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

  • 414 Replies
  • 175724 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline jccc

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


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.

solar cells transfer gravity wave into current all the time. green leaves transfer gravity wave into food.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4195
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If opposite charges are meant to combine then why does the neutron decay? I have deja vu here.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
If opposite charges are meant to combine then why does the neutron decay? I have deja vu here.

why people got married? never seen divorce?

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4195
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If opposite charges are meant to combine then why does the neutron decay? I have deja vu here.

why people got married? never seen divorce?

You aren't here to learn.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
the most beautiful thing in the universe is not mystery, but your mind.

without mind, there's nothing.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4913
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile


solar cells transfer gravity wave into current all the time. green leaves transfer gravity wave into food.

Repeating an obvious untruth won't make it true, or even amusing.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jccc

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


solar cells transfer gravity wave into current all the time. green leaves transfer gravity wave into food.

Repeating an obvious untruth won't make it true, or even amusing.

are you talking about qm? graviton or photon? I told you long ago.

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 507
    • View Profile
Re: Re: The Pseudosciences
« Reply #307 on: 02/03/2015 14:42:42 »
Quote from: JohnDuffield
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.
That's why I said supposed.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
You can only claim an atom is >99% empty space if you insist that electrons each exist at a single point. They don't. They exist as a probability cloud. Those clouds interact in various ways and are responsible for the lack of compression you think should be present.

« Last Edit: 03/03/2015 08:29:41 by Ophiolite »
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
i claim nothing.

i ask if standard atomic model is correct, why matter is not compressible? why there is no discharge within atoms?

obviously atom is not 99% empty space. the space between nucleus and electrons must have a force field that balances the attraction so electron able to stay floating.

haven't see any legit answer, do you have 1?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4913
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
You are still asking the question backwards. Here is the modern formulation:

The atom has a finite diameter. From what we know of its structure, can we derive classical electrostatics?

The answer is yes. Quantum mechanics (which provides an accurate description of atomic structure) degenerates to classical electrostatics (an adequate approximation of the behaviour of charged bodies) when the separation between charged bodies is large. 

Beware of using outdated models in science. Not everyone understands them anymore, and some may think you are being obtuse..
« Last Edit: 03/03/2015 12:07:41 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
you are at it again.

why is matter not compressible? why is no discharge within atoms? if stand model is correct?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Pete is the only 1 has the merit to admit he has no answer to my questions.

you act like a kid of science. Please remember everything you posted in this thread will be reading by many.

ever thought how your students will think about your postings?

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
why is matter not compressible?

It is compressible - it just puts up a very good fight, though it doesn't do so well in neutron stars, and it loses comprehensively in black holes.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
if atom is like alan's tent, give 100 atm alan will become a meat ball.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4913
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
if stand model is correct?

For the third and final time, what you call the "standard model" is WRONG for the very reason you give. Please take a deep breath and give your brain a chance to recover!

If a hypothesis does not fit the facts, the hypothesis is wrong. In the case of the atom, everyone else, from the dumbest schoolboy to several Nobel prizewinners,  recognised this about 100 years ago which is why we have quantum mechanics instead of classical electron orbits.

This is a science board. Scientists abandon models that don't work, so don't expect anyone here to play with your outdated and broken toys. I'm sure there are boards where people happily repeat nonsense ad infintum in the hope that someone will take them seriously, and I'm sure you would be a welcome guest.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
you are kidding yourself again.

can you debunk any thing i posted about gravity, atomic structure and light? what are you waiting for?

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd
For the third and final time, what you call the "standard model" is WRONG for the very reason you give.
I missed what he said and your response. Are you saying that the "standard model" as he thinks of it is wrong or are you saying that the actual standard model is wrong and if so, why?

By "Standard Model" I mean the one defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
you are kidding yourself again.

can you debunk any thing i posted about gravity, atomic structure and light? what are you waiting for?
It's not our responsibility to prove you wrong, it's up to you to show us evidence in support of your theory. So far, little if any has been presented.

It isn't good enough to simply challenge someone to prove a negative. If you seek acceptance, you will be required to provide your own evidence. Saying "prove me wrong" will get you nowhere.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
you are kidding yourself again.

can you debunk any thing i posted about gravity, atomic structure and light? what are you waiting for?
It's not our responsibility to prove you wrong, it's up to you to show us evidence in support of your theory. So far, little if any has been presented.

It isn't good enough to simply challenge someone to prove a negative. If you seek acceptance, you will be required to provide your own evidence. Saying "prove me wrong" will get you nowhere.

did we had encounter at page 10? read it again.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4913
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd
For the third and final time, what you call the "standard model" is WRONG for the very reason you give.
I missed what he said and your response. Are you saying that the "standard model" as he thinks of it is wrong or are you saying that the actual standard model is wrong and if so, why?

By "Standard Model" I mean the one defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

I have no idea what he calls the standard model, but if it predicts that the electrons will fall into the nucleus, it's obviously wrong because they don't. Or if it doesn't but he thinks it does, he's an idiot. Either way, there's little point in discussing the matter with him.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd
I have no idea what he calls the standard model, ...
The standard model has less to do with atoms and more to do with interactions. Essentially the Standard Model is the theory that describes all of the known elementary particle interactions except gravity.

Quote from: alancalverd
... but if it predicts that the electrons will fall into the nucleus, it's obviously wrong because they don't.
For the most part you're correct. However that is not always the case. For example; In one of the quantum states of the hydrogen atom, the electron has a finite probability of being found inside the nucleus. See
http://physicspages.com/2013/01/23/hydrogen-atom-probability-of-finding-electron-inside-the-nucleus/

This is possible because is some of the quantum states that hydrogen can be in the wave function is not zero at r = 0.

Don't mention this to jccc because he'll just start all over again with his puerile talk of magic. Lol.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4913
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile


can you debunk any thing i posted about gravity, atomic structure and light? what are you waiting for?

See #326 above.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
that's cool.

for the sake of science, i became pest, amoeba, virus, idiot, whatever you like.

i understood gravity, light and atomic structure, and magnetism.

my dreams are completed.

Thank You All!

*

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

hit and run?

*

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
this forum deleted some of my postings
Appropriate action considering the content.
Quote from: jccc
maybe soon will ban my account
Might also be an appropriate action considering your behavior.
Quote from: jccc
i recorded everything i posted
That shouldn't require more than a bit or two.
Quote from: jccc
find true science at fuckedscience.com
LOL
Quote from: jccc
if you see me here no more
Please.....................
« Last Edit: 06/03/2015 16:36:27 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

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

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.

here's the missing link.

the negative charged elastic fluid attracted by positive nucleus, form a negative field around the nucleus. density =1/r^3. away from the nucleus to a point, the density no longer decay. that's the background charge of the space. electron has a force radius f=1/r^2, off that radius, electron has the same negative charge density as the space around it.

proton may carries +1800, attracted -1799 fluid to form hydrogen nucleus, add 1 electron on the radius to become hydrogen atom.

the space fluid maybe used up, maybe a little left in space. i haven't thought it through.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
maybe proton carries 900+, attracted 899- fluid to form nucleus, add 1 electron to form hydrogen.

the rest fluid maybe the source of dm/de?

atomic structure has to be 100% correct, otherwise whole science is doubtful.

any thoughts?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4913
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Atomic structure is 100% correct, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Your deliberate misunderstanding of it is at fault.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Atomic structure is 100% correct, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Your deliberate misunderstanding of it is at fault.

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?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
maybe proton carries 900+, attracted 899- fluid to form nucleus, add 1 electron to form hydrogen.

the rest fluid maybe the source of dm/de?

atomic structure has to be 100% correct, otherwise whole science is doubtful.

any thoughts?

i am thinking when they collide proton beams in the lab, they mistake thinking proton is a point particle, but in fact they are colliding proton with fluid ball beams. the fluid explode, so they detect all kinds of new particles.

it's a reasonable doubt, no?

have a great new week! 

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
i am thinking when they collide proton beams in the lab, they mistake thinking proton is a point particle, but in fact they are colliding proton with fluid ball beams. the fluid explode, so they detect all kinds of new particles.

it's a reasonable doubt, no?
No. It's not a reasonable doubt. These people are significant experts at what they do. They've devoted their entire lives to these endeavors. What makes you think that you, with no education or experience, could think you caught something that the entire particle physics community missed? Particle physicists have probed the interior of the proton using deep elastic scattering. They found that it's composed of three lumps of charge. Want to guess why?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Quote from: 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
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?
[/quote]
Quote from: jccc
what's your answer?
I don't have an answer. Who ever said I know everything!
[/quote]

do you have answer now? Pete

do you think people work at lhc have the answer?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
talking about expert, how about einstein? is photon a real thing? is light a particle?

if photon is none existence, isn't his nobel prize a joke?

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1937
    • View Profile


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

No. The the current widely accepted model is that the nucleus takes up ~0.01% of the volume of the atom, and the electrons take up the remaining 99.99%. We explain over and over--the electrons behave as waves, and they are spread out through the entire space of the atom.

Even if you want to use a model in which the electrons are point particles whizzing about within the atom, they would still exert/withstand significant pressure. The air around us (or any gas at reasonable pressures) is about 90% "empty space" (the volume of the molecules is a really tiny fraction of the total volume of the gas--for instance a nitrogen molecule has a van der Waals volume of about 65 3 or 6.5 x 1027 m3. One mole of nitrogen molecules would have a collective volume of 6.02 x 1023 x 6.5 x 1027 or 3.9 x 103 m3; but at standard atmospheric pressure and temperature, the gas fills a volume of 2.2 x 102 m3--therefore, if we assume air is only nitrogen, it would be about 82% "empty".

The key here is that the molecules are whizzing around really quickly, so *on average* every point of space is filled with .18 molecules, even though at any given instant only 18% of points have a nitrogen molecule and 82% have none.

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?

Again, you are confusing macroscopic and microscopic phenomena. "Discharge" as commonly understood is flow of electrons or flow of charged ions. There couldn't possibly be discharge from an electron--it would have to be the electron itself moving. But! As we have already pointed out many, many, many times in this thread: the electron is already centered about the nucleus, and cannot "get any closer" because it naturally spreads out to take up the whole volume of the atom.


We understand that this is a very tricky and counter-intuitive subject, but the experimental and theoretical evidence is very clear--electrons in atoms and molecules are best described as waves, and once you accept that premise, everything else falls into place very nicely.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
electrons in atoms and molecules are best described as waves, and once you accept that premise, everything else falls into place very nicely.

what wave? how electron waves? standing wave? is the waving electron still carry negative charge? if so why is it not stick to the proton?

there is no premise, no logic. no?

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1937
    • View Profile
The electron is still negative. It's just easier to think of it as a wave than a particle in these cases.

I would argue that an atom is an example of an electron stuck to the nucleus--it's just that the electron takes up far more space than the nucleus. It takes energy to remove the electron from the atom, energy is released when the electron is captured by the positive ion (for example both H+ + e → H or Au+ + e → Au release energy)

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
because electron and proton are attracting each other, so need energy to apart them.

but according to C's law and entropy, electron will release energy and stick to the proton.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1937
    • View Profile
because electron and proton are attracting each other, so need energy to apart them.

but according to C's law and entropy, electron will release energy and stick to the proton.

And why don't you count a hydrogen atom as an electron stuck to a proton?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
if they stick together, atom will be so small, the universe will be a little ball with all charges sleep together.

you can say the negative charged elastic fluid condensed over proton and form a solid ball and electron stick to that ball to from hydrogen atom.

it all end up add a basic building block to the atomic structure to explain why atoms are not compressible, no discharge, no electron proton marriage.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1937
    • View Profile
if they stick together, atom will be so small, the universe will be a little ball with all charges sleep together.

you can say the negative charged elastic fluid condensed over proton and form a solid ball and electron stick to that ball to from hydrogen atom.

it all end up add a basic building block to the atomic structure to explain why atoms are not compressible, no discharge, no electron proton marriage.

I really don't see what we gain from having an additional negative substance.

Why doesn't this imaginary negative liquid stick so close to the proton that the whole universe is a "small ball"?

How does this negative fluid behave differently from electrons?

And why wouldn't enough negative fluid surround the nucleus that it wouldn't also need to attract electrons?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
the fluid is charged, so it attracted by proton. it is elastic, so its density around proton decay as 1/r^3, under the attraction force f=1/r^2.

if you split electron to zillion pieces, that could be the fluid itself.

electron's charge strength at atom radius is equal to the fluid balls charge strength. 

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1937
    • View Profile

if you split electron to zillion pieces, that could be the fluid itself.

electron's charge strength at atom radius is equal to the fluid balls charge strength.

So you agree that one proton surrounded by a zillion pieces of one electron is a reasonable solution to the question?

*

Offline jccc

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

if you split electron to zillion pieces, that could be the fluid itself.

electron's charge strength at atom radius is equal to the fluid balls charge strength.

So you agree that one proton surrounded by a zillion pieces of one electron is a reasonable solution to the question?

not at all.

i think proton carries 900+ charges, attracted 899 fluid and 1 electron to form hydrogen atom. see above few postings.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1937
    • View Profile

i think proton carries 900+ charges, attracted 899 fluid and 1 electron to form hydrogen atom. see above few postings.

Interesting theory. Can you cite any experimental evidence to back it up? Or make any testable predictions?

If one proton did carry such a charge, and were surrounded by enough negative fluid to cancel out all but one electron's worth of charge I have a few questions:

1) Does it make sense that a helium nucleus would attract just enough negative charge that it still required exactly 2 electrons? And a bismuth nucleus would attract just enough negative fluid that it needs exactly 83 electrons? (still one electron for one proton)

2) Is there ever a way to separate any of this negative fluid from the proton? The hydride anion (H), for example, has two electrons and one proton. Why doesn't it leak negative fluid? If the attraction between the fluid and the proton is purely electrostatic, it should be possible to rip it off using a sufficiently strong electric field. Why
have we never observed a "proton" with any charge greater than +1, even when exposed to millions of volts? What powerful force prevents this discharge?

3) If every proton attracts exactly the same amount of this negative fluid under all circumstances, and the negative fluid cannot be separated from the proton under any circumstances, can we consider the fluid part of the proton?

*

Offline jccc

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

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4319
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
what wave? how electron waves? standing wave?

You can think of an electron as having wave-like properties.

The Frenchman Louis de Broglie got a Nobel Prize for the wave-particle duality model in 1929 after his some of his predictions were demonstrated in the laboratory.

One of the properties of a wave is that it's position is a bit vague (especially if you speak French...). It is not possible to confine this wave within the diameter of a nucleus, and still have an electron. A wave (and an electron) are not single-point particles.

De Broglie's model of the atom is now a little dated. Later mathematical models of the atom by Erwin Shroedinger are now considered an even more useful model of the electrons around a proton.

Quote
is the waving electron still carry negative charge?
Yes

Quote
if so why is it not stick to the proton?
It does stick to the proton - we call it a Hydrogen atom.
You can free an electron from the proton by hitting it with energy in the form of an ultraviolet photon.
This would not be possible if an electron was physically inside the nucleus - the energy to free the electron from the electrostatic field would be much higher than the ultraviolet wavelength we observe. It would require a gamma ray (much higher energy) to free the electron.

If an electron approaches another proton, it may stick to that proton, by emitting an ultraviolet photon (or several photons in the visible range, with the same total energy as the ultraviolet photon).

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1937
    • View Profile
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/PeriodicTable.html

see if you have any questions on that page?

This page states pretty standard stuff. I don't necessarily like the way it's all presented, but I accept it is generally true.

How about you try answering some of my questions?

If one proton did carry such a charge, and were surrounded by enough negative fluid to cancel out all but one electron's worth of charge I have a few questions:

1) Does it make sense that a helium nucleus would attract just enough negative charge that it still required exactly 2 electrons? And a bismuth nucleus would attract just enough negative fluid that it needs exactly 83 electrons? (still one electron for one proton)

2) Is there ever a way to separate any of this negative fluid from the proton? The hydride anion (H), for example, has two electrons and one proton. Why doesn't it leak negative fluid? If the attraction between the fluid and the proton is purely electrostatic, it should be possible to rip it off using a sufficiently strong electric field. Why
have we never observed a "proton" with any charge greater than +1, even when exposed to millions of volts? What powerful force prevents this discharge?

3) If every proton attracts exactly the same amount of this negative fluid under all circumstances, and the negative fluid cannot be separated from the proton under any circumstances, can we consider the fluid part of the proton?

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1937
    • View Profile
jccc, I have thought of another way of describing the hydrogen atom pictorially. It's not a completely accurate model, just an analogy that might help.

Think of the electric potential produced by the proton as a surface--essentially like the gravity wells represented in curved space-time. The proton is very small, so it can essentially be treated as a point particle, or we can use a nonzero radius for the cutoff of the well (finite depth of the well), either way it doesn't matter.

The electron can be thought of as a marble that is free to roll around on this surface. It will naturally roll down into the potential well created by the proton, and it will eventually get stuck in the well. It is centered at the same x-y coordinates as the proton (center of the marble is directly over the center of the well), but because it has a determined diameter, the marble can only go so far down into the well.

I have illustrated a 1-dimensional version of this (two including potential, but only one spatial coordinate: x). The size of the "marble" is determined by how massive the particle is (more massive means smaller marble) (the size of this marble represents the de Broglie wavelength λ = h/p, where p is momentum and h is Planck's constant).

Thus when a negative particle heavier than the electron is modeled, we get a smaller marble. For instance, the muon has the same charge as an electron, but is about 200 times more massive. The exotic atom formed by the interaction of a muon and a proton is exactly the same as a normal hydrogen atom, except the muon is distributed much closer to the proton (this is how muons catalyze fusion). Going even further, an antiproton (1832 times heavier than an electron) would be extremely close to the proton. The antiproton and proton would also interact via the strong force (which the electron and muon would not do) and would fairly quickly annihilate with the proton.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
chiralSPO, thank you for everything and the diagram!

my idea about atom is on going, nothing to support. haven't thought ways to test it yet.

1) Does it make sense that a helium nucleus would attract just enough negative charge that it still required exactly 2 electrons? And a bismuth nucleus would attract just enough negative fluid that it needs exactly 83 electrons? (still one electron for one proton)

without the fluid, isn't helium just get 2 and bismuth just get 83?

2) Is there ever a way to separate any of this negative fluid from the proton? The hydride anion (H), for example, has two electrons and one proton. Why doesn't it leak negative fluid? If the attraction between the fluid and the proton is purely electrostatic, it should be possible to rip it off using a sufficiently strong electric field. Why
have we never observed a "proton" with any charge greater than +1, even when exposed to millions of volts? What powerful force prevents this discharge?

try to separate the fluid and proton is like try to pump water out ocean. a proton's force field is much bigger than atom's radius, you can give an hydrogen atom more than 1 electron, as long no other atoms near by to fight for the electron, more electrons can stable with 1 proton.  the voltage between proton and electron is higher than any voltage man made, yet there is no discharge, sound like empty space?

3) If every proton attracts exactly the same amount of this negative fluid under all circumstances, and the negative fluid cannot be separated from the proton under any circumstances, can we consider the fluid part of the proton?

of cause we can think so, but maybe call it nucleus is more likely.