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

  • 414 Replies
  • 174696 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Answer those questions, you'll closer to truth. Don't you agree?

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

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Answer those questions, you'll closer to truth. Don't you agree?

How the photon transmitted to wave and become a particle? What's the mechanism? How electron emits photon?
I believe I asked you first to explain why a photon can't become a particle. To respond with another question without answering mine is acting like mine was unworthy of an answer. Nevertheless, I will be waiting for your answer when and if you have one. If you don't have an answer, I will simply move on.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
My theory is the space is charged fluid. All things are within it.

Positive charged nucleus attract the negative charged fluid to form atoms. The density of the fluid is Df=1/r^3. Electrons also attracted by positive charged nucleus and stable at atom radius where the attracting force is equal to the repel force. A demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU#aid=P8fZ2oSGqsg

The electrons around the atom is like bond by a spring, need force to push in or pull out from the nucleus. Now if a force is applied, the electron will vibrating and produce pressure/EM wave across the space around it.

Every element has certain charge and bonding strength, therefore unique spectrum.

I don't understand the text book, how electron emits photon, be appreciate if you can explain the detail/logic.   

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
My theory is the space is charged fluid.
That's not a theory. It's a speculation/hypothesis. You should learn the difference between the two. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Quote from: jccc
Positive charged nucleus attract the negative charged fluid to form atoms.
What holds this charged particle together? If it's composed of charge and all like charges repel each other, what's holding them together?

Quote from: jccc
The electrons around the atom is like bond by a spring, need force to push in or pull out from the nucleus.
Why? What is responsible for the repulsive force? Since your electron is moving around inside the atom its accelerating. Since accelerating charge radiates energy why doesn't the energy radiate away and the electron spirals into the nucleus. Since we don't observe that it contradicts your theory. Why?

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: Ethos_
I believe I asked you first to explain why a photon can't become a particle.
It seems to me that he was saying that a photon "isn't" a particle. It's obvious why a photon can't transform into a particle with non-zero rest mass if that's what you had in mind. There'd be a violation of the conservation of momentum in one or more frames of reference.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
My theory is the space is charged fluid.
That's not a theory. It's a speculation/hypothesis. You should learn the difference between the two. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Quote from: jccc
Positive charged nucleus attract the negative charged fluid to form atoms.
What holds this charged particle together? If it's composed of charge and all like charges repel each other, what's holding them together?

Quote from: jccc
The electrons around the atom is like bond by a spring, need force to push in or pull out from the nucleus.
Why? What is responsible for the repulsive force? Since your electron is moving around inside the atom its accelerating. Since accelerating charge radiates energy why doesn't the energy radiate away and the electron spirals into the nucleus. Since we don't observe that it contradicts your theory. Why?
1. OK, just my theory.

2. Nucleus is positive charged, electron and space fluid are negative charged.

3. In my model, electrons are not moving around but bonded by nucleus attraction force and the space fluid balls repel/float force. Did you watch that video? Seems you still don't know what I am trying to picture, sorry about my poor English.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
If Coulombs's law stands universally, we should assume that every atom or charged particle are connected by their force field across the whole space.

An atoms force field does not end at atom radius, but extend to infinity. In whole, an atom or planet maybe electrically neutral, but Every charge within has its own force field beyond distance, those forces overlapped to produce chemical bonding, magnetism and gravity.


*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
If proton is in fact built by U and D quarks, then maybe the proton is like one small woman sleep between two fat man. It happens in real life. At least, the 3 quarks could electrically form into a group that we called proton.

We should assume all nucleus have some degree of polarity according their unique charges carried and the structure of all quarks stick together.

An iron atom maybe is a small magnet, the positive pole of the nucleus attract dense space fluid to form a force field that its density/strength drop off at 1/r^3, that matches the observation, and fits Coulombs law.




*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4246
    • View Profile
My calculation will be N/16N^2=1/16N photons per second. That means every 16N seconds detect 1 photon.

You can do some quick "sanity checks" on the answer:
A) Double the number of photons emitted per second (eg by putting a second candle in the center of the sphere), and you should double the number of photons detected. However, with the proposed answer of 1/16N, the number of photons will halve. This does not compute.
B)  Reduce the radius of the detector. The number of photons detected should reduce. However, with the proposed answer of 1/16N, the number of photons does not change. This does not compute.
C) Increase the radius of the sphere, while leaving the detector size unchanged. The number of photons should reduce. In the proposed answer, the number of photons does not change. This does not compute.

So I conclude that the proposed answer of 1/16N fails all 3 sanity checks.

The alternative answer from chiralSPO is N/(16R2). This passes tests A & C.  2 out of 3 is a much better score.
(It does not pass test B, because the radius of the detector is assumed fixed at 1 meter, rather than being parametrized with a variable like radius r, and area πr2. There is also an approximation here that is more accurate if r is much smaller than R.)


*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2026
    • View Profile
My calculation will be N/16N^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?

Jcc
I appreciate you are searching for understanding, but there are some gaps in your understanding of basic maths etc that you need to address.

[^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?

I apologise for my lighthearted answer, I should have been more direct. To add to the points made by evan:
The assumptions you use for your formula include an embedded definition of the number of photons/sec coming out of the candle. Thus with the detector at 1m you have 1photon/s, at 2m you have 2photons/s, etc. this clearly cannot be. You have built a feedback loop into your assumptions.
If you assume a more reasonable number of photons say 10^15 your formula says you have to move your detector to 10^15m and at that distance you are unlikely to see a candle let alone photograph it. In this case you and evan will no longer be at loggerheads. I was brought up on a sliderule so like evan I try to use sanity checks as often as possible.
Until you address the problem of your misunderstanding of maths and formulation of ideas you will meet only with frustration and misunderstanding in these discussions.

Thank you for your invitation to read your posts on atomic structure, gravity and magnetism. If you agree to address your misunderstanding, as above, I will read them.
Thank you
« Last Edit: 10/02/2015 15:18:42 by Colin2B »
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
There is a picture of elephant right in front of your faces.

Seems you only see the tail of it. Good eyes!

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Quote from: Ethos
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.

I think this is an oversimplification that risks letting in the sort of argument that jccc seem to be having trouble with.

If you regard a photon not as something that can change between a wave and a particle, you can run into trouble that might not be there if you see it as something that is neither a wave nor a particle, but is something we do not (yet) fully understand which can appear as one or the other, depending on how we observe it.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Quote from: Ethos
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.

I think this is an oversimplification that risks letting in the sort of argument that jccc seem to be having trouble with.


That's a valid point Bill, describing the photon wave/particle duality is the question here. Because we have yet to fully understand the process by which the photon can represent itself as either particular  entity at any given moment in time or circumstance, we are left with an incomplete description of the phenomenon.

Why and how the wave function collapses is something I've yet to understand myself. I'm not sure if anyone does but this collapse of the wave function is the prominent view today and until a better model comes along, I view it as the best example of reality.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Quote
Why and how the wave function collapses is something I've yet to understand myself. I'm not sure if anyone does but this collapse of the wave function is the prominent view today and until a better model comes along, I view it as the best example of reality.

It seems as though "wave function collapse" is becoming an outdated term in some circles. When I used it in another forum, I was told to "get up-to-date and think decoherence".  [:)]

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Quote
Why and how the wave function collapses is something I've yet to understand myself. I'm not sure if anyone does but this collapse of the wave function is the prominent view today and until a better model comes along, I view it as the best example of reality.

It seems as though "wave function collapse" is becoming an outdated term in some circles. When I used it in another forum, I was told to "get up-to-date and think decoherence".  [:)]
When I think about the definition for the word "coherence" and it's antithesis "decoherence", I concede that this definition may be a little more accurate. However, using the word "collapse" is not that far from the same meaning. Where collapse refers to a falling apart, decoherence suggests more of a disconnection or more correctly; "a less connected state". So I would agree that "a less connected state of being" might be a better definition. And the term "decoherence" or "scattered" would be a fair description.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2015 23:00:25 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 489
    • View Profile
Why and how the wave function collapses is something I've yet to understand myself. I'm not sure if anyone does but this collapse of the wave function is the prominent view today and until a better model comes along, I view it as the best example of reality.
Check out Jeff Lundeen who says wavefunction is real, and is something that right there in the lab. Going on from that, I think wavefunction collapse is real too. Conceptiually, I think it's something like the optical Fourier transform:


http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/fourier/fourier.html

Sorry if I've said this before, but think of a photon as something like a subterranean seismic wave. It travels  through space rather than through rock, but it takes "many paths". So it goes through both slits of the dual-slit experiment. But when you detect it at one slit you do something like an optical Fourier transform on it and turn it into a dot. So it goes through that slit only. And when you detect it at the screen you do something like the optical Fourier transform to it and turn it into a dot. Try to imagine feeling a seismic wave with a stick the size of a mountain range. If you absorbed the whole seismic wave and if your stick was pointy, you might think the seismic wave was pointlike. Weak measurement work by Jeff Lundeen et al is something like mapping out the seismic wave with a lot of little sticks. His PhD supervisor was Aephraim Steinberg who heads up another team. See his webpage too and especially this depiction of a photon going through both slits:


*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
A particle, should be either at rest or at speed v without extra force apply on it.

If it is moving, it moves along straight line. If it hits something, it may pass through/halfway, reflect or deflect. It will lose momentum/speed anyways.

Does any light or EM wave ever slowdown?

If light is particle, how a particle hits mirror and reflect back? What bounces it back? The electron? The nucleus? The empty space within silver atoms?

May truth sets our minds free sooner.


*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
A particle, should be either at rest or at speed v without extra force apply on it.
You don't know that. What we experience is only what our senses are able to tell us and they're only able to give us an average of what is really going on. Particles don't really have a position as a function of time. What we observe to be like that is merely our senses averaging what they're detecting.

Still not willing to learn quantum mechanics, huh?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
A particle, should be either at rest or at speed v without extra force apply on it.
You don't know that. What we experience is only what our senses are able to tell us and they're only able to give us an average of what is really going on. Particles don't really have a position as a function of time. What we observe to be like that is merely our senses averaging what they're detecting.

Still not willing to learn quantum mechanics, huh?

If you can tell me how an electron emits photon, I can learn faster. Agree?

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
If you can tell me how an electron emits photon, I can learn faster. Agree?
That's not the way life works. If we could learn quantum mechanics that way then there'd be no reason to read textbooks or take courses on the subject. That's a fact that you've never been able to grasp.

Anyway, see http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05070.htm   

It might help you.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Pete,

This thread is the most asked question in every science forum. I searched them all and QM is the only answer I found. I also puzzled all my life about gravity and magnetism.

I believe you already read my hypothesis about all 3 in the past few pages. I am seriously eager to learn your thoughts about them.

I said you are my teacher and always will be, please take my word.


*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
If you can tell me how an electron emits photon, I can learn faster. Agree?
That's not the way life works. If we could learn quantum mechanics that way then there'd be no reason to read textbooks or take courses on the subject. That's a fact that you've never been able to grasp.

Anyway, see http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05070.htm   

It might help you.
Does it helps a pest?
You don't consider yourself a pest do you? How on earth could you come to such a conclusion.............tongue in cheek! [;)] [;D]
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
If you can tell me how an electron emits photon, I can learn faster. Agree?
That's not the way life works. If we could learn quantum mechanics that way then there'd be no reason to read textbooks or take courses on the subject. That's a fact that you've never been able to grasp.

Anyway, see http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05070.htm   

It might help you.
Does it helps a pest?
You don't consider yourself a pest do you? How on earth could you come to such a conclusion.............tongue in cheek! [;)] [;D]

Pete says so, I trust him a lot besides QM.
If you trust him, and you should for he is quite knowledgeable, then take his advice and read a few of the links he's provided. If you give QM a chance, you might learn enough some day to have one of those extraordinary WOW moments of scientific revelation. Give it a chance.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Share me your WOW please, don't be a teaser.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Share me your WOW please, don't be a teaser.
Those WOW moments don't come cheaply, one must involve themselves deeply in research and study. Neither Pete nor I can just snap our fingers and reveal anything to a student that is unwilling to put forth the time and effort. A word to the wise is sufficient.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Share me your WOW please, don't be a teaser.
Some of those texts will teach you about physics and that means learning what the job of physics is. It will tell you what physics can do and what it can't do. For example; I know that when an electron transitions from an higher quantum level in an atom to a lower one it will spit out a photon. How it does that I don't know. But it's not the job of physics to tell us that. We seek to learn such things but in the end we know that we won't get all the answers. Therefore learning the philosophy of physics will help you a great deal. The reason you're not getting the answers that you're looking for is because you're weak on knowing what physics can and can't do. It will also help you understand things such as questions like "What does it mean to say that someone is measuring the time interval between two events?" etc.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Pete,

What is quantum level? How electrons change level? Is it a voltage thing?

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1912
    • View Profile
Electrons in an atom can be described by quantum numbers (n, l, ml and ms) No two electrons in the same atom can have the same numbers. You can think of it as a kind of address. One can also calculate the energy of the electron based on its address (quantum numbers). see more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_number

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
jccc Think of the electrons like cog wheels. When two are interlinked then as one rotates clockwise the other will have to rotate anti-clockwise. This is like spin up and spin down in a very simplified analogy. Pairs of electrons have to be in this configuration due to the Pauli exclusion principle.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Pete,

This thread is the most asked question in every science forum. I searched them all and QM is the only answer I found. I also puzzled all my life about gravity and magnetism.

I believe you already read my hypothesis about all 3 in the past few pages. I am seriously eager to learn your thoughts about them.

I said you are my teacher and always will be, please take my word.

Dear Pete, find any mistakes?
« Last Edit: 12/02/2015 07:39:47 by jccc »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1912
    • View Profile
jccc, I know we all sound like broken records by now, but I will repeat yet again:

Your approach is completely bass ackwards--with few exceptions, scientific progress is made by an iterative process of making observations, constructing a model based on those observations and current scientific understanding, checking the model against future observations, and finally discarding or modifying the model, repeating the cycle until there is excellent agreement between observation and theory.

Contrary to common belief, science does not tell us how the universe works, it lets us imagine systems that imitate (closely or exactly) what we observe of the universe. We will never find "truth" only good predictive models. We often use models that we know are wrong because they still make good predictions and are simple to use. As long as we know the limitations of the theories, when assumptions can be made, and how the real world is likely to deviate from the simplistic models, using "wrong" models is very practical.

You have proposed a model, but instead of checking it against observations, you are trying to "reason" that it is useful based on how much sense it makes to you. This model may be useful for making some types of predictions, but that doesn't mean that it is a correct worldview, and it doesn't imply anything about how the world works.

You claim to have a theory, but it sounds more like a "Just So" story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories) than scientific thought.


If you really care to know more about these three questions you have, take Pete up on his offers and actually read some of the material he provides links to. You have to suspend disbelief at the begining and just try to understand the reasoning behind quantum theories. Once you learn enough about it, you will realize the ways in which it is self consistent and how it can predict/describe what goes on on molecular, atomic and subatomic scales. You will also learn where the model fails. Remember all scientific models are wrong! Some just happen to be useful anyway.

*

Offline PmbPhy

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

What is quantum level? How electrons change level? Is it a voltage thing?
I thought I made it clear to you that I will not teach you what you can find it a text. There's a huge amount of information to be digested that you're not willing to work to do.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Pete,

What is quantum level? How electrons change level? Is it a voltage thing?
I thought I made it clear to you that I will not teach you what you can find it a text. There's a huge amount of information to be digested that you're not willing to work to do.

Did you find any mistake in my pest theories?

Have you missed any chance to show off your science knowledge?

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Still don't love me?

I am going to share your pm soon.
I think you'll find many here consider such action inappropriate.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Still don't love me?

I am going to share your pm soon.
If you share any PM I've ever sent you then I promise never to PM you again.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
If you share any PM I've ever sent you then I promise never to PM you again.
I'm not gay from cripes sake so I don't love you.  I can barely stand you. :)

Please stop with this childish nonsense and act your age. I have no time for this childish behavior.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Well, let's get back to biz.

How come you find no bones in my ideas about gravity, magnetism and atom?

What's your take?

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
How come you find no bones in my ideas about gravity, magnetism and atom?
Because I've been ignoring you. I've been waiting until the day when you decide to get serious and stop being lazy about all of this and are ready to do the work necessary to understand physics.

What are these ideas you have?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
let me share my wow moment.

yesterday, if i can trade my life to understand any of the 3, i will.

today i found them all, at least i believe.

how do i feel?

i want to transplant into a butterfly.





*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
let me share my wow moment.

yesterday, if i can trade my life to understand any of the 3, i will.

today i found them all, at least i believe.

how do i feel?

i want to transplant into a butterfly.
Continue with your present behavior jccc and all you can rightfully expect from everyone here is for us to start ignoring you.

As for myself, the time has come for me to do just that. Unless you start making some sense, and show real interest in learning and or sharing, you can expect no further replies from yours truly......................Bye, bye
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
let me share my wow moment.

yesterday, if i can trade my life to understand any of the 3, i will.

today i found them all, at least i believe.

how do i feel?

i want to transplant into a butterfly.
Continue with your present behavior jccc and all you can rightfully expect from everyone here is for us to start ignoring you.

As for myself, the time has come for me to do just that. Unless you start making some sense, and show real interest in learning and or sharing, you can expect no further replies from yours truly......................Bye, bye
I'm with my dear friend Ethos_ . In fact I declare a boycott on jccc.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
I found your greatest science achievement is artificial skin.
What in the world are you talking about now? It's dumb stuff like this that makes us want to ignore you.

I'm going to take a last shot and helping you understand orbitals and that's IT!!

See http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtut/atomic/WhyTheElectron.html

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Atom, how is it build? If you only have two charged particles, 1 proton and 1 electron.

According to physics  law, they attract each other, the closer the stronger. f=q1q2/r^2. they become a little dot with positive force field on one side and negative the other. That's not the atom we see.

You have two choices, add more charge/matter or change your law. You forgot you have more matter, so you changed your law, one for logic, one for wish.

You forgot only have 1 law, the truth.

Do you really need to change your law? If you remembered the other matter that is the charged space itself.

See if you can debunk the above, Pete.


*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
And this:

A particle, should be either at rest or at speed v without extra force apply on it.

If it is moving, it moves along straight line. If it hits something, it may pass through/halfway, reflect or deflect. It will lose momentum/speed anyways.

Does any light or EM wave ever slowdown?

If light is particle, how a particle hits mirror and reflect back? What bounces it back? The electron? The nucleus? The empty space within silver atoms?

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2784
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
See if you can debunk the above, Pete.
This is another of the serious problems that you have. You're unable to grasp the fact that I just said
Quote
I'm going to take a last shot and helping you understand orbitals and that's IT!!
When someone says "that's IT!!" it means no more conversation. And yet you keep acting like I'm going to respond to the crap you post. Sheesh! This is exactly what it means to be a troll so please STOP trolling.
« Last Edit: 14/02/2015 07:26:10 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
My theory is the space is negative charged elastic fluid. All things are within it.

Positive charged nucleus attracts the negative charged fluid to form atom. The density of the fluid is Df=1/r^3. Electrons also attracted by positive charged nucleus and stable at atom radius where the attracting force is equal to the repel force. A demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU#aid=P8fZ2oSGqsg

The electrons around the atom is like bond by a spring, need force to push in or pull out from the nucleus. Now if a force is applied, the electron will vibrating and produce pressure/EM wave across the space around it. Every element has certain charge and bonding strength, therefore unique spectrum.

If Coulombs's law stands universally, we should assume that every atom or charged particle are connected by their force field across the whole space.

An atoms force field does not end at atom radius, but extend to infinity. In whole, an atom or planet maybe electrically neutral, but Every charge within has its own force field beyond distance, those forces overlapped to produce chemical bonding, magnetism and gravity. Ever wonder why is Fe=q1q2/r^2, Fg=m1m2/r^2, and mass proportional to proton numbers within it?

If proton is in fact built by U and D quarks, then maybe the proton is like one small woman sleep between two fat man. It happens in real life. At least, the 3 quarks could electrically form into a group that we called proton.

We should assume all nucleus have some degree of polarity according their unique charges carried and the structure of all quarks stick together.

An iron atom maybe is a small magnet, the positive pole of the nucleus attract dense space fluid to form a force field that its density/strength drop off at 1/r^3, that matches the observation, and fits Coulombs law.

*

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3893
    • View Profile
To transmogrify into a butterfly you must undergo a metamorphosis.

on a more serious note how do electrons survive floating in this negative charged eather
« Last Edit: 14/02/2015 07:58:52 by syhprum »
syhprum

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
How about just the soul part?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
To transmogrify into a butterfly you must undergo a metamorphosis.

on a more serious note how do electrons survive floating in this negative charged eather

how you survive all the enemies in the world around you? You have no where to go but within them.

image the electron carries -1, the fluid carries - 1/10^20/cm^3. something like that.

the electron surrounded by negative fluid, seeks any positive charges in sight, fly to the closest proton. getting closer, the dense negative fluid ball around the proton keeps it not too close. The attraction force is f=pxe/r^2, the repel force form the negative field strength is f=1/r^3, the 2 has to balance at atom radius.
« Last Edit: 14/02/2015 08:50:52 by jccc »

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
if this theory has merit, we may assume space is bounded by itself, therefore infinity.

Infinity space/negative charged elastic fluid, with any amount of protons and electrons able to build universe. Centered by positive nucleus and space fluid ball and electron outer made atoms.

No matter if proton number or charge equal to electron number or charge. As long opposite charges exist, groups will from. Any forces will act relatively.
« Last Edit: 14/02/2015 11:58:57 by jccc »