
But I can't understand those who keep ansering you losing their time ...

--
lightarrow
I agree with you lightarrow, I think these fellows have come here with the single agenda, to sow discourse and cause confusion.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
I understand the question and it leaves room for thought, if an electron is attracted to a Proton then what stops the electron just being connected directly to the Proton?

The answer is simply that atoms are so small, relatively Electrons  are connected directly to the Proton, there is hardly any space in something smaller than a dot?


« Last Edit: 22/03/2015 19:55:46 by evan_au »
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

quote from Steve Jobs
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: UltimateTheory
Antiparticle has positive energy. Dirac was mistaken.
That's a misconception. The equation E2 + p2 = m2  has two solutions for E. One is positive and the other is negative. You're statement confuses the inertial energy = rest energy + kinetic energy with negative energy states. As explained here: http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node490.html
Quote
We cannot discount the ``negative energy'' solutions since the positive energy solutions alone do not form a complete set. An electron which is localized in space, will have components of its wave function which are ``negative energy''.
...
The idea of an infinite sea of ``negative energy'' electrons is a strange one. What about all that charge and negative energy? Why is there an asymmetry in the vacuum between negative and positive energy when Dirac's equation is symmetric? (We could also have said that positrons have positive energy and there is an infinite sea of electrons in negative energy states.) This is probably not the right answer but it has many elements of truth in it. It also gives the right result for some simple calculations. When the Dirac field is quantized, we will no longer need the infinite ``negative energy'' sea, but electrons and positrons will behave as if it were there.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
we have all kinds of high tech toys, why can scientists make a working model of an atom?

let's brainstorm, see if we can use 1 electron and 1 proton to make an atom.

first, let's think, if they are stick together in the beginning, we got to separate them first to make possible that electron able to orbiting/clouding.

if they are separate at a distance, they will accelerate and get closer, how could impact not happen? lucky electron just fall into orbit?

am i the only 1 so confused? 
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1880
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
am i the only 1 so confused?

only you and any others who can't let go of the intuition of classical physics...
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
seems to me the standard model of atomic structure is more confuse.

there is no clear logic to explain many facts we observe daily.

why atoms are not compressible as theory predicted? 99.99% empty space within atom right?

why electron not discharge into proton? any other em field is stronger? any other voltage is higher?

how neutral charged atoms able to form into group?

all legit questions, agree?
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1880
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
I would refer you again to my post (much) earlier in this thread (also check out the attachment in the original post):

jccc, I have thought of another way of describing the hydrogen atom pictorially. It's not a completely accurate model, just an analogy that might help.

Think of the electric potential produced by the proton as a surface--essentially like the gravity wells represented in curved space-time. The proton is very small, so it can essentially be treated as a point particle, or we can use a nonzero radius for the cutoff of the well (finite depth of the well), either way it doesn't matter.

The electron can be thought of as a marble that is free to roll around on this surface. It will naturally roll down into the potential well created by the proton, and it will eventually get stuck in the well. It is centered at the same x-y coordinates as the proton (center of the marble is directly over the center of the well), but because it has a determined diameter, the marble can only go so far down into the well.

I have illustrated a 1-dimensional version of this (two including potential, but only one spatial coordinate: x). The size of the "marble" is determined by how massive the particle is (more massive means smaller marble) (the size of this marble represents the de Broglie wavelength λ = h/p, where p is momentum and h is Planck's constant).

Thus when a negative particle heavier than the electron is modeled, we get a smaller marble. For instance, the muon has the same charge as an electron, but is about 200 times more massive. The exotic atom formed by the interaction of a muon and a proton is exactly the same as a normal hydrogen atom, except the muon is distributed much closer to the proton (this is how muons catalyze fusion). Going even further, an antiproton (1832 times heavier than an electron) would be extremely close to the proton. The antiproton and proton would also interact via the strong force (which the electron and muon would not do) and would fairly quickly annihilate with the proton.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1880
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile

why atoms are not compressible as theory predicted? 99.99% empty space within atom right?

why electron not discharge into proton? any other em field is stronger? any other voltage is higher?

how neutral charged atoms able to form into group?

all legit questions, agree?

all legit questions, all with legit answers.

For instance: neutral atoms form into groups because it is usually energetically favorable for the electrons to be shared between multiple nuclei. The atomic orbitals we continuously talk about morph into molecular orbitals when there are multiple nuclei to be considered. We have developed excellent ways of modeling the electronic structures of molecules--to the extent that we can say how many bonds atoms will make with each other; whether molecules will be paramagnetic or diamagnetic; what frequencies of light a molecule is likely to absorb; whether molecules will conduct electricity or not; etc. etc. etc.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: chiralSPO
only you and any others who can't let go of the intuition of classical physics...
We've told him that countless times and he ignores it as if we never even said it. He's terrible that way.
 

Offline jccc

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

why atoms are not compressible as theory predicted? 99.99% empty space within atom right?

why electron not discharge into proton? any other em field is stronger? any other voltage is higher?

how neutral charged atoms able to form into group?

all legit questions, agree?

all legit questions, all with legit answers.

For instance: neutral atoms form into groups because it is usually energetically favorable for the electrons to be shared between multiple nuclei.

ok. then if atoms are apart, the same energetically favorable should be for the atoms to share the outer electrons and attract each other that causes gravitation.

am i have a point?
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1880
  • Thanked: 145 times
    • View Profile
ok. then if atoms are apart, the same energetically favorable should be for the atoms to share the outer electrons and attract each other that causes gravitation.

am i have a point?

except that the attraction between atoms to form molecules is only over very short distances (more than 5 Ĺ, or 5x10–10 between nuclei, and there is no substantial effect) because it requires sharing of electrons, and the effect becomes repulsive (antibonding) if there are too many electrons around. Typically atoms come together to form very discrete molecular units (like H2O or C6H6), and once the stable molecule is formed, it becomes very difficult to add more atoms. There are much weaker interactions between molecules that make it favorable for molecules to attract oneanother (this is how gases condense into liquids, how geckos can walk on walls, and how drugs bind to receptors)
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
2 separate atoms each is neutral charged, what attraction force there is?

atom 1 proton attracts atom 2 electron or what? how it exactly works? if not induction?

are the 2 atoms share electrons or clouds? or orbitals? is all this imaginary?
 


Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_orbital_theory

if i believe/understand those theory, i won't be here.

if you understand, please explain in your words. those wiki knowledge to me not like science.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_orbital_theory

if i believe/understand those theory, i won't be here.

if you understand, please explain in your words. those wiki knowledge to me not like science.
Wiki does explain it all in words. As we keep telling you, and which you keep choosing to ignore, is that since you refuse to learn physics the correct way, rather than asking a zillion questions whose answers you readily forget, you'll never understand it. Why on Earth do you think physicists have to study so hard. Don't you think that we would have preferred an explanation so simple that even you could understand it. Forget it. It doesn't exist. Nature is a great deal more complicated for a description so simplistic that even you could understand it.
 

Offline jccc

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

Quote from: jccc on 27/02/2015 15:43:14
Quote from: PmbPhy on 27/02/2015 15:21:28
Quote from: jccc
we need to start from the light source. if atoms are like qm suggested, 99% empty space, why is water/matter not compressible?
It is compressible. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Compressibility
water's compressibility is about 10 ^-10, sounds like 99% empty space to you?

how about the discharge? is the empty space such a good insulator?
what's your answer?
Modify message
Report to moderator     173.22.244.21
PmbPhy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1898
View Profile  Email  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #266 on: 28/02/2015 02:36:57 »
Quote
Quote from: jccc
what's your answer?
I don't have an answer. Who ever said I know everything!
Report to moderator     Logged
jccc
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 851
View Profile  Personal Message (Online)

Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #267 on: 28/02/2015 02:43:18 »
QuoteModifyRemove
thank you Pete!

all my respect to you.

Modify message
Report to moderator     173.22.244.21
PmbPhy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1898
View Profile  Email  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
« Reply #268 on: 28/02/2015 03:17:57 »
Quote
Quote from: jccc on 28/02/2015 02:43:18
thank you Pete!

all my respect to you.
You're welcome.  ^

do you have answers now?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc

Quote from: jccc on 27/02/2015 15:43:14
Quote from: PmbPhy on 27/02/2015 15:21:28
Quote from: jccc
we need to start from the light source. if atoms are like qm suggested, 99% empty space, why is water/matter not compressible?
It is compressible. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Compressibility
water's compressibility is about 10 ^-10, sounds like 99% empty space to you?

how about the discharge? is the empty space such a good insulator?
what's your answer?
Modify message
Report to moderator     173.22.244.21
PmbPhy
Hero Member
<snipped garbage>
Well, that was about the most useless post that I've ever seen in any forum that I've ever visited. Then again, nothing that you do surprises me anymore.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
you don't remember what you said earlier in this thread?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
you don't remember what you said earlier in this thread?
You nut. There are 396 posts in this forum. I've posted in many threads. Why should I recall what I posted earlier in this thread?

Sheeesh!
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
you do remember your science knowledge right?

you can read right?

do you have answers now?

why is atoms not compressible as 99% empty space?

why electron not discharge into proton? is the space between them such great insulator?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
you do remember your science knowledge right?

you can read right?

do you have answers now?
Oh my God! What the hell is wrong with you? How many damn times do I have to tell you that I will not make anymore attempts to answer your questions because you don't have the ability to grasp the answers? I even posted this
http://mightylib.mit.edu/Course%20Materials/22.01/Fall%202001/why%20nuclei%20decay.pdf
 the other day and you completely ignored it once again proving to me that you're a waste of our time.

I've said that a half a dozen times yesterday and you still haven't gotten that through your thick skull? If you can't grasp that simple fact then how on Earth do you think that you'd be able to grasp a response that's framed in quantum mechanics (QM)?  You're the one who has chosen not to learn QM. Nobody made that decision for you. And without the ability to understand QM you have no hope of understanding the answers to the questions you're asking. I know because I've already answered those same exact questions a dozen times in this forum and not only were you unable to grasp the answer each time I gave it to you but since then you've made no attempt to learn QM for yourself.

And you have the nerve to think that I'm going to keep repeating myself over and over again every time you ask me the same exact question? Especially since you can always look it up on the internet for yourself and you're just too lazy to do it.
« Last Edit: 23/06/2015 08:56:44 by PmbPhy »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length