Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: QuantumClue on 17/12/2010 13:44:07
-
Just thinking about this, and I cannot remember if there is a valid answer to my questions, my classes in quantum physics probably never covered the question.
As we are taught, electrons do not fall into the nucleus because this would mean a specific location, and electrons therefore could never radiate energy due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. However, if this is true, how can nuetrons and protons be located to specific points in the center of atoms for this too would be violating the uncertainty principle. So how is the law not violated in the center of nuclei? For them not to violate it, there must be some oscillatory motion between protons and nuetrons as to never have specific locations in the center of atoms.
Anyone know?
-
Principle. For them not to violate it, there must be some oscillatory motion between protons and nuetrons as to never have specific locations in the center of atoms.
Anyone know?
I think that's basically the answer. Because a proton or neutron's mass is so much bigger than an electron, it can be confined to a small region like the nucleus without violating the uncertainty principle.
-
That was a guess too.
-
hello, that is a very good question and i don't think that many people in the world know the answer. I would imagine it has to do with the quantum property that allows for multiple field existence. [ Invalid Attachment ] [ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Your quadratic equation is a very layman way to talk about multiple quantum fields.
-
Resp Q Clue
you know, your right. i'm sorry that i simplified the explanation using quadratic oscillation. I thought it would be a simple but effective description.
-
Resp Q Clue
you know, your right. i'm sorry that i simplified the explanation using quadratic oscillation. I thought it would be a simple but effective description.
You should not apologize too much. The term "very layman" is (IMHO) deliberately antagonistic.
-
Now, that is a fascinating idea QC.
"electrons do not fall into the nucleus because this would mean a specific location, and electrons therefore could never radiate energy due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle."
So instead of 'forces' a principle?
And they do not radiate as they make their 'orbital'?
I like that.
-
Resp Q Clue
you know, your right. i'm sorry that i simplified the explanation using quadratic oscillation. I thought it would be a simple but effective description.
You should not apologize too much. The term "very layman" is (IMHO) deliberately antagonistic.
But why people should ask, especially the person who sent the message! A quadratic equation does not come close to answering multiple fields !
Hope you had a good new year geezer!
-
Now, that is a fascinating idea QC.
"electrons do not fall into the nucleus because this would mean a specific location, and electrons therefore could never radiate energy due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle."
So instead of 'forces' a principle?
And they do not radiate as they make their 'orbital'?
I like that.
Well, yes. As an object accelerates round an object, classical physics dictates that the object should loose energy and enclose further round the point of the object. This is eliminated by saying the electron cannot loose energy because it would define a position in the center of the nuclei of atoms.
-
You know, I never considered why they didn't fall into each other, don't know why, I should have :)But what I wondered a little about is how a star becomes a black hole and whether it was 'weight' or 'mass' I should blame.
Like taking a object of a certain mass and drop it into a infinite 'gravity well' like a black hole. Would that at some point transform it into a 'black hole' itself? Thinking some more I think i agree to the formulation that it is the 'compression' that creates it but not the weight.
But, could it happen?:)
Reminds me a little of that starship coasting infinitely close to lightspeed and why it won't become a black hole.
-
Weight is proportional to mass, so one can get away with these terms. Whether weight truely adds in spacetime has been a subject of conversation here for a while. Any mass falling into a balck hole has that mass contribute to the black hole. Nothing of the object will remain because it becomes mangled and becomes part of the information of a black hole until it radiates that information from Hawking Radiation.
-
Yeah, you're right, weight is a equivalence to invariant mass. But that's one of the things i really wonder about. What makes invariant mass so unique. It's not radiation, although it have the equivalence. And why did the universe need two concepts? Weight and mass. In one manner it's perfectly simple, because we have objects of different invariant mass 'bending' those geodesics differently, but it doesn't answer it really.
Why does weight exist?
That is does have to say something more about invariant mass?
Not that I know what :)
==
But it's also a equivalence to uniform acceleration?
So maybe not invariant mass as such, but to both motion and mass.
-
i don't know why im even trying to respond to this considering how you guys belittle me but here goes. weight is relative to where you conduct the observation.
nothing with mass has weight unless it is interacting with another mass. the force of the attraction can be measured as weight iow (gravitational attraction). Einstein would say that there is no force at all but that the distortion in space time caused by any massive body is simply reacting to another massive body.
-
and another thing, simple electromagnetism is what keeps the "negative" electrons from falling into a "positive" proton. adding neutrons into the mix will give you a heavier isotope of the particular element. and like i stated before, what we are starting to realize is that electrons are not particles at all. nor are protons, they all are made of quarks, quarks are just a phase of quanta (photons). and quanta, is not a wave or a particle, but a ribbon of energy. according to string theory anyhow. well go ahead and berate me for once again stating the obvious.
-
and another thing, simple electromagnetism is what keeps the "negative" electrons from falling into a "positive" proton. adding neutrons into the mix will give you a heavier isotope of the particular element. and like i stated before, what we are starting to realize is that electrons are not particles at all. nor are protons, they all are made of quarks, quarks are just a phase of quanta (photons). and quanta, is not a wave or a particle, but a ribbon of energy. according to string theory anyhow. well go ahead and berate me for once again stating the obvious.
I won't berate you for stating the obvious, but I think you're wrong on a few points:
-Simple electromagnetism doesn't prevent electrons from falling into the nucleus--rather, it predicts that they will. Quantum mechanics explains why they don't.
-Electrons aren't made of quarks.
Also, what do you mean by "a phase of quanta"? Surely quarks and photons aren't the same thing.
Aside from those points, I think you've made a good point about general relativity. You'll find that bringing up the definition of weight will get people arguing about the right way to define it, since there isn't full agreement on that.
-
William
Keep posting, and don't hesitate telling us how you see it.
We're not really all that 'elite', and those here that actually could get away with it, least of us all, I would say :) Nobody wants to belittle anyone, That's just not 'on'.
It's a free forum, right :)
-
looking back on what i said , i see now that i was wrong. EM does state that they would attract. i think i had to much birthday juice that night. but another thing, photons and quarks are interchangeable. not enough is known about the nature of quarks to disprove that they make up all Particles, including quanta. I like this forum a lot, and have learned more in the last few months than i have in many years. thanks
-
but another thing, photons and quarks are interchangeable. not enough is known about the nature of quarks to disprove that they make up all Particles, including quanta.
Ermm... Plenty is known about quarks and photons and how they behave. For starters, their properties are entirely different and they interact in completely different ways with other matter: photons are chargeless bosons which interact via electromagnetism while quarks are charged and color-charged fermions which interact via the elecgtromagnetic as well as strong forces. They are not interchangeable whatsoever.
-
if you think our current understanding of the nature of universe is "plenty" to use your words, you are unabashedly ignorant. i guess the creation of larger and more sensitive accelerators is just to affirm what we already think we know, not to learn more. and if current theory is even near correct, quanta and quarks must be interchangeable to allow the creation of hydrogen and all other elements. where did all those quarks come from if not from pure energy? why do they phase back into radiation when separated from other quarks? why is it such an outlandish concept? the answer is right in front of us, if only we could achieve it.
-
Quarks are the only elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics to experience all four fundamental interactions
-
William - for someone who talks about "quanta" (without specifying a quantum of what - a quantum is merely the smallest amount) to call another poster abashedly ignorant is a little over the top.
FYG for a photon / quantum of light (I am guessing that is what you mean) to be interchangeable with a quark then you must violate charge and colour conservation.
-
quantization was first discovered in electromagnetic radiation, it describes a fundamental aspect of energy not just restricted to photons.
-
William, you've complained about people belittling you, but your response to me above is belittling me without reading or understanding what I've posted.
if you think our current understanding of the nature of universe is "plenty" to use your words, you are unabashedly ignorant.
It's true that I used the word "plenty" in my response, but that I didn't say what you're claiming I did. You made some claims that were wrong about how photons and quarks behave, and I said simply that we know a lot ("plenty") about photons and quarks, and why they aren't interchangeable.
I'm not belittling you when I say this, but what you're saying here shows that you completely misunderstand what the standard model of particle physics says, and yet you're using your misunderstanding to demonstrate how wrong it is! As one example, imatfaal is right in pointing out that your comments about quanta and quarks make no sense because of the definition of quanta and of quarks. It's true that the standard model doesn't answer all questions and has some major holes in it, but to actually understand and fox those holes requires first understanding what the standard model says, and then working on testable theories that fix those holes, either by patching them while keeping the theory intact, or proposing a whole new theory to replace it.
-
But it is a good idea perhaps to start and point out the where the ideas of gluons quarks partons and bosons differ. A good start might be to agree on that one discus matter while the other discuss light. As JP wrote "photons are chargeless bosons which interact via electromagnetism while quarks are charged and color-charged fermions which interact via the electromagnetic as well as strong forces."
What I think myself though is that 'virtual particles' and photons seems very close to each other. The only difference being the 'arrow of time'. And yes, it's a guess :)
-
Just thinking about this, and I cannot remember if there is a valid answer to my questions, my classes in quantum physics probably never covered the question.
As we are taught, electrons do not fall into the nucleus because this would mean a specific location, and electrons therefore could never radiate energy due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. However, if this is true, how can nuetrons and protons be located to specific points in the center of atoms for this too would be violating the uncertainty principle. So how is the law not violated in the center of nuclei? For them not to violate it, there must be some oscillatory motion between protons and nuetrons as to never have specific locations in the center of atoms.
Anyone know?
I coloured in blue the part I want to answer. Nucleons are not point particles. Certainly, their location is more determinate than that of an electron, but, as JP wrote, they are more massive and this is the explanation. The Heisenberg' principle is really strong, it's very difficult to make an incorrect statement using it.