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

  • 414 Replies
  • 174697 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
When we put matter into liquid nitrogen, atom's orbital/shell/wave should crash like a glass doom under high pressure,
Forget it. The interaction between proton and electron in an atom has nothing to do with thermal excitement.
Anyone made you believe it, has studied physics on comics...

--
lightarrow

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
When we put matter into liquid nitrogen, atom's orbital/shell/wave should crash like a glass doom under high pressure,
Forget it. The interaction between proton and electron in an atom has nothing to do with thermal excitement.
Anyone made you believe it, has studied physics on comics...

--
lightarrow

The strong attraction force fade away under QM laws seems more comic to me and lot others.

So far we don't even sure if the electron is orbiting, is that a fact?


*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
At 0 degree k, all particles stop motion, certainly there would be no orbiting or standing wave happening, how could  two opposite charges in atom keep a distance?

Strong force bond positive and negative quarks together, why not bond electron into nucleus?

Thinking about it often times got me very emotional, why why why? Pull my hairs off, pull more. I hate science.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
The strong attraction force fade away under QM laws seems more comic to me and lot others.
What is "strong attraction force"? And what do you mean "fade away under QM laws"? If they are what I think they are then any comic appearance is merely ignorance of the subject matter.

Quote from: jccc
So far we don't even sure if the electron is orbiting, is that a fact?
No. That's not a fact. We are very sure about what's going on. Electrons in atomic orbitals have a very specific meaning in quantum mechanics. "orbit" is just doesn't have the same meaning I QM than it does in classical mechanics. I've already explained many times what it means so I won't repeat myself.

Quote from: jccc
At 0 degree k, all particles stop motion,...
That's not true. First off it's not phrased as "0 degrees K". That's a common misunderstanding. It's phrased as "0 K". There's no "degrees" when it comes to Kelvin. 0 K only means that all atomic and molecular motion ceases. It doesn't refer to subatomic particles like electrons.

Quote from: jccc
... certainly there would be no orbiting or standing wave happening, how could  two opposite charges in atom keep a distance?
This is a mistake based on your misunderstanding of what 0 K means.

Quote from: jccc
Strong force bond positive and negative quarks together, why not bond electron into nucleus?
Because the strong force only acts between nucleons. That's because gluons mediate the strong force and gluons only mediate the strong force between quarks and not between electrons and nucleons/a nucleus.

I wish you'd consider a serious study of physics rather then being all over the place haphazardly. You're going to get frustrated like this as I see you getting now. If you learn it like us physicists do then you'd learn a lot more.
« Last Edit: 26/07/2014 18:15:07 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
The explanation for why an electron does not fall into the nucleus comes from a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Put simply, it states that you cannot know the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. More rigorously stated, the product of the uncertainty of the position of a particle (Δx) and the uncertainty of its momentum (Δp) must be greater than a specified value:

ΔxΔp≥ℏ2


Now, as the electron approaches the nucleus, it's uncertainty in position decreases (if the electron is 10nm away from the nucleus, it could be anywhere within a spherical shell of radius 10nm, but if the electron is only 0.1nm away from the nucleus, that area is greatly reduced). According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, if you decrease the uncertainty of the electrons position, the uncertainty in its momentum must increase. This increased momentum uncertainty means that the electron will be moving away from the nucleus faster, on average.

Put another way, if we do know that at one instant, that the electron is right on top of the nucleus, we lose all information about where the electron will be at the next instant. It could stay at the nucleus, it could be slightly to the left or to the right, or it could very likely be very far away from the nucleus. Therefore, because of the the uncertainty principle it is impossible for the electron to fall into the nucleus and stay in the nucleus.

In essence, the uncertainty principle causes a sort of quantum repulsion, that keeps electrons from being too tightly localized near the nucleus.

Quantum repulsion? My head is exploding.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Why is moving object slow down and stop? Because it get's tired.

Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons? Because there is quantum repulsion at work.

See the similarity?

In quantum world, black is white, white is black. Don't ask me why, it just be that way.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Joey,

Before I respond I want to ask you a question. Your response will determine if and how I help you again. I only say "if" because I ask these questions of you so that I'm able to properly respond to your many questions. Okay?

Question: Why don't you ever answer any of the many questions that I ask you? I only ask them so I can better respond to the questions you ask me. So when you don't respond you're only hurting yourself.

Quote from: jccc
Is there any attraction force stronger than proton and electron at atom radius distance?
No.

Quote from: jccc
Yes, when the distance decreased.
That's incorrect because in your question you wrote at atom radius distance which means at a particular fixed distance. When you said "when the distance decreased" you changed the question making it an unfair question.

Quote from: jccc
Electrons orbiting or not? Is there always acceleration between nucleus and electrons?
You should know the answer to this by now. Why do you keep asking it? I already told you that the concepts of velocity and acceleration at distances so small have no meaning whatsoever. I'm spending my summer doing a review of quantum mechanics using the text Introduction to Quantum Mechanics - Second Edition by David J. Griffiths. After the author derives the expression between d<x>/dt and the wave function on page 16 the author writes
Quote from: David J. Griffiths
What are we to make of this result? Note that we're talking about the "velocity" of the expectation value of x, which is not the same thing as the velocity of the particle. Nothing we have seen so far would enable us to calculate the velocity of a particle. It's not even clear what velocity means in quantum mechanics: If the particle doesn't have a determinate position (prior to measurement), neither does it have a well-defined velocity.

Since you keep asking questions such as Electrons orbiting or not? I can't see an end to it. Therefore I won't be responding to them again.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Pete, I went to college study physics and organic chemistry for 3 years. Bad bad score.

Don't remember your other questions, if I had the answers, should be replied.

All my confusion is very simple, my mind cannot imagine how subatomic world functioning according to what I read.

Is there a book less math more explanation about atomic structure? Everything I read online helped me little.
Such as quantum repulsion stuff. Not one place has a straight/decent answer to OP's question. How do you think I found this forum? I googled the OP"s question. So many people are like me, very simple and basic question.



 


 

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Pete, I went to college study physics and organic chemistry for 3 years. Bad bad score.
Then you know math and physics then. That helps me a great deal.

Quote from: jccc
All my confusion is very simple, my mind cannot imagine how subatomic world functioning according to what I read.
It's not just you, Joe. Nobody understands it. That's how the Shut up and calculate rule came to be created.

Quote from: jccc
Is there a book less math more explanation about atomic structure? Everything I read online helped me little.
Such as quantum repulsion stuff.
What are you talking about when you write quantum repulsion stuff? This is the kind of question I've been asking all this time that never gets answered.

Quote from: jccc
Not one place has a straight/decent answer to OP's question.
That's because everybody thinks differently.

Quote from: jccc
Why is moving object slow down and stop? Because it get's tired.
No object in existence is like that. E.g. if you had an object in a vacuum in flat spacetime in an inertial frame and it had a constant velocity to start then it's velocity would remain at that velocity until something brought it to a stop. It would require doing work on the body to bring it to a halt.
« Last Edit: 27/07/2014 00:48:27 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline JSS

  • First timers
  • *
  • 6
    • View Profile
Quantum Mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with WHY things happen. It is strictly a mathematical method for predicting things by assuming everything to have quantifiable properties, statistically found to be in certain ranges. Why any of it works is NOT the business of QM.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
The explanation for why an electron does not fall into the nucleus comes from a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Put simply, it states that you cannot know the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. More rigorously stated, the product of the uncertainty of the position of a particle (Δx) and the uncertainty of its momentum (Δp) must be greater than a specified value:

ΔxΔp≥ℏ2


Now, as the electron approaches the nucleus, it's uncertainty in position decreases (if the electron is 10nm away from the nucleus, it could be anywhere within a spherical shell of radius 10nm, but if the electron is only 0.1nm away from the nucleus, that area is greatly reduced). According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, if you decrease the uncertainty of the electrons position, the uncertainty in its momentum must increase. This increased momentum uncertainty means that the electron will be moving away from the nucleus faster, on average.

Put another way, if we do know that at one instant, that the electron is right on top of the nucleus, we lose all information about where the electron will be at the next instant. It could stay at the nucleus, it could be slightly to the left or to the right, or it could very likely be very far away from the nucleus. Therefore, because of the the uncertainty principle it is impossible for the electron to fall into the nucleus and stay in the nucleus.

In essence, the uncertainty principle causes a sort of quantum repulsion, that keeps electrons from being too tightly localized near the nucleus.

Quantum repulsion? My head is exploding.

Pete,

I googled those answers, not my words.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: JSS
Quantum Mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with WHY things happen. It is strictly a mathematical method for predicting things by assuming everything to have quantifiable properties, statistically found to be in certain ranges. Why any of it works is NOT the business of QM.
Predicting things is what is meant by explaining why. I used to believe the same thing that you just said but have been tilting the other way recently. For example; using quantum mechanics one can explain the nature of why alpha decay occurs and I recall that it can also predict the lifetime of radioactive nuclei that decay by alpha decay. It'd say that's a why question which has an answer.

You can also say that relativity is a mathematical model to. That doesn't mean you can't explain why moving clocks run slower than stationary ones.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
May God have mercy, put a quantum grenade in my head ASAP.

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4246
    • 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?
Before nuclear fusion is initiated, the Deuterium* gas is heated to somewhere around a million degrees (F, C or K, whatever you prefer...).

At these temperatures, the atoms are completely ionised, so the electrons have already escaped from the nuclei.

When two Deuterium nuclei run into each other with sufficient velocity to overcome their electrostatic repulsion they can approach within 1 femtometer. At these distances, the attraction of the strong nuclear force is greater than the electrostatic repulsion. The two deuterium nuclei can then fuse to form a Helium nucleus.

The electrons have not escaped from this reaction, as they were not present around the Deuterium nuclei at the start of the fusion reaction.

If you cool down the reaction products to room temperature, the plasma will cool into a mixture of neutral Helium atoms and Hydrogen molecules, with the electrons in a cloud around the positive nuclei.

*Sometimes a mix of Tritium & Deuterium is used, but it's easier to explain the D+D=He reaction.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • 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?
Before nuclear fusion is initiated, the Deuterium* gas is heated to somewhere around a million degrees (F, C or K, whatever you prefer...).

At these temperatures, the atoms are completely ionised, so the electrons have already escaped from the nuclei.

When two Deuterium nuclei run into each other with sufficient velocity to overcome their electrostatic repulsion they can approach within 1 femtometer. At these distances, the attraction of the strong nuclear force is greater than the electrostatic repulsion. The two deuterium nuclei can then fuse to form a Helium nucleus.

The electrons have not escaped from this reaction, as they were not present around the Deuterium nuclei at the start of the fusion reaction.

If you cool down the reaction products to room temperature, the plasma will cool into a mixture of neutral Helium atoms and Hydrogen molecules, with the electrons in a cloud around the positive nuclei.

*Sometimes a mix of Tritium & Deuterium is used, but it's easier to explain the D+D=He reaction.

Thank you AU. You sound like work closely in this field.

At that high temperature, electron escape away from nucleus attraction force field? Why not escape into it? Is there a force field around nucleus that keeps electrons at certain distance? So no matter how energize electrons can only move outward from nucleus?

Isn't strong force quite mystery? Why gluons glue positive and negative quarks together not electron? Is quark really carries -1/3 or +2/3 charge? Why is add 3 quarks mass is not equal to proton mass? How to measure quarks mass?

What is quantum repulsion? Are you going to hate me? Please don't, it's my head's fault.

*

Offline Insentient

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
    • View Profile
Uncertainty
« Reply #165 on: 05/01/2015 19:17:47 »
The uncertainty can be explained as follows...We live in a certain dimension of our own consciousness, and our consciousness has a certain limit to what we are able to observe...We know that the universe is not governed by our consciousness, but we are unable to grasp the fact that we are governed by the universe...When we see an electron behave as a particle, it is because that is what the universe needs us to observe, but this does not mean that's what is actually happening. It just means that we asked a question, and had to get a lie for an answer, because if we don't get an answer, it's a lot worse than getting lied to...Every cause needs to have an effect, otherwise we wont be able to function in our consciousness of time...In the grand scheme of things, there are secrets that the universe needs to keep...We are the uncertainty  [;)]

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Re: Uncertainty
« Reply #166 on: 05/01/2015 19:41:40 »
Quote from: Insentient
The uncertainty can be explained as follows...
First off, welcome to the forum. It's always nice to see a new member join. In the second place, that is not correct. You're using the term uncertainty incorrectly. The uncertainly in a quantity is really the standard deviation in a physical observable and that's not what you were describing. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

The uncertainty of an observable depends on the state that the quantum mechanical state that the system is in. If uncertainty was what you described then that wouldn't be the case.

Again, welcome to the forum! :)

*

Offline Insentient

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
    • View Profile
Thanks for the welcome! [:)] and thanks for the link also.., but the observer effect still holds the position of uncertainty (The position, and velocity of an object can not be quantified at exactly the same time)... well actually they can... It's just the wave length we determine, is actually our wave length, no matter what 'instruments' we use...We are stuck in a dimension 'like fish are stuck in a fish tank'.., and all the Latin symbols only get you so far before the realization occurs that we have enough information to build a 'spaceship' to get us the hell out of here!..Then we find out how the real math works ;)

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
At that high temperature, electron escape away from nucleus attraction force field? Why not escape into it? Is there a force field around nucleus that keeps electrons at certain distance? So no matter how energize electrons can only move outward from nucleus?
The more energy the electrons have, the less they are bound to the nucleus. It's not a force field but Schrodinger equation (solved  [:)]).

They can however interact with a nucleus in the same way as in LHC or other collider: high energy electrons are shooted against nuclei to explore their inside; the more energetic the electron is, the less its (wavefunction) wavelenght is, so it can explore and reveal smaller parts of the nucleus.

So, if you heat up hydrogen atoms at very high temperatures, you will ionize them, the electrons will move even faster, colliding with fast moving nuclei, and at very very high temperatures the electrons will begin to explore the nuclei's inside and to reveal quarks, and to generate new particles, even more exotic and massive and in even more number, in the collisions.

--
lightarrow
« Last Edit: 08/01/2015 22:53:18 by lightarrow »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1912
    • View Profile
jccc, I'm happy to discuss this topic further, but let's do it on this thread only.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
If electrons stick to the protons, atoms will become neutral particles. Therefore matter will not form. Nor the universe.

The nature is God. Its creation beyond wonder.

As human, we wonder why? Why is electron and proton, the strongest force source in nature, not stick together within an atom?

I heard of two theories, QM, which I can't understand. The other one, you pretend you don't understand.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1912
    • View Profile
Let's say for the moment that there is some negatively charged fluid other than electrons that was attracted to positively charged nuclei. A few questions immediately arise:

1) Why wouldn't the nucleus attract enough of the negatively charged fluid that it would become neutral, and no electrons are needed?

2) Is the entire universe negatively charged, or is there another as-yet-unobserved positively charged something that balances this out?

3) How can this fluid be observed?

If we assume that quantum mechanics is not a good model of the way things work on atomic/molecular scale, then we need to find new solutions for mysteries such as:

1) How do atoms interact to make molecules?

2) What is responsible for the bright line spectra of all the elements? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum)

3) When the double slit experiment is performed with beams of electrons, why does it generate an interference pattern?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Let's say for the moment that there is some negatively charged fluid other than electrons that was attracted to positively charged nuclei. A few questions immediately arise:

1) Why wouldn't the nucleus attract enough of the negatively charged fluid that it would become neutral, and no electrons are needed?

2) Is the entire universe negatively charged, or is there another as-yet-unobserved positively charged something that balances this out?

3) How can this fluid be observed?

If we assume that quantum mechanics is not a good model of the way things work on atomic/molecular scale, then we need to find new solutions for mysteries such as:

1) How do atoms interact to make molecules?

2) What is responsible for the bright line spectra of all the elements? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum)

3) When the double slit experiment is performed with beams of electrons, why does it generate an interference pattern?
1. The Earth can carry as much sea water as you can supply. The electron's force density/strength is equal to the   fluid density at atom radius.
2. The space is negative charged compare to matter/planet.
3. EM wave needs the fluid to exist.

1. Electron grabbing war is on going all the time.
2. Light is produced by electrostatic force vibrating in the space fluid. Every element has its own set of force density/strength due to their charges.
3. I am not sure yet, but I am sure electron is particle, not wave.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1912
    • View Profile
1. The Earth can carry as much sea water as you can supply. The electron's force density/strength is equal to the   fluid density at atom radius.
But water doesn't repel itself. If you think this negative fluid gathers around the nucleus, presumably the effective charge of the nucleus would be less than a naked nucleus in the absence of negative fluid. How would this "electrons floating on sea of negatively charged space" work for heavier atoms, where there is a multiply charged nucleus and many electrons? How much negative space gets pulled close to the nucleus as it is bigger and more positively charged?

2. The space is negative charged compare to matter/planet.
So space is all negative, and matter is 50% positive 50% negative? How much negative charge is there in the space? This doesn't make much sense to me...

3. EM wave needs the fluid to exist.
So all of the experiments that couldn't find the aether are wrong?

1. Electron grabbing war is on going all the time.


2. Light is produced by electrostatic force vibrating in the space fluid. Every element has its own set of force density/strength due to their charges.
That might work as a qualitative description, but it breaks down when we consider the quantitative description. If it were just an issue of force constants (like springs) we wouldn't see the same harmonics as are observed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series)

3. I am not sure yet, but I am sure electron is particle, not wave.

Glad to hear you are able to admit you are unsure about some things, but why are you so sure the electron is not a wave?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
1. If there's only one positive change and 10 negative charges in the universe, will the negative charges gather around the positive charge?  Heavier nucleus have more positive charge, form denser space fluid balls, electrons are float at atom radius.

2.Who told you that the universe has same amount positive and negative charges?

3. Could be all wrong, they don't understand that the ether is charged, light speed is not constant, temperature and medium density involved.


1.

2. ??

3. Electron is a charged particle. It turns in EM field. It has mass. EM wave/light is moving force, no mass, no charge. 
« Last Edit: 08/02/2015 00:37:53 by jccc »

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Jccc, somewhere Pete suggested you should read the Haifa Lectures. If you have done that you have probably seen the following:

“A trouble with Bohr’s atomic model is that, according to classical, electromagnetic theory, an accelerating electric charge, as is the case of the orbiting electric charge, must radiate energy away. In this case, the electron could not stay in a fixed orbit; it would spiral into the nucleus of the atom. Thus, such an atom could not be stable. Bohr resolved the problem by postulating that the angular momentum of the orbiting electron must be ‘quantized,’ in units of h/2π(The hint for this quantization may come from the fact that the units of Planck’s constant h are the same as those of angular momentum.) Thus, the classical orbital angular momentum, mvr, of the electron was taken by Bohr to be nh/2πwhere n = 0, 1, 2,…, and where v is the speed of the orbiting electron, and r is its radial distance from the nucleus. Thus, with Bohr’s model of the atom, the electron in a fixed orbit is in a particular energy level of the atom, En, until it would (acausally) ‘jump’ to a different energy level. When this ‘jump’ happens, to a lower energy level, the energy lost by the electron (and therefore the host atom), when it descends to the lower energy level Em, is taken up in the creation of a photon with frequency fnm”.

Does that not answer your question about how the electron avoids spiralling into the nucleus?
« Last Edit: 07/02/2015 21:59:33 by Bill S »

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Not at all. Orbiting is totally BS.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
I think the following quote from QED by Richard Feynman is worth remembering. From page 15
Quote
I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles.
Feynman talks about the wave aspects of the photon in his lecture series.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The 'orbit' of an electron must be distributed in all directions. It is still an orbit however. If you think of the solar system model of an atom then an electron approaching the polar region of the proton WILL be able to 'crash' into the proton. This would be happening all the time which it doesn't because matter would not be stable. jccc, you neglect the distribution of the electron charge and the fact that it would not naturally combine with the proton. For a start the wavelengths of the proton and the electron will be different. Only when certain conditions are met can they combine to form a neutron. Some things just have to be accepted because the theory matches experimental evidence. How many people have to tell you this before you decide to believe them.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
I'll never believe anything not logical to my mind.

Solar systems are light years apart. Do they share planets?

Those who believe orbiting atom structure should also believe magic.

Still think about photon? Particle wavelength? There's no such thing beside foolish theories.
« Last Edit: 08/02/2015 19:17:28 by jccc »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
I'll never believe anything not logical to my mind.

Unless you start believing in experimental results, you'll never be practicing good science either!
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
I'll never believe anything not logical to my mind.
That's your problem. You seem to think that we want too convince you that something is logical. There will never ever be a reason to assume that you'll ever understand the logic. That simply might be beyond your understanding. The only thing that we're going to do, and that physics can do is to formulate laws of physics whose results can be tested and which we can use to make predictions which are also testable, the results being consistent with what's observed.

Quote from: jccc
Those who believe orbiting atom structure should also believe magic.
Not at all. Especially since this sentence is quite meaningless.

Quote from: jccc
Still think about photon? Particle wavelength? There's no such thing beside foolish minds.
Actually it's you who is the fool because you talk about things that you don't understand.

The wavelength associated with photons is the wavelength that a wave would have in order to describe things like interference patterns and to determine probability distributions.

This is what we've been telling you for years now and you refuse to read to really understand it. That's why you remain ignorant and make foolish comments. If you actually studied quantum mechanics you'd then learn what all of these things mean and what led physicists to these laws. Since you refuse to learn then you'll keep making silly comments like this.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
A free neutron decays in less than 15 minutes. Being the combination of a proton and electron this shows that this is unstable and the natural state is for them to be separate. This is experimentally verified. What does this tell you? Think about it for fifteen minutes.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
The 'orbit' of an electron must be distributed in all directions. It is still an orbit however.
Wrong. You've still got a way to go Jeff. It this was true then the electron would radiate. Since it doesn't then we know that the electron doesn't even move on a classical trajectory, regardless of its shape. Don't confuse orbits with orbitals.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

Notice all the diagrams in that page and notice that there's nothing there that looks like an orbit. There are even orbitals where the electron is found in the nucleus.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Lit a candle, say it produces N photons per second. 

Those photons fly away at every direction at c speed.

At N meters away, you have a detector, its lens is 1 meter wide.

How many photons will you detect per second?

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
We may suck as physics and maths and the likes,
But we husband our erudite goals.
We’d all do much better to get on our bikes
Than to stick around here feeding trolls!

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
The 'orbit' of an electron must be distributed in all directions. It is still an orbit however.
Wrong. You've still got a way to go Jeff. It this was true then the electron would radiate. Since it doesn't then we know that the electron doesn't even move on a classical trajectory, regardless of its shape. Don't confuse orbits with orbitals.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

Notice all the diagrams in that page and notice that there's nothing there that looks like an orbit. There are even orbitals where the electron is found in the nucleus.

We can consider these orbitals as standing waves. These standing waves do not revolve around the equator of a proton. They must be distributed all around the proton. There is no way in which an equator can be said to exist anyway as proton spin can not be viewed as in the rotation of a planet. It is more complex than that. The uncertainty involves the direction of this standing wave as well as the direction of the electron spin in the z direction. This can be spin up or spin down. The whole reason we say there is no radiation is the quantization of angular momentum. Do you think jccc understands ANY of this. Is it going to help him by making it so complicated straight away?

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Just to make this clear.

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Quantum_Mechanics/09._The_Hydrogen_Atom/Atomic_Theory/Electrons_in_Atoms/Electronic_Orbitals

"Visualizing Electron Orbitals

As discussed in the previous section, the magnetic quantum number (ml ) can range from –l to +l. The number of possible values is the number of lobes (orbitals) there are in the s, p, d, and f subshells. As shown in the chart above, the s subshell has one lobe, the p subshell has three lobes, the d subshell has five lobes, and the f subshell has seven lobes. Each of these lobes is labeled differently and is named depending on which plane the lobe is resting in. If the lobe lies along the x plane, then it is labeled with an x, as in 3px. If the lobe lies along the xy plane, then it is labeled with an x and a y such as dxy. Electrons are found within the lobes. The plane (or planes) that the orbitals do not fill are called nodes. These are regions in which there is a 0 probability density of finding electrons. For example, in the dyx orbital, there are nodes on planes xz and yz. This can be seen in the diagrams below."

You can see from the illustration that the s orbital is considered spherical. Being so the distribution is spherical. Other orbitals have lobes. This is complicated further by valence bonding and conduction bands.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
We can consider these orbitals as standing waves.
You're thinking about the Bohr model, aren't you? In the Bohr model, yes. You can view them as such. See
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ewav.html

However the Bohr model is not a truly valid model. For example; it gives the impression that no matter what the wavelength of the electron there will always be orbital angular momentum and that's not true. In the completed version of quantum mechanics the ground state allows for zero angular momentum.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
We can consider these orbitals as standing waves.
You're thinking about the Bohr model, aren't you? In the Bohr model, yes. You can view them as such. See
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ewav.html

However the Bohr model is not a truly valid model. For example; it gives the impression that no matter what the wavelength of the electron there will always be orbital angular momentum and that's not true. In the completed version of quantum mechanics the ground state allows for zero angular momentum.

That's very interesting. Do you have any links or reading material on the subject.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
That's very interesting. Do you have any links or reading material on the subject.
You can read all about in the very text; Quantum Mechanics by A.P. French and E.F. Taylor, pages 43-44.

I scanned it in and put it on my website for you. See
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/other.htm

The part you want is Quantum Mechanics by A.P. French and E.F. Taylor, pages 43-44 and 2025-226
« Last Edit: 09/02/2015 02:52:11 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1912
    • View Profile
Lit a candle, say it produces N photons per second. 

Those photons fly away at every direction at c speed.

At N meters away, you have a detector, its lens is 1 meter wide.

How many photons will you detect per second?

Still counting?

Assuming that no photons are blocked by the candle itself, the number of photons leaving the flame per second should be the same as the number passing through the sphere around the candle of radius N (did you mean for N photons per second and distance N to be the same N?) I will call this radius "R"

N photons per second equally distributed through a sphere of radius R meters means N/(4πR2)  photons per second per square meter. A circular lens with a diameter of 1 meter has an area of π/4 square meters, so it would capture N/(16R2) photons per second. (if this number is not a whole number, that does not imply that fractions of photons are involved, it is just an average rate--one half photon per second means one photon every two seconds)

What did this have to do with anything???

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
1. If there's only one positive change and 10 negative charges in the universe, will the negative charges gather around the positive charge?  Heavier nucleus have more positive charge, form denser space fluid balls, electrons are float at atom radius.

2.Who told you that the universe has same amount positive and negative charges?

3. Could be all wrong, they don't understand that the ether is charged, light speed is not constant, temperature and medium density involved.


1.

2. ??

3. Electron is a charged particle. It turns in EM field. It has mass. EM wave/light is moving force, no mass, no charge.

Still waiting for your feedback, chiralSPO.

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2026
    • View Profile
[^2=1/16N photons per second. That means every 16N seconds detect 1 photon. I'll never able to take a picture of the flame. Does that gives you doubt that light is not particle but wave of energy?

Forget the photograph, patent the control mechanism.
You genuinely have a means of controlling the candle output so that when the detector is 1 meter away you can reduce the candle output to 1photon/sec?
Wow, respect.
Or am I missing something?

and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
[^2=1/16N photons per second. That means every 16N seconds detect 1 photon. I'll never able to take a picture of the flame. Does that gives you doubt that light is not particle but wave of energy?

Forget the photograph, patent the control mechanism.
You genuinely have a means of controlling the candle output so that when the detector is 1 meter away you can reduce the candle output to 1photon/sec?
Wow, respect.
Or am I missing something?

There is no photon particle. Maybe. I hope your comment on my ideas about atomic structure, gravity and magnetism.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2015 00:05:17 by jccc »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile


There is no photon particle. Maybe.
The photon can represent itself in either manner, wave or particle. Traveling thru space the photon is transmitted as a wave but becomes a particle when the wave function collapses. If you are suggesting that the photon can't become a particle, give us your source as evidence.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile


There is no photon particle. Maybe.
The photon can represent itself in either manner, wave or particle. Traveling thru space the photon is transmitted as a wave but becomes a particle when the wave function collapses. If you are suggesting that the photon can't become a particle, give us your source as evidence.

How the photon transmitted to wave and become a particle? What's the mechanism? How electron emits photon? By imagination?

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile


There is no photon particle. Maybe.
The photon can represent itself in either manner, wave or particle. Traveling thru space the photon is transmitted as a wave but becomes a particle when the wave function collapses. If you are suggesting that the photon can't become a particle, give us your source as evidence.

How the photon transmitted to wave and become a particle? What's the mechanism? How electron emits photon? By imagination?
You will never have any luck answering a question with another question my friend. If you have no evidence, just say so and we can choose to contribute to this thread or simply ignore it.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile


There is no photon particle. Maybe.
The photon can represent itself in either manner, wave or particle. Traveling thru space the photon is transmitted as a wave but becomes a particle when the wave function collapses. If you are suggesting that the photon can't become a particle, give us your source as evidence.

How the photon transmitted to wave and become a particle? What's the mechanism? How electron emits photon? By imagination?
You will never have any luck answering a question with another question my friend. If you have no evidence, just say so and we can choose to contribute to this thread or simply ignore it.
You want truth or win an argument? 

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile


There is no photon particle. Maybe.
The photon can represent itself in either manner, wave or particle. Traveling thru space the photon is transmitted as a wave but becomes a particle when the wave function collapses. If you are suggesting that the photon can't become a particle, give us your source as evidence.

How the photon transmitted to wave and become a particle? What's the mechanism? How electron emits photon? By imagination?
You will never have any luck answering a question with another question my friend. If you have no evidence, just say so and we can choose to contribute to this thread or simply ignore it.
You want truth or win an argument?
I haven't heard any truth yet, but I'm still waiting.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."