The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are electrons and protons in an atom attracted to each other?  (Read 3073 times)

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
I drop out college long ago, was major in physics. I can't understand why electrons and protons in an atom not attracted together.

I thought if the space itself is negative charged elastic fluid, it will be attracted by proton and form a negative ball shape electric field, the force strength = 1/r^3.

When an electron attracting/closing to a proton, this negative ball field will push it away and balance it at a point which is the diameter of the atom. If a force is applied on the electron, it will vibrate and produce waves. The frenquency relate to the force strength.

All just thoughts, don't know how to put it in test/math. Be appreciate any input.



« Last Edit: 05/06/2014 14:02:02 by Georgia »


 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Stable atomic structure hypotheses
« Reply #1 on: 01/06/2014 19:59:34 »
Few viewers on new theories threads. Why?

Atomic structure theory bothered me over 40 years, be really appreciate your help!

BTW, are you a real scientist? Have a degree?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The problem is that your model doesn't explain the phenomenon, it just adds more mystery.

If your interstitial fluid is infinitely compressible there is no minimum radius to which it will be compressed by a single proton, so it will all be sucked in to one proton.

If it isn't infinitely compressible there must be bits of it floating around: whenever a neutron decays, the proton must attract some negative goo from somewhere, so we are looking for a continuum of negatively charged....particles? each with infinitesimal charge, pervading the universe.

So far, it seems that charge is quantised, but if you can find and demonstrate a continuous subquantum of charge, you may have a point. Do please publish your findings - it's worth a Nobel at least.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Appreciate your comment! I haven't eat for long time. Your food of thought was great help.

I have another thought, the space is filled with super tiny negative charged particles, it responsable for forming matter, conduct EM wave, heat transfer ... anything involves energy, that's why I name it enertron in my head.

I live in a basement for the last 13 years, my tools are pieces science info from web, and very limited knowledge in physics. I can't find/discover anything for real. My lab is in my head.

Able to discuss my thoughts with people know better, I am in heaven already.

If any of my suggestions worth to investigate, my live is not in vain.

 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
The problem is that your model doesn't explain the phenomenon, it just adds more mystery.

What phenomenon?

Two ping pong balls, one positive charged, one negative charged, put them close in range. What will happen?

Do they stick together or obit? If they don't obit why proton and electron in atoms do?

Is this a reasonable doubt about the standard model? 




 
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Two ping pong balls, one positive charged, one negative charged, put them close in range. What will happen?

Do they stick together or obit? If they don't obit why proton and electron in atoms do?
Because you're trying to use classical mechanics outside its domain of validity. That kind of thinking simply doesn't work at the sub atomic level. Physicists ran into this exact problem at the beginning of the 20th century. They realized that classical mechanics simply did not work at the subatomic level. That's why quantum mechanics was created. Didn't you know this? If not then read this entire page and you'll have some of the answers that you're looking for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#History

For example, it says
Quote
Quantum mechanics is essential to understanding the behavior of systems at atomic length scales and smaller. If the physical nature of an atom was solely described by classical mechanics electrons would not "orbit" the nucleus since orbiting electrons emit radiation (due to circular motion) and would eventually collide with the nucleus due to this loss of energy. This framework was unable to explain the stability of atoms. Instead, electrons remain in an uncertain, non-deterministic, "smeared", probabilistic, wave–particle orbital about the nucleus, defying the traditional assumptions of classical mechanics and electromagnetism.

Quote from: jccc
Is this a reasonable doubt about the standard model?
No. Far from it. Physicists are a lot brighter than that. Besides, you're misusing that term. I.e. the term standard model refers to either particle physics or cosmology. For the standard model of particle physics see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model

For the standard model of cosmology please see
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peebles1/frames.html
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Pete, nice to see you!

I am talking about atom structure model, thought it is called the standard model.

As from your quote, scientist think atom is like mini solar system, the electrons are circling the nucleus. Therefore they need QM to explain how atoms stable formed.

If the model is right. A gold atom will be a positive nucleus surrounded with a ball of electron cloud. The out side cloud is always negative charged, how could gold atoms attract each other to form into mass?

If the model is right, how chemical bonds can be stable? What is energy level? How an atom gets excited and emits an photon? What is the mechanism?

If atom is in fact formed by nucleus attract enertrons forming a ball field, electrons are floating on that field, like a beach ball on water. Electrons will never touch nucleus. QM will be useless.

The enertrons in space conduct EM wave, keep light speed a constant. Pushes space expending. Just maybe.

I am a future auto repair guy, take it easy.

 

Offline jccc

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


According to this model, enertrons condensed around nucleus to form a ball field, electrons are evenly distributed over a sphere surface around the ball field.

For example, carbon atom has 6 electrons, located at +r -r from (0,0,0).  They don't circle, unless a force is pushing side way/along the sphere surface. they vibrate if force applied vertically.

Large nucleus attract more electrons, so they could form more than one shell of electron formation.

Chemical reaction will release enertons around electrons from outer of the ball field, nucleus reaction will release enertrons around nucleus which is much more dense so produce huge energy.

The released enertrons from the Sun is solar wind, it contains electrons and protons also. EMP is enertron wind/shock wave mixture.

As the density of enertron in space increase by time, matter get push away, cause expending universe.

Just my story, hope you like it.

 
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Pete, nice to see you!
You too, my friend! :)

Quote from: jccc
As from your quote, scientist think atom is like mini solar system, the electrons are circling the nucleus.
That’s incorrect. Please reread what I wrote because as I said
Quote
If the physical nature of an atom was solely described by classical mechanics electrons would not "orbit" the nucleus since orbiting electrons emit radiation (due to circular motion) and would eventually collide with the nucleus due to this loss of energy.
That means that if the nature of an atom were described by classical mechanics then atoms wouldn’t exist. However since they do exist if follows that the nature of atoms is not described by classical mechanics and that means that electrons don’t orbit the nucleus like planets in a solar system

Quote from: jccc
If the model is right.
Which it isn’t.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
The more reading the more question.

So far I learned seems like this. A strong force bond protons in nucleus, so positive changes can stick together. Electrons circle nucleus at shell/orbital in standing wave form, therefore electrons able to not falling in nucleus.

If so, the force keeps protons stick together is strong force, what's the force keeps electron and nucleus not stick together? Opposite charges attract each other.

They say electrons in a magnet all circling in same direction, if that's true, how could electrons not lose energy and fall in?

I have more questions, but the above is most bothering me. Please help!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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