[jccc]

Who says the universe has to have same amount positive and negative charges? If there are only 100 protons and 100000 electrons, would matter/atom able to form?

According to Coulombs law, the universe should be a little ball of matter sounded by empty space. The matter part is the two kinds of particles mixture.

But it might not look like matter we know. Without negative charged space fluid, matter will be tooo dense to support life.

[jccc]

QM atom structure suggests that atoms are like different sized ping pong balls.

Negative electron orbital shell, empty space and center positive nucleus.

3 questions, how electron not stick with nucleus?

Why atoms deep in Planet center not crash under high pressure?

How 2 O atoms form into 1 O2 since the shell of the 2 ping pong balls are all negative charged?

 

[jccc]

What is space? Anywhere force able to reach is space.

Electrostatic forces has no boundary, therefore space is infinity. Even there is only one charge exist it has boundless reach.

From geometry view, 1,2,3 dimension all infinity.

?

[jccc]

if there are only two electrons in empty space, they will along a straight line fly away forever.

if 1 e 1 p, no matter how far away, they will along a straight line fly together. if they are solid balls, the atom/universe will be 2 connected balls with opposite force fields on each side.

if the space is filled with positive charged elastic fluid, it will condensed to the electron to form nucleus and proton will be float at atom radius. an anti hydrogen.

see, no matter how many electron or proton, no matter how big is space, no matter how much charge they each carries, if you got all 3, as long as forces exist between them, you can build universe.

 

[chiralSPO]

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?

Yes the electrostatic force field of a proton is unbounded, and the electrostatic force of an electron is unbounded. But in a neutral atom those forces effectively cancel out at any mesoscopic or macroscopic distance. Use the equation you provide (Fe=q1q2/r^2) and calculate the net force on a particle of charge +1 if acted on by a proton of charge +1, at a distance of 1 mm and an electron of charge –1 at a distance of 0.99999995 mm. It's a pretty small number. Also since the electron's AVERAGE location is the same as the proton's AVERAGE location, these net AVERAGE force is ZERO.

The inverse square law is the same for electrostatic and gravitational attraction because we live in a 3D world.

You also forgot about the masses of the neutrons and electrons which should be included in the mass of a planet (the Earth has about 2 × 10²¹ kg of electrons)

[jccc]

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

so far so good? thank you for inspiring me putting ideas out.

if atomic structure theory was wrong, all theories about matter could be wrong. what is mass if matter carries no charge? if matter has no charge/force, how you measure it?

maybe proton charge is not +1, the proton and fluid ball combined net charge is +1. we can never see a single proton or neutron, they all surrounded by fluid ball like a solid rock.

maybe the size of proton and neutron are 1800 electron size, when they passing mass spectrometer, the space fluid inside the tube puts resistance on them, the bigger ball curves more. just like shoot two beach balls horizontally, the bigger ball drops faster.

mass equal to matter's force field strength.  a gold ball contains more charges therefore heavier than a silver ball. when the ball moving in space, the resistance following speed, the faster you go the heavier you are.

need sleep, later.

[evan_au]

Why atoms deep in Planet center not crash under high pressure?

That would be because the electrons of adjacent atoms repel each other, at close range (you can get more precise by including quantum effects).

This is because in something of the scale of the Earth, the electromagnetic force is far stronger than the gravitational force.

Take it up a notch, and take a white dwarf 1.5 times mass of the Sun. As it cools, it shrinks, and the force of gravity increases. The electrostatic force cannot hold the atoms apart, and it will collapse into a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]. But this effect does not occur for objects the mass of the Earth.

[jccc]

happy now?  i hope so.

light is atom's gravity wave   

[chiralSPO]

happy now?  i hope so.

light is atom's gravity wave

That makes no sense whatsoever. Light is an electromagnetic wave. The energy of of an atom's gravitational field is miniscule compared to the energy carried by photons of light emitted by atoms.

[PmbPhy]

happy now?  i hope so.

light is atom's gravity wave

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course. Consider the source.

[jccc]

an atom has mass m, vibrates at f times per second, it will seed mfc^2/t energy/force out as gravity wave. the nature of the force wave is electrostatic force.

light is not wave nor particle, light is gravitational pause produced by exited atoms.

Science has never been absolute, what makes you think today's science is all correct? In fact, science is so fucked up. Present theories of atomic structure, gravity and light are all wrong.

 

[jeffreyH]

an atom has mass m, vibrates at f times per second, it will seed mfc^2/t energy/force out as gravity wave. the nature of the force wave is electrostatic force.

light is not wave nor particle, light is gravitational pause produced by exited atoms.

Science has never been absolute, what makes you think today's science is all correct? In fact, science is so f***ed up. Present theories of atomic structure, gravity and light are all wrong.

What you are trying to say here with this mfc^2/t is that energy multiplied by the frequency of phonon vibrations over time causes gravity. In the case where the phonon vibrations are not regular your energy source will be pulsating and some of this energy is released as gravity. The problems are 1) your mass would be gone very quickly and 2) you would need to prove that all phonon vibrations are irregular. I know energy is a difficult concept but I have never heard of anyone using phonons in this way. What may be possible is that the vibrational energy causes ripples (waves) in the gravitational field without loss of energy. The problem with this is tying it to a force that is all attractive. I have no idea where you would even start on that one so good luck I await your results. I may be waiting an awfully long time.

[jccc]

we need to start from the light source. if atoms are like qm suggested, 99% empty space, why is water/matter not compressible? why there is no discharge between proton and electron? obviously the empty space is not empty.

[PmbPhy]

we need to start from the light source. if atoms are like qm suggested, 99% empty space, why is water/matter not compressible?

It is compressible. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Compressibility [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

[jccc]

we need to start from the light source. if atoms are like qm suggested, 99% empty space, why is water/matter not compressible?

It is compressible. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Compressibility [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

water's compressibility is about 10 ^-10, sounds like 99% empty space to you?

how about the discharge? is the empty space such a good insulator?

[PmbPhy]

water's compressibility is about 10 ^-10, sounds like 99% empty space to you?

how about the discharge? is the empty space such a good insulator?

I answered your question about the compressibility of water, not about how much empty space there is. They are not directly related. And the amount of space taken up can be thought of in two ways; one in which one only considers the volume of the particles and one in which one considers the atom as a whole, i.e. the space in which the electron cloud exists. In the first case the volume of the particles is a great deal less than 1%.

[jccc]

we need to start from the light source. if atoms are like qm suggested, 99% empty space, why is water/matter not compressible?

It is compressible. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Compressibility [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

water's compressibility is about 10 ^-10, sounds like 99% empty space to you?

how about the discharge? is the empty space such a good insulator?

what's your answer?

[PmbPhy]

what's your answer?

I don't have an answer. Who ever said I know everything!

[jccc]

thank you Pete!

all my respect to you.

[PmbPhy]

thank you Pete!

all my respect to you.

You're welcome.  [^]

[alancalverd]

We do know all those things. You just don't understand the mathematics.

It's not unusual to find incomprehension masquerading as superior knowledge - that is, after all, the basis of many religions.

[jccc]

We do know all those things. You just don't understand the mathematics.

It's not unusual to find incomprehension masquerading as superior knowledge - that is, after all, the basis of many religions.

what thing do you know? why water is not compressible if there is 99% empty space in atoms?

[PmbPhy]

you don't even understand how atoms are formed, .you don't know why is electron not stick to proton, you don't know why water is not compressible, you don;t know why there is no discharge in atoms,

When I said that I don't know what "how about the discharge? is the empty space such a good insulator?" means, no physicists has all that kind of data in their minds. When we need to know something we either calculate it or look it up. Which ever is the most convenient.

[jccc]

a matter/mass/charge has force/gravitational field, if the matter moves, the field follows. if the matter vibrates, the field follows.

if the sun has a big ejection/quake, we should be able to detect it 500 seconds later. we might even have a earthquake.

atoms, each has mass, when atoms exited, their fields exited, within that field, you feel light.

[David Cooper]

what thing do you know? why water is not compressible if there is 99% empty space in atoms?

Water is compressible - it just takes an extremely high force to compress it to a significant degree.

[jccc]

what thing do you know? why water is not compressible if there is 99% empty space in atoms?

Water is compressible - it just takes an extremely high force to compress it to a significant degree.

right, 10^-10. why? if it is 99% empty. what force canceled pressure?

[David Cooper]

It isn't just water. Think about rock, metal, wood, etc.

With a gas, it's easy to comress it because the molecules start far apart, and the forces keeping them apart come from impact collision energy (temperature). In water you don't have that situation because the molecules are packed tightly together already, so to push them closer together you have to push against the forces that hold atoms apart. I don't understand how atoms are held apart at the distance they are, but a simple way of understanding how two things can in principle maintain a fixed separation would be to imagine two forces, one pulling two items together and the other pushing the two items apart, but with the one pushing apart decaying more quickly over distance. This results in strong repulsion when they get close together, but there will be a distance apart where the two items attract and repel each other equally, and that's where they will naturally sit. It's easier to pull them apart from there than it is to push them closer together, so breaking them apart can be done with relatively low force while trying to compress them is extremely hard and gets enormously harder for each extra bit of compression.

[Note: I have not posted to this thread at all, but my posts (along with some others around them) were moved here from a different thread as they were part of an off-topic conversation.]

[alancalverd]

what thing do you know? why water is not compressible if there is 99% empty space in atoms?

Water is compressible - it just takes an extremely high force to compress it to a significant degree.

right, 10^-10. why? if it is 99% empty. what force canceled pressure?

What makes you think it's 99% empty? In my glass, it's 100% water. Your failure to understand molecular orbital energetics is sad, but by no means unique. That's what distinguishes scientists from the ineducable.

[jccc]

what thing do you know? why water is not compressible if there is 99% empty space in atoms?

Water is compressible - it just takes an extremely high force to compress it to a significant degree.

right, 10^-10. why? if it is 99% empty. what force canceled pressure?

What makes you think it's 99% empty? In my glass, it's 100% water. Your failure to understand molecular orbital energetics is sad, but by no means unique. That's what distinguishes scientists from the ineducable.

what is water? h2o, 3 atoms together, each atom has a nucleus, has electron orbitals, and 99.99% empty space. isn't that's the standard model?

https://www.google.com/ [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
search?q=atom+standard+model&espv=2&biw=1242&bih=606&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=

[jeffreyH]

Pseudoscience is disputing established science with claims that do not stand up to scrutiny. I think it's on topic. It exemplifies the lack of understanding that leads to pseudoscience. It can also be tied to a lack of understanding of the history and philosophy of science. This is a typical case. If jccc thinks it is extraordinary that so much space could exist in atomic structure then the orbital distance between the sun and neptune must also be wrong.

[jccc]

Pseudoscience is disputing established science with claims that do not stand up to scrutiny. I think it's on topic. It exemplifies the lack of understanding that leads to pseudoscience. It can also be tied to a lack of understanding of the history and philosophy of science. This is a typical case. If jccc thinks it is extraordinary that so much space could exist in atomic structure then the orbital distance between the sun and neptune must also be wrong.

any solar systems share planets? solar systems are light years apart. atoms are packed together. solar system works on gravity. atom system works on electrostatic force, 10^40g attraction between proton and electrons, what force keeps them apart?

[alancalverd]

If you have any pretensions to being educable, the first step to understanding quantum physics is to realise that whilst you can derive classical physics from quantum mechanics, you can't derive quantum mechanics from classical physics. You have to set aside all your preconceptions and accept the universe as it is, not as you would like it to be.   

Wisdom grows from humilty, not arrogance.

[jccc]

qm what? you can't even answer any questions i asked.

isn't standard model says there is 99.99% empty space within atoms? how empty space stands any pressure?

how many volts is in between proton and electron in a hydrogen atom? why there is no discharge? is the empty space such a good insulator?

[alancalverd]

isn't standard model says there is 99.99% empty space within atoms? how empty space stands any pressure?

I have a tent which is 99.9% empty space but still stands up in the wind. You need to start from observation and develop your model to fit the truth. Or you could buy into quantum mechanics and use the model that others have developed over the last century or so.

And don't forget Eddington's dicta:

The student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast.

If a physicist fell through the floor and rematerialised downstairs, he would consider it no more than an extremely improbable event.

....which would be merely amusing if it didn't actually happen, which makes it interesting and useful.

[jccc]

isn't standard model says there is 99.99% empty space within atoms? how empty space stands any pressure?

I have a tent which is 99.9% empty space but still stands up in the wind. You need to start from observation and develop your model to fit the truth. Or you could buy into quantum mechanics and use the model that others have developed over the last century or so.

And don't forget Eddington's dicta:

The student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast.

If a physicist fell through the floor and rematerialised downstairs, he would consider it no more than an extremely improbable event.

....which would be merely amusing if it didn't actually happen, which makes it interesting and useful.

your tent has frame to support it. how much pressure can a tent support?

[alancalverd]

You are getting there. Abandon the Bohr atom (most of us did so in the 1950s) and think orbitals. 

[evan_au]

isn't standard model says there is 99.99% empty space within atoms?

I think this is being quoted backwards.

The standard model says that the nucleus is about 1/100,000 of the radius of the atom (eg: Hydrogen radius: 120pm; proton radius: 0.87 fm).

But the electron is not a point particle; it is not even a particle with a fairly well-defined radius (like the proton). It does have some wave-like or probabilistic properties, which smears it out over the entire volume of the atom.

So the atom volume is not empty - it is filled with electron(s).

how empty space stands any pressure?

The volume of an atom is filled with the negative electron(s), and this electron will repel the negative electron(s) of any atom approaching closer than a specified distance. This distance may be empirically determined by X-Ray diffraction, deviations from the Ideal Gas rule at high pressures, etc.

In principle, this length could also be calculated from the Schrodinger wave equation, but it gets horribly complex for molecules larger than a Hydrogen atom (ie all of them).

Electrostatic repulsion withstands considerable pressure.

[jccc]

Electrostatic repulsion withstands considerable pressure.

what repulsion is between nucleus and electrons? i only can see attraction there.

[alancalverd]

You can't make an egg from an omelette, and you can't predict quantum phenomena from classical electrostatics.

You have to start with the fact that atoms are finite, construct mathematical models consistent with that observation, and see if they can predict other observed phenomena, including classical (continuum, mesoscopic) physics. To everyone's delight, quantum mechanics does this very well, which is why we use it.

[jccc]

you use it because you have nothing better to use.

so far you can't use it to answer any of my questions on the last 2 pages.

i explained gravity, light and atomic structure, what's your debunk?

can you proof that light is not gravitational wave produced by exited atoms?

[JohnDuffield]

why? if it is 99% empty. what force canceled pressure?

See Einstein's http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] where you can read this: "recognition of the fact that 'empty space' in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty". Space isn't empty. You can curve it and stress it. When you compress a spring, the energy is stored in the bonds between the atoms. It's effectively stored in the space between the atoms. And mindful of what evan said, when you dig down deep and look at an electron, it's "just field". It's the same for everything else. That's why it's quantum field theory. Yes the proton has this three-part central structure, but its electromagnetic field is part of what it is. And you can read Einstein describing a field as http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/einsteindis.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]. So atoms aren't 99% empty space. They're 100% space! 

[JohnDuffield]

is his fart sweet to you?

No. It's just that I'm something of a "relativist", I've read a lot of Einstein's material, there's some interesting stuff in there. Like space is this ghostly gin-clear elastic that you can curve and stress. Hence the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] "describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime". Note the shear stress term. 

did he said if you can't explain it to a six years old, you don't understand it?

He is supposed to have said "'You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother"

[jccc]

i wondered about why laser is pointing for so long. now if laser is gravitational wave produced by all atoms vibrate at same direction, of cause it is pointing. expends a little due to medium/air on the way. the force is not pushing or puling but vibrating, energy able to transfer without contact.

i want to take the time thank this awesome forum, and every dear member. when i joined i have little clue, now i learned a lot science. everyone is my teacher in some way. Thank You! forever.

[evan_au]

can you proof that light is not gravitational wave produced by excited atoms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]* showed that light is a transverse electromagnetic wave. We see this confirmed in practice, as we see that the speed of light is affected by ε_r (which affects the electric field) and μ_r (which affects the magnetic field), when it passes through some material like glass.

At the scale of a single atom (electrons + nucleus), the electric field is far stronger than the gravitational forces. So changes in electron orbitals can store and release far more electromagnetic energy than they can store and release gravitational energy. The energy of light (as measured by the photo-electric effect) agrees with the energy of photons being electromagnetic, rather than gravitational.

We have good astronomical evidence that gravitational waves do exist, but to be big enough to measure, they require extreme conditions like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]. (Much more massive than an orbiting electron & nucleus!) Scientists have spent over $US300M on making detectors that are sensitive enough to detect the existence of gravitational waves on Earth (eg see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]). So far, they have not been sensitive enough.

So the solar cells on many peoples roofs, costing $USthousands, and generating useful amounts of power are a clear demonstration that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, and not a gravitational phenomenon.

*By accident, I discovered a statue of James Clerk Maxwell, while wandering the streets of Edinburgh. The base is inscribed with his famous equations - but hidden around the back, presumably because they may scare the general public?
See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/James_Clerk_Maxwell_statue,_George_Street_Edinburgh.jpg [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

[PmbPhy]

He is supposed to have said "'You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother"

Wrong. I checked with an Einstein historian and was told that it's a myth.

[PmbPhy]

can you proof that light is not gravitational wave produced by exited atoms?

That's easy. First of all if it was then the gravitational wave detector LIGO would be detecting gravitational waves all the time. Light is an electromagnetic wave which means that it's not a gravitational wave. An electromagnetic wave interacts differently with matter than does gravitational waves to. We can see light but we can't see gravitational waves. Light waves have different sources than gravitational waves do. If the source of a gravitational wave was increased but not that for light then the light intensity wouldn't change but that for the gravitational wave would. etc.

Everything that goes into the theory of electrodynamics is different than that which goes into gravitation and/or GR so if you knew both of these theories like Evan and myself then there'd be no question about it.

[jccc]

are you sure? our eyes detect gravity wave all the time. the source/atom has to vibrate at high f to produce visible light. only atoms able to vibrate at high f. a little ball weights 1g will take a lot energy to vibrate at such high speed.

if you put a bell in vacuum, put gravity wave detector in the center, knock the bell and you should detect gravity wave.

the wave is electrostatic force in nature, so we call it em wave?

[jeffreyH]

jccc why do you have this fixation on electromagnetism being a source of gravity? Show us some real evidence. Amaze us! That is exactly what would happen if you could demonstrate the validity of such an idea. However the bar is high and any theory would need peer review. It's a lot of work. Are you capable of providing such evidence?

[jccc]

did you read page 12 and 13? have any questions?

start from atomic structure, if H atom is build by electron and proton only with 99% empty space, why there is no discharge? why matter is not compressible?

[alancalverd]

can you proof that light is not gravitational wave produced by exited atoms?

A gravitational wave would be detectable on the exit side of a thin sheet of metal.