Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?

  • 414 Replies
  • 175642 Views

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
... not QM stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU#aid=P8fZ2oSGqsg

Interesting link, but it might be better to stick to the QM stuff to answer the OP's question.
There never was nothing.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
... not QM stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU#aid=P8fZ2oSGqsg

Interesting link, but it might be better to stick to the QM stuff to answer the OP's question.

What's QM answer to what force canceled out the attraction force between nucleus and electrons so electrons able to levitate at atom radius?

Been asked few times, haven't seen any comment on that. Why?


*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1936
    • View Profile
The electrons aren't levitating at an atom's radius, they're just that big. Consider them as waves rather than particles--the wave just can't fit in a space as small as the nucleus. For the simplest case, a single proton with a single electron in the lowest energy level (a 1s orbital), the density of the electron *is* greatest right near the proton, but there is significant electron density as far as ~1 Å from the proton. Try not to think of it as a tiny particle that is either close to the nucleus OR far from it, but a smooshed-out particle cloud that is close to AND far from the nucleus.

Does that help?
If visualizing this is difficult, look at the diagrams:
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/3081/3155040/blb0606/6.20.gif
http://0.tqn.com/d/np/einstein/176-1.png
or do a google image search for "electron density orbitals" or something along those lines (that's how I found these)

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1880
    • View Profile
Another way of visualising the scenario is to think of the electron as a standing wave and the orbital as a line on which the wave sits.  Only a fixed number of half wavelengths will fit on that line.  Thus the electron remains in that orbital unless/until it loses/gains just the right amount of energy to shed/gain a half wavelength, and thus jump either down or up to an orbital that will accommodate its new number of half wavelengths.

I know this is an oversimplification that doesn’t include the whole picture and that experts might shoot it down in flames, but it helped me.
There never was nothing.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
You guys didn't answer the question at all.

The question is about force, what force balanced out 10^34g between proton and electron in hydrogen atoms?

But appreciate is the same, have a good one!


*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1936
    • View Profile
If the electron is uniformly distributed around the nucleus, the force balances out. In this sense "orbit" is somewhat of an accurate analogy. What "force" keeps the moon away from the Earth?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
If the electron is uniformly distributed around the nucleus, the force balances out. In this sense "orbit" is somewhat of an accurate analogy. What "force" keeps the moon away from the Earth?

A proton and an electron make a hydrogen atom. The two charges are separated by atom radius. I see the attraction force, where/what is the force to balance it?

The moon is circling the Earth, centrifugal force balanced out gravitation.

Use the same mechanism/principle, atoms will not work/form at all.

Atom structure is not similar like solar system at all, between electron and proton there are two forces at work, attraction and repelling. Much like bound by a spring.

Seems you have no clue about my ideas posted. Or you don't agree with. It's all good. 

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
... not QM stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU#aid=P8fZ2oSGqsg

Interesting link, but it might be better to stick to the QM stuff to answer the OP's question.

You really feel/think so? Why? Because of QM is mainstream or more logical?

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1936
    • View Profile
Imagine for a moment that a proton is a ball the size of a grain of sand, and the electron is a cloud the size of a zeppelin. They are both charged to the same magnitude but with opposite charge. The proton's charge is highly localized, the electron's is diffuse but somewhat "squishy." They will be attracted to each other, and eventually the two will have the exact same center. The electron cloud totally surrounds the nuclear grain and is so symmetrically distributed that every pull on one end of the cloud is exactly counteracted by the identical pull of the nucleus on the other end (both are pulled toward the nucleus, but the force is equal and opposite in Cartesian coordinates)

Any attempt to move the electron's center away from the proton's center will be opposed by the electrostatic attraction, but the two literally can't get any closer to each other, so they don't.

You may ask what is the "pressure" that keeps the electron inflated/keeps the cloud from collapsing down to a point the size of the proton. That has already been explained on this thread. Near the beginning. This is one of the many hideous faces of uncertainty. If the proton were somehow able to constrain the electron to a smaller volume, the electron's velocity would be more variable, and it would ultimately go fast enough to return to a larger area of occupancy.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Imagine for a moment that a proton is a ball the size of a grain of sand, and the electron is a cloud the size of a zeppelin. They are both charged to the same magnitude but with opposite charge. The proton's charge is highly localized, the electron's is diffuse but somewhat "squishy." They will be attracted to each other, and eventually the two will have the exact same center. The electron cloud totally surrounds the nuclear grain and is so symmetrically distributed that every pull on one end of the cloud is exactly counteracted by the identical pull of the nucleus on the other end (both are pulled toward the nucleus, but the force is equal and opposite in Cartesian coordinates)

Any attempt to move the electron's center away from the proton's center will be opposed by the electrostatic attraction, but the two literally can't get any closer to each other, so they don't.

You may ask what is the "pressure" that keeps the electron inflated/keeps the cloud from collapsing down to a point the size of the proton. That has already been explained on this thread. Near the beginning. This is one of the many hideous faces of uncertainty. If the proton were somehow able to constrain the electron to a smaller volume, the electron's velocity would be more variable, and it would ultimately go fast enough to return to a larger area of occupancy.

 A cloud the size of a zeppelin. Hit by a photon, jump out atom to become an electron?  Give me some of your lsd watered weed please.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1936
    • View Profile
I am not suggesting that the electron cloud turns into a point-charge after interacting with a photon. I am also not claiming that it is easy to wrap one's mind around the first time through. However, I do think that the QM model of atoms, molecules and light is a very good one, and yes, it even becomes intuitive once you think about it enough. (lsd watered weed helps, of course)

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
I am not suggesting that the electron cloud turns into a point-charge after interacting with a photon. I am also not claiming that it is easy to wrap one's mind around the first time through. However, I do think that the QM model of atoms, molecules and light is a very good one, and yes, it even becomes intuitive once you think about it enough. (lsd watered weed helps, of course)

Finally you summed it up, good job!

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
If we  break proton in hydrogen atom into quarks, hydrogen atom will be no more. Left about 1% mass - electron and 3 quarks.

The missing mass should be converted to energy.

Agree?

*

Offline UltimateTheory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
    • Ultimate Theory of the Universe
If we  break proton in hydrogen atom into quarks, hydrogen atom will be no more. Left about 1% mass - electron and 3 quarks.

The missing mass should be converted to energy.

Agree?

This would break baryon number conservation.

Currently the only known way to extract energy stored in proton, is annihilation with antiproton.

f.e.
p+ + p- -> pion0 + pion0 + pion0 + kinetic energy spread across these particles.

Proton and antiproton have together 2 * 938.272 MeV = 1876.544 MeV
Pion0 rest mass is 135 MeV, so 3*135 MeV = 405 MeV
The rest is in kinetic energy of newly created particles.

pion0 is unstable particle and quickly decaying to

pion0 -> y + y
or
pion0 -> y + e+ + e-

Other sources mention up to 9 pions (also charged) (theoretically up to 13 mesons can be created)
So if we will have 2 pion+ and pion- and 5x pion0 it's 2*139 MeV + 5*135 MeV = 953 MeV energy in rest mass of newly created particles. The rest in kinetic energy.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 01:29:58 by UltimateTheory »
Ultimate Theory of the Universe
http://www.ultimate-theory.com

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
If we  break proton in hydrogen atom into quarks, hydrogen atom will be no more. Left about 1% mass - electron and 3 quarks.

The missing mass should be converted to energy.

Agree?


Currently the only known way to extract energy stored in proton, is annihilation with antiproton.

f.e.
p+ + p- -> pion0 + pion0 + pion0 + kinetic energy spread across these particles.

Proton and antiproton have together 2 * 938.272 MeV = 1876.544 MeV
Pion0 rest mass is 135 MeV, so 3*135 MeV = 405 MeV
The rest is in kinetic energy of newly created particles.


Find a better way, antiproton is too pricy.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Electron carries 1 negative charge, proton carries 1 positive charge.

Why proton carries 939 Mev but electron only carries so little energy?

Is that suggesting that energy is negatively charged? Stored within protons force field?

All the energy released since big bang filled space and connected it into an EM field.

All things in space/universe is connected by this EM field.

When a charged particle accelerates, its force field produce a pressure wave into surrounding EM field, travel away at light speed.

So far, do you agree the logic?




 
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 02:54:13 by jccc »

*

Offline UltimateTheory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
    • Ultimate Theory of the Universe
Electron carries 1 negative charge, proton carries 1 positive charge.

Why proton carries 939 Mev but electron only carries so little energy?

938.272 MeV proton
0.5109989 MeV electron

Is that suggesting that energy is negatively charged? Stored within protons force field?

There is no such thing as negative energy..

Antiparticle has positive energy. Dirac was mistaken. He plug Einstein equation E=m*c^2 to Planck E=h*f, and though that antielectron will have negative frequency, negative mass, etc.
But the all people who can calculate decay energy and decay modes of unstable isotopes will tell you it's wrong. Positron (antielectron) has positive energy.

All the energy released since big bang filled space and connected it into an EM field.

All things in space/universe is connected by this EM field.

When a charged particle accelerates, its force field produce a pressure wave into surrounding EM field, travel away at light speed.

So far, do you agree the logic?

No.

Pressure wave? In front of particle? There is no experiment confirming such behavior.

Charged particle is emitting photons when it's changing direction or is decelerated, or intercepted by other charged particle (like f.e. electron intercepted by proton).

f.e. if I will use Cockcroft-Walton generator to produce 10 kV, and plug electrodes to vacuum tube, electrons kinetic energy inside of tube will be 10 keV,
if such highly accelerated electron will collide with something between electrodes like piece of metal, there will be emitted photon up to 10 keV (x-ray)
and electron will be slowed down, decelerated.
X-ray will fly through tube, then through walls, then will ionize air or other material behind it, leaving trace in Cloud Chamber.
You can see it on your own eyes, if you will build Cloud Chamber and Cockcroft-Walton generator for less than $100
http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2014/6/8/how-to-build-cloud-chamber-particle-detector
Ultimate Theory of the Universe
http://www.ultimate-theory.com

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Electron carries 1 negative charge, proton carries 1 positive charge.

Why proton carries 939 Mev but electron only carries so little energy?

938.272 MeV proton
0.5109989 MeV electron

Is that suggesting that energy is negatively charged? Stored within protons force field?

There is no such thing as negative energy..

Antiparticle has positive energy. Dirac was mistaken. He plug Einstein equation E=m*c^2 to Planck E=h*f, and though that antielectron will have negative frequency, negative mass, etc.
But the all people who can calculate decay energy and decay modes of unstable isotopes will tell you it's wrong. Positron (antielectron) has positive energy.

All the energy released since big bang filled space and connected it into an EM field.

All things in space/universe is connected by this EM field.

When a charged particle accelerates, its force field produce a pressure wave into surrounding EM field, travel away at light speed.

So far, do you agree the logic?

No.

Pressure wave? In front of particle? There is no experiment confirming such behavior.

Charged particle is emitting photons when it's changing direction or is decelerated, or intercepted by other charged particle (like f.e. electron intercepted by proton).

f.e. if I will use Cockcroft-Walton generator to produce 10 kV, and plug electrodes to vacuum tube, electrons kinetic energy inside of tube will be 10 keV,
if such highly accelerated electron will collide with something between electrodes like piece of metal, there will be emitted photon up to 10 keV (x-ray)
and electron will be slowed down, decelerated.
X-ray will fly through tube, then through walls, then will ionize air or other material behind it, leaving trace in Cloud Chamber.
You can see it on your own eyes, if you will build Cloud Chamber and Cockcroft-Walton generator for less than $100
http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2014/6/8/how-to-build-cloud-chamber-particle-detector

Awesome! Thanks!

Please comment on the following thoughts.

The strongest positive force field in nature is very next to a proton.

The strongest negative force field is also very next to a proton, composed by negative charged energy/enertron.

Energy is thought to be infinity small negative charged particles each carries a fiction of an electron's charge.

In nature, proton attracts all negative charges, electrons and enertrons compete accelerating to proton. Enertrons win the race, it has more charge to volume ratio. 

Enertrons form a ball around proton, density = 1/r^3 from proton. Electron levitate at atom radius where protons attracting force equals to enertron ball repulsion force.


*

Offline UltimateTheory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
    • Ultimate Theory of the Universe
Electron you can see in Cloud Chamber as trace made by particle, especially when it has large kinetic energy (f.e. electron from beta decay-).

Unlike your particle.
Ultimate Theory of the Universe
http://www.ultimate-theory.com

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4192
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If you were to have a pole mounted in the centre of a pool and were to generate a wave around the periphery that moved toward the centre it would be interesting to see what the effect would be. Water is a good medium for modeling wave-like phenomena.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4192
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
This site has some interesting representations of what matter waves may look like.

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-wave-structure/wave-structure-la-freniere.shtml
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
This site has some interesting representations of what matter waves may look like.

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-wave-structure/wave-structure-la-freniere.shtml

Unfortunately, those plots are nonsense.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4192
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
This site has some interesting representations of what matter waves may look like.

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-wave-structure/wave-structure-la-freniere.shtml

Unfortunately, those plots are nonsense.

I didn't say they were valid. What interests me are inward traveling waves and what effects they would produce. Throughout the universe we have converging gravitational waves. This could be represented by a perfect sphere with a perfect spherical cavity at its centre.
« Last Edit: 19/07/2014 19:55:18 by jeffreyH »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Please comment on the following thoughts.

The strongest positive force field in nature is very next to a proton.

The strongest negative force field is also very next to a proton, composed by negative charged energy/enertron.

Energy is thought to be infinity small negative charged particles each carries a fiction of an electron's charge.

In nature, proton attracts all negative charges, electrons and enertrons compete accelerating to proton. Enertrons win the race, it has more charge to volume ratio. 

Enertrons form a ball around proton, density = 1/r^3 from proton. Electron levitate at atom radius where protons attracting force equals to enertron ball repulsion force.
You already have my thoughts on some of this. I.e. first off you're talking about something that doesn't exist so it's either imaginary, like a unicorn, or it belongs to a New Theory. If it's the later then this is the wrong forum. If indeed it is a new theory and this is a new particle from that theory then you could at least tell us where this notion came from. I.e. what made you start talking about a thing called an "enertron" and then refuse to tell us what it is every time I've asked you what it is? It's hard to help you when you do things like that. And you know me my friend. I do want to help you. :)

I'll go as far as I can with what I have; you wrote
Quote from: jccc
Please comment on the following thoughts.

The strongest positive force field in nature is very next to a proton.
What is the source of this force? Are you talking about the electric force? If so then that's not the strongest force in nature. The strong force is much stronger. Also since you said that it's the strongest positive force then the sign being positive means that its repulsive. However the strong force is attractive for all nucleons, both protons and neutrons. So you have a contradiction here.

Quote from: jccc
The strongest negative force field is also very next to a proton, composed by negative charged energy/enertron.
Here's where you've lost connection with mainstream science. You're asking about things that don't exist and expecting physics to give you an appropriate and correct answer. Why are you doing this my friend?

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4318
    • View Profile
Quote
inside nucleus, gravity plays a big deal due to f=m1m2/r^2

Newton's theory of gravity states that f=Gm1m2/r2

The missing term is G, which is approximately equal to 6.7×10−11 N m2 kg−2

So this comparison between gravity and the electrical field is off by about 11 orders of magnitude.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1936
    • View Profile
What's the strongest positive force field? A proton carries 1 positive charge, you put a test charge neat it to measure it. The force f=1/r^2, isn't the strongest positive force field is near the surface of a proton?

Strong force holds protons and neutrons together, therefore it should be negative charged in nature. Agree?

Also, inside nucleus, gravity plays a big deal due to f=m1m2/r^2, compare the radius of the atom and the nucleus.

There is no charge associated with the strong force. Just as with gravity. Charge is irrelevant to these forces. Just as mass is irrelevant to the electrostatic force.

The gravitational field of a hydrogen or helium nucleus is pretty close to nothing as far as their electrons are concerned. However, for much more massive atoms, (where the electrons are also much closer to the nucleus due to electrostatic attraction), like gold or mercury there is actually a significant effect. But it's not the gravitational attraction (electrons are really light), it is from the time dilation near the nucleus.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
What's the strongest positive force field?
[/quoplte A proton carries 1 positive charge, you put a test charge neat it to measure it. The force f=1/r^2, isn't the strongest positive force field is near the surface of a proton?
jccc - In my last post asked you several questions. I asked you those questions because I need to know the answer in order to answer your question. In this case I need to know what force you're talking about. When someone uses the term "positive force" they're often referring to a force which is directed away from the source of the force. In this context it means a repulsive force. The strongest repulsive force is the electric force. The closer to the particle the stronger the force.

With those assumptions we can say that the force is the same near any positive charge because all positive charges are the same. The only exception is the quark but they don't appear by themselves outside the nucleon.

However if the particle is an alpha particle (which has two protons in it) then the force is stronger near the surface of the alpha particle. And the force is the same near any positively charged particle. So using the proton is misleading because any positive charge will have the same force pushing it away. And it keeps going up with the number of protons near the nucleus of the atom, so long as electrons aren't screening them.

Quote from: jccc
Strong force holds protons and neutrons together, therefore it should be negative charged in nature. Agree?
No.
In theory the strong force also holds neutrons to neutrons. Just because it holds two charged particles together it doesn't mean that it's doing so by canceling out the positive charge.

Quote from: jccc
Also, inside nucleus, gravity plays a big deal due to f=m1m2/r^2, compare the radius of the atom and the nucleus.
The gravitational force inside the nucleus is so small that it's ignored in nuclear physics.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Don't put out books and numbers, if you cannot explain just say it, say we don't know yet is better answer.

On the contrary, its been explained numerous times.  If you can't understand the explanations, just say it and we'll try to explain it in a different way.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Don't put out books and numbers, if you cannot explain just say it, say we don't know yet is better answer.

On the contrary, its been explained numerous times.  If you can't understand the explanations, just say it and we'll try to explain it in a different way.

Yes, please explain it in a way that is logically sound. This is so important! THANKS!

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
You can say anything you like, but the logic just don't sound. Why is electrons in gold atoms very close to nucleus   not contact with it? Isn't strong attraction force at work?
In order to understand that you need to study quantum mechanics. It's not possible to answer any and all questions about nature to someone who doesn't understand physics. Likewise it's not possible to explain what happens in an atom to someone who has never studied quantum mechanics. The best that can be said to someone who's never studied it is to say that in the microscopic world electrons don't behave like ordinary things in our macroscopic world. I.e. they can't be described as having a particular shape of being at a particular position. What we can also say is that electrons around an atom are in a way somewhat like standing waves and those standing waves can only be so close to the nucleus.

Quote from: jccc
7 pages, no one has an answer to the Op question that is sounding.
Actually it has been explained to the satisfaction of the person who asked the question. Just because you didn't understand it it doesn't mean the description was wrong. And as I said, you need a certain background to be able to grasp it. People don't just walk into a quantum mechanics class, ask a question and can expect to walk out of the class understanding the answer.

Quote from: jccc
What's the mechanism?
We talked about the fact that science is not about providing mechanisms. Did you not listen. Read carefully  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Quote
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
:)
« Last Edit: 21/07/2014 17:20:05 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Electrons move in straight line in cloud chamber. Bent by EM field. I don't see standing wave, cloud or shell. I see a charged particle.

Why in atoms electron becomes wave? Is the wave negative charged? Is it attracted by nucleus? How the wave moves?

In H2O, electrons are bounded in fixed position, how is it a wave?

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Don't put out books and numbers, if you cannot explain just say it, say we don't know yet is better answer.

On the contrary, its been explained numerous times.  If you can't understand the explanations, just say it and we'll try to explain it in a different way.

Yes, please explain it in a way that is logically sound. This is so important! THANKS!
NO! It's not important at all! Physics *don't have* to be "logically sound", and not even "logical". It have to be consistent with its postulates/theorems/definitions/rules and with the experimental results.

--
lightarrow

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Electrons move in straight line in cloud chamber. Bent by EM field. I don't see standing wave, cloud or shell. I see a charged particle.

Why in atoms electron becomes wave? Is the wave negative charged? Is it attracted by nucleus? How the wave moves?

In H2O, electrons are bounded in fixed position, how is it a wave?
No comment? Or as confused as me?

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
NO! It's not important at all! Physics *don't have* to be "logically sound", and not even "logical". It have to be consistent with its postulates/theorems/definitions/rules and with the experimental results.
Please explain the theorems and experiment results about how a hydrogen atom is formed.
You received a lot of answers but you don't believe us...
You only have to study quantum mechanics and when you have seriously done it you come here again and you tell us what's wrong with this theory.
Regards.

--
lightarrow

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Electrons move in straight line in cloud chamber.
Actually that's not true. What you're seeing is an approximation of a straight line. At the subatomic level it can't even be said to be a trajectory in the literal sense.

Quote from: jccc
I don't see standing wave, cloud or shell.
Please recall what I wrote, i.e.

Quote from: jccc
The best that can be said to someone who's never studied it is to say that in the microscopic world electrons don't behave like ordinary things in our macroscopic world.
Note: When I use the term microscopic level, I'm being a bit sloppy. To be precise it really applies to the subatomic level.

Notice that I was talking about the subatomic world while you keep thinking about the macroscopic world. Did you ever really believe that if you looked hard or with a strong enough microscope that you'd be able to see electrons orbiting a nucleus? It's down at atomic sizes that this wave size for electrons is apparent. Thompson's double slit experiment used photons to demonstrate the wave nature of photons. So you really can't compare the two when it comes to wavelength.

Quote from: jccc
I see a charged particle.
That too is incorrect. Have you ever studied how a cloud chamber works? If not then please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber#Structure_and_operation

Quote from: jccc
The result is a supersaturated environment. The alcohol vapour condenses around ion trails left behind by the travelling ionizing particles. The result is cloud formation, seen in the cloud chamber by the presence of droplets falling down to the condenser. As particles pass through they leave ionization trails and because the alcohol vapour is supersaturated it condenses onto these trails. Since the tracks are emitted radially out from the source, their point of origin can easily be determined
When you look at "trajectories" in a cloud chamber and you think you see a moving charge, what you're really seeing is a trail of vapour. And this is at the macroscopic level, not the microscopic level.

You can't see things at the subatomic level with your eyes or even with the most powerful microscope that can theoretically be built.

Quote from: jccc
Why in atoms electron becomes wave? Is the wave negative charged? Is it attracted by nucleus? How the wave moves?
Electrons never become waves. They have wave "properties" at some times and particle properties at other times.

Quote from: jccc
In H2O, electrons are bounded in fixed position, how is it a wave?
Again, you didn't read close enough to my last post. I.e.

Quote from: jccc
What we can also say is that electrons around an atom are in a way somewhat like standing waves and those standing waves can only be so close to the nucleus.
Why do you think I added that part that says  in a way somewhat like? It's because it's too difficult to explain the exact nature to someone who hasn't studied the subject. If I told you about eigenfunctions and spherical harmonics would you be able to understand what I was talking about? The functions which describe the probability density of the electron a solution to Schrodinger's equation.

To see what the solutions look like for hydrogen go to Google and search using the phrase "diagrams of the solutions to Schrodinger equation for hydrogen". You'll see that the first result comes up with pictures that look like clouds (which is why they're called "electron clouds"). Take a look at it and study it.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
It is raining, I see everything without a leg/support falling down, a little gravity but nothing can escape from it.

What's the leg support 10^34 g attraction force between nucleus and electrons?

QM laws? Seriously my friends.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1936
    • View Profile
your "logic" fails on the subatomic scale. Many of your assumptions are based on macroscopic phenomena, and lead to false and paradoxical statements.

On this subatomic scale, it is entirely reasonable, and actually necessary, for something to "be in multiple places at once"
On this subatomic scale, it is entirely impossible for something to stop moving
On this subatomic scale, it is entirely possible for something to go from one place to another without traveling through any points in between.

On a macroscopic scale, these claims sound ridiculous, and anything behaving in this way would certainly seem magical. However this is how really small things are. It has been demonstrated experimentally, we have mathematical models for it, and these models make good predictions that can be tested against experiment (many of them).

Please stop telling the world that it is not behaving the way you think is logical (it won't listen)

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
I've split a few posts off this thread.  jccc, please keep your posts on topic and don't promote new theories here.  If you want to propose alternative explanations to standard quantum mechanics, the place to do so is in the New Theories forum.

Thanks,
The Mods

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile

On a macroscopic scale, these claims sound ridiculous, and anything behaving in this way would certainly seem magical. However this is how really small things are. It has been demonstrated experimentally, we have mathematical models for it, and these models make good predictions that can be tested against experiment (many of them).



What experiments and predictions? Please point out, appreciate.

Believe me, if I can understand QM, my sleep will be much sweeter.
To understand QM, I'm sure if you were to take the advice which several members here have offered, you might not only understand QM, you would sleep much sweeter as well as the rest of us.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
My great great great grandpa was a scientist. He left a note book, he theorised/ predicted the universe is expending, light speed is constant in all sources and directions, spiral galaxies create magnetic field at center disk.

If he was published his theories/predictions in mainstream science field 100 years ago, would you never forget his name?

*

Offline JSS

  • First timers
  • *
  • 6
    • View Profile
The reason that an electron cannot meet the proton is simply one of "impedance matching". A small mass charge cannot enter the domain of a large mass charge, even of the opposite charge. Note that as long as the masses of the particles are nearly equal, they do collide, because they are more impedance matched. The truly strongest force in nature is impedance mismatching (most notably between a large and small mass with opposite charges.

I could go into extreme detail of exactly why and how that works and what mass has to do with impedance matching, but it is a very, very long story.

And interestingly to space travel buffs, if you have a very large, heavy space ship with a very strong positive charge on it, then fire a small missile with an equally strong negative charge on it at the ship, the missile will blow up before reaching the ship. The impedance mismatch is a harder surface than the ship.

That is how you get the "impenetrable force shield" depicted in sci-fi films. The trick is getting the strong charge on the missile.  [8D]
« Last Edit: 24/07/2014 23:25:44 by JSS »

*

Offline JSS

  • First timers
  • *
  • 6
    • View Profile
So, electrons are for real orbiting the nucleus?

Charged particle accelerating in EM field will release energy, how long can electron keep orbiting before crash into nucleus?
The electron is constantly maintaining its size by absorbing energy (in the form of infinitesimal EMR pulses). All particles are merely a concentrated clump of infinitesimal EMR noise, constantly replenishing. Thus an electron can orbit (merely shifting the center of its noise), release energy, and also absorb an equal amount of energy.

What we call "empty space" is actually filled with infinitesimal EMR pulses (much as Krauss theorized, although having nothing to do with quantum foam). Without such subtle affectance, no particle could ever exist.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile



What we call "empty space" is actually filled with infinitesimal EMR pulses (much as Krauss theorized, although having nothing to do with quantum foam). Without such subtle affectance, no particle could ever exist.
Precisely................There is no "space/time" empty of field.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4318
    • View Profile
Quote
So, electrons are for real orbiting the nucleus?

Not really - it's an idea dating from the early days of studying the internals of the atom, where they imagined the atom like a tiny solar system.

This is still sometimes used as an analogy to introduce students to the structure of the atom, but the wave nature of planets is too small to be noticeable, so it's fairly limited as an analogy.

Quote
Charged particle accelerating in EM field will release energy, how long can electron keep orbiting before crash into nucleus?
About 16 picoseconds.

Clearly, the atoms in our bodies survive longer than this, so there is a paradox here.

This exact problem was identified by Niels Bohr, who proposed a solution in 1913 (101 years ago, now).

To catch up, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model#Origin

Later developments in quantum theory from 1925 onwards made these ideas more precise (but often more shrouded in mathematics).

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4192
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I don't mean to be contrary. [:)] I just need to explore every possibility that might offer experimental evidence that my vision of a photon is not reality. As far as I can determine the double slit experiment supports the vision. If I did not have the photon defined so that it must produce the observed results by cause and effect, I might fantasize some magical wave-particle duality.

The anatomy of a photon: A photon consists of two half cycles of electric and magnetic fields that drive points of maxima through space. The fields exist in a spatial area around the points. The changing amplitude of the fields drive the points and determine their path through space. Photon interaction happens at the points of maxima. So any observation will see the points. Edit: It is not my definition; it is Maxwell's definition.

What perplexes me is that folks don't seem to understand that. Is it that I just can't put the right words together?

Here's a schematic of the vision. It looks just like those that were in the text books when I studied electronics and nuclear instrumentation back in the 50's.



I know exactly what you mean.  [8D] I am putting together a model the details of which are in new theories. The Pauli Exclusion Principle has a physical mechanism that can be described along with the difference in energies of electrons. I like your diagram BTW. Although you haven't described the path of the waveform correctly. Yes there are waves!
« Last Edit: 25/07/2014 18:15:19 by jeffreyH »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Bingo!

This kind of comment is just cool as it can be.
What? That's what I've been telling you all this time!

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Bingo!

This kind of comment is just cool as it can be.
What? That's what I've been telling you all this time!

Feel like his wording has more momentum. Yours more temperature.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
In fusion reaction, two atoms impact so hard, even two nucleus crashed into one, how come electron escaped from the crash?

Let's say somehow QM is correct, atoms are stable due to some mystery laws. When we putting pressure on matter, to a point, atoms/orbital/shell/wave will crash. But this never happened.

Wonder, confuse, another sleepless night, have a nice weekend!

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
In fusion reaction, two atoms impact so hard, even two nucleus crashed into one, how come electron escaped from the crash?
The atoms become ionized during fusion and loose electrons due to such an energetic impact knocking it out, the atom would later capture another electron and have a full set of electrons again.

Quote from: jccc
Let's say somehow QM is correct, atoms are stable due to some mystery laws.
Those "mystery laws" are called the postulates of quantum mechanics.

Quote from: jccc
When we putting pressure on matter, to a point, atoms/orbital/shell/wave will crash. But this never happened.
Since when? Atoms due combine to form molecules you know.
« Last Edit: 27/07/2014 05:39:19 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Pete, I don't get the part two positive nucleus able to impact into one but opposite charges not able to impact into one.
I don't know what you mean by "impact." Please explain.

The proton and electron are opposite charges and they form a hydrogen atom. The electron and positron are opposite charges and form positronium.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium

Two positive charges also have the strong force acting on them in order to bind them together. Without the strong force nuclei with more the one proton couldn't exist.

Quote from: jccc
You talk about electron capture, capture by attraction force right? Why is nucleus only capture electrons half way and put them at radius?
What do you mean by "put them at radius"? Electron capture is the following process

[tex]p + e^{-} -> n + \nu_e[/tex]

where n is a neutron and [tex]\nu_e[/tex] is an electron neutrino.

Quote from: jccc
When we put matter into liquid nitrogen, atom's orbital/shell/wave should crash like a glass doom under high pressure, that never happened as I know.
Now we're getting into quantum chemistry. A field I haven't thought about since I was a sophomore in college so many decades ago. Also you're using terms which I don't know what they mean such as crash like a glass doom.