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 170762 times)

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
you have no God. I am fine.

if you don't want to answer my questions, leave my comments alone. why even bother reply?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
you have no God. I am fine.
What a dumb comment. When I was a Christian earlier this year did you think I tolerated your asinine comments then either?

Quote from: jccc
if you don't want to answer my questions, leave my comments alone. why even bother reply?
Wow, you're dumb. You're the one who asked me the questions. I didn't prompt you to do so. And since they're not comments but questions I responded to them in a manner I thought appropriate. You need to remember that you've had these questions answered countless times and if you already know that then other members need to know that so they don't waste their time addressing them.

Since you feel free to ask me questions then here's one for you - Why do you ask the same questions over and over again when you've already gotten the answers to them? The correct answer won't change merely because someone else responds. And why do you ignore everyone who asks you questions?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
you have no God. I am fine.

if you don't want to answer my questions, leave my comments alone. why even bother reply?
I agree with Pete! If you have a problem with the answer you're getting to your questions, quit asking the same question over and over and over again. If you have an answer you prefer more than the ones you're receiving here at TNS, why are you even asking? If you like your answer more than those offered here, please explain why your answers are more appropriate. Otherwise, stuff it!
« Last Edit: 23/06/2015 15:55:34 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
you have no God. I am fine.

if you don't want to answer my questions, leave my comments alone. why even bother reply?
I agree with Pete! If you have a problem with the answer you're getting to your questions, quit asking the same question over and over and over again. If you have an answer you prefer more than the ones you're receiving here at TNS, why are you even asking? If you like your answer more than those offered here, please explain why your answers are more appropriate. Otherwise, stuff it!
Thanks, buddy. I can't tell you how many times I've said that and the worst part about it is that he even refuses to acknowledge that we even reminded him like this. Wow, is it irritating!
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
happy now?  i hope so.

light is atom's gravity wave

That makes no sense whatsoever.
Of course. Consider the source.

still make no sense?

theory is theory, right or wrong, what about source?

cynical?
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
as i said earlier in my theory, 3 building blocks make up atoms.

proton carries 900 positive charges, electron carries 1 negative charge, enertron carries tiny negative charge, but it has more charge to volume ratio than electron.

a proton can never be observed by itself, proton is deep hidden within a dense enertron ball. atom is like earth, proton is the core, enertron is the dirt, electron is giant beach ball.

electron can never get inside of atom radius, that's why atoms are not compressible, no discharge within atom.

proton attracts -899 energtron and 1 electron to become neutral charged atom.

we can not detect enertron because it is too small and attracted by proton more strongly than electron.

when proton beams impact, in fact is proton/enertron balls impact, enertron balls explode, produce all kinds of em phenomena.

without charges, there is no force, there is no mass. cus you cannot measure mass without using force.

1 atomic mass equals to 1800 total charges, no matter the sign of the charge, that's why proton weight 1800 times electron weight but only carries 1 positive charge, the rest 899 positive charge is used up to balance -899 enertron ball.

a hydrogen atom is made of +900 charged proton surrounded by -899 charged enertron ball, add 1 electron on the outer sphere.

the atom has 2 force fields, positive field fp=ke x 900/r^2, negative field fe=ke x -900/r^2.

those positive and negative fields between atoms/matters interact/induction becomes bounding/gravitation.
 

Offline CycleGuy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Why don
« Reply #406 on: 07/11/2015 20:59:25 »
In properly answering this question, one must delve into Quantum Field Theory a bit.

All throughout the universe is a field, called the Quantum Vacuum Zero Point Energy field. It is the energy that has entropied to its lowest energy state, its "ground state". With more energy continually being "generated" from mass (via stars), and thus entropied, there is a continual "filling" of the universe's "bowl" of entropied energy. This Zero Point Energy is where mass came from, and it accounts for why the universe is expanding (QVZPE field density is increasing as more energy entropies, thus field radiation pressure is increasing, thus the universe must either create mass or expand to relieve that field radiation pressure, and it's energetically more conservative at this time to expand. Earlier in the universe's existence, it was energetically more conservative to concretize mass, accounting for that 1 billionth of 1% of all energy coming from the Big Bang being turned into the mass we have today).

According to Quantum Field Theory, everything is a wave... both massive entities and massless. What we see as "matter" is considered a relatively stable wave form in the Quantum Vacuum Zero Point Energy field, and those "virtual particles" that we've been told continually pop in and out of existence are unstable "pulses" in the QVZPE field density. Those "virtual particles" exist, it's just that they exist for such a short time before they settle back into the Zero Point Energy field that we call them "virtual". In fact, researchers at Chalmers University in 2011 "concretized" microwave photons directly from the QVZPE field using what is known as Dynamical Casimir Effect, thereby proving that these particles (which in Quantum Field Theory are considered waves) actually exist... it's just that their wave forms aren't stable enough to remain "concretized" for long. If a large enough differential in ZPE were to come about (ie: a "surge" in the ZPE, much like a wave of entropied energy), mass could be concretized. If the universe were to somehow stop expanding and the QVZPE field radiation pressure built up sufficiently, mass would be concretized.

The atom's nucleus is made up protons and neutrons, held together with the Strong Nuclear Force. The electrons aren't "billiard balls" whizzing about the nucleus, they're actually standing waves "orbiting" the nucleus. Because the electron must have an integer number (ie: round number) of De Broglie waves in its wavelength, this accounts for the Bohr orbit radius. As an electron absorbs energy, when it's absorbed enough energy that it can add additional De Broglie waves to its wavelength, it "jumps outward" in its orbit. When the electron gives off energy (as it is always doing) in trying to reach its lowest energy state, it sheds De Broglie waves in its standing wave orbit, gives off a photon that has the exact same amount of energy as the number of waves shed, and reduces the radius of its "orbit". If an electron's standing wave "orbit" didn't have an integer number of De Broglie waves in its wavelength, destructive interference would occur, and the "orbit" would not be stable.

Now, I said above that the electron is always giving off energy in attempting to reach its ground state. What stops the electron from giving off enough energy that it becomes attracted to the proton? The QVZPE field, of course. It's the "ground state", the lowest a system can go, thus the electrons have a minimum number of De Broglie waves in their standing wave orbits which they can drop to.

This has been known (well, suspected... and proven later) since 1975, when Boyer showed that the hydrogen atom in its ground state (ie: lowest orbit) would be in a state of equilibrium between Larmor radiation and absorption of QVZPE at the correct radius for a classical Rutherford hydrogen atom.

So now you know where our matter came from, why our matter is stable, the basis behind Bohr orbits, and why our universe is expanding. And it's all underpinned by Quantum Vacuum Zero Point Energy.

That said, there are instances when the electron does "crash into" the proton... it's called electron capture decay. It turns the proton into a neutron and causes transmutation. You can cause forced electron capture decay if an atom is placed into a reduced QVZPE field environment sufficient to reduce the number of De Broglie waves in the electron's orbit such that the electron is attracted to the proton.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 22:38:28 by CycleGuy »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Well that was unexpected and interesting.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Well that was unexpected and interesting.
After this post became inactive I found a webpage which explains it wonderfully. It's not as if I don't know the answer to the question but other people are so much better at explaining things to other people. Here's that page:
http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtut/atomic/WhyTheElectron.html

What's on that page you have you have
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
A neat reference- particularly as it supports my preferred use of "indeterminacy" for Heisenberg's principle.

I still think it better to start from the observation that atoms have a finite diameter, therefore you can't assume that classical electrostatics will model it.
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

billy kakes

  • Guest
None
« Reply #410 on: 02/01/2016 14:43:00 »
I understand, most answers to this do not sufficiently satisfy.  I have an explanation that will satisfy and makes sense.  The atom is arranged so the forces balance and prevent it from flying apart.  The Nucleus has spin so the electron is attracted to the proton which draws it in but there is a point in the rotation where the neutron is in between the electron and proton during that time the electron is temp no longer drawn in and since it rotates around the nucleus due to centrifugal force it is drawn outward during this position, this rotation continues so there is actually a push and pull force that is balanced keeping it in orbit.   There's a lot more going on in the atom than people realize.
 

Offline Monabehi.desu@gmail.

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Why don't electrons and neutrons react?
« Reply #411 on: 24/07/2016 00:15:59 »
Does an electron ever stick to a neutron and what happens then, and if not why?
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4106
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: billy kakes
there is actually a push and pull force that is balanced keeping it in orbit.
 
I think you are mentally using the "Solar System" analogy used to introduce the structure of the atom in High School. However, electrons aren't like little planets, they are much more like big dust clouds.

Quote
There's a lot more going on in the atom than people realize.
I think there's a lot more going on in the atom than you realize.

 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4106
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Monabehi desu
Does an electron ever stick to a neutron and what happens then, and if not why?
Not usually. Unlike the proton, the neutron has no electric charge that would attract the electron.

But electrons are sometimes used in particle accelerators to study the interior structure of protons and neutrons. High-energy electron collisions can produce a spray of subatomic particles from the quarks inside a proton or neutron.
eg see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAC_National_Accelerator_Laboratory#Accelerator
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
If you start with a hydrogen atom, as electrons lower energy levels; get closer and closer to the nucleus, photons of energy are given off at each energy level drop. These photons can be used to excite another electron, to the same energy level; energy conservation.

As electrons reach the lowest energy state, but still outside the nucleus, if they were to drop energy levels even further, so they can enter the nucleus space, high energy photons will needed to be released. This typically is reabsorbed by the same electron, bringing it back to where it began. Sometimes, the energy is absorbed by a nucleus proton, allowing the electron to fall into the nucleus. That last burst of energy is then absorbed by a neutron, which then exits the nucleus.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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