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

  • 414 Replies
  • 174788 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
 
This is my own atomic structure theory. I think the space is negative charged elastic fluid . A positive particle such as proton will attract space to form a negative ball field around it. When an electron closing to a proton, this ball field pushes it away. The balance point is the diameter of the atom. Electrons does not fly around nuclear but bond by the ball field and proton forces. Since the space itself is charged, it conducts electromagnetic force such as light waves. Light wave is coming from electron vibrating in space.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
This magnet toy is a good demo for a hydrogen atom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU#aid=P8fZ2oSGqsg

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: Sarah Raphaella
I know that protons are positively charged, neutrons are neutral, electrons are  negatively charged and that atoms are mostly empty space. I also know for magnets opposites attract. … So why don't electrons stick to protons instead of flying around the nucleus?
The laws of physics at the atomic level is based on what is known as Quantum Mechanics and not on the physics that you’ve probably only learned to date, i.e. Newtonian Physics which is now known as Classical Mechanics. In the case of the atom, electrons can only exist in certain states. In those states the electrons don’t move on classical trajectories, as you might otherwise think of them moving. They are found in regions of space according to what we call the Wave Function. For the hydrogen atom the wave function contains everything that can be known about the state of the electron in the hydrogen atom. The square of the magnitude of the wave function is the probability density which is used to determine the probability of finding the electron in a particular region of space. Described in this way electrons don’t move the way you’d expect them to using classical physics. The states that the electrons can exist in are described by the wave function. For each allowed state there is an associated wave function known as an eigenstate. Each eigenstate is defined by certain numbers called quantum numbers. These numbers describe things like energy, angular momentum, spin, etc.. In chemistry these eigenstates are referred to as an Atomic Orbital. You can read about them online at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

The shapes of these orbitals are shown in this link. For the lowest energy level the electron can actually come as close to the nucleus as it wants to. I.e. the probability density at r= 0 is non-zero.

Quote from: Mr. Scientist
It has to do with the uncertainty principle. …I am sure Hawking himself said the Uncertainty Principle had something to do with it.
That is incorrect. The reason is as I just described it. The reason is not for the reason you give. Also it’s quite wrong and contrary to quantum mechanics to assert that electrons “must occupy every other space within the atom.” Such a thing is quite wrong in quantum mechanical terms. No electron can be said to exist in more than one place at one time. No electron can even be said to be at a place unless its position is measured and the electron is found to be there. And no. Hawking would not say such a thing. However I do agree that the Pauli exclusion principle has nothing to do with (and it’s called the “exclusion” principle, not the “expulsion” principle).

Quote from: Vern
The present state of physical science does not allow "why" questions.
[/quote
That is incorrect. When someone asks a question whose answer is a description in terms other than stating postulates then science can indeed address “why” questions. For example: the question Why is the sky blue? has a very definite answer to it.



Nasa Answers the question Why Is the Sky Blue at
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/blue-sky/en/
Quote
Sunlight reaches Earth's atmosphere and is scattered in all directions by all the gases and particles in the air. Blue light is scattered in all directions by the tiny molecules of air in Earth's atmosphere. Blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time.
and this answer is far from being speculative as you claim it must be.


Quote from: Vern
If you like to think that Quantum theory represents reality you have to invent excuses.
Nonsense.

Quote from: Vern
Quarks can not exist outside nuclei, for example. Electrons dance to the uncertainty tune, etc. To me it is much easier just to accept reality as it presents itself.
Those aren’t excuses. And we do things because of their logical consistency, correspondence with experiment, etc. Not because we want things to be “easy.” If you want easy become an auto mechanic.

Quote from: Vern
But we really don't.
Wrong. We absolutely do.

Quote from: Vern
I started looking for experimental evidence for wave function collapse years ago.
Any physicist worth his salt could have and would have told you that such a search is a waste of time. The wave function and the notion of the collapse of the wave function are merely mathematical intermediaries, not physical entities. E.g. we don’t measure the wave function in the lab. We don’t directly measure a probability either. What we measure are things like The particle detector at (x=2, y=4) “clicked” and thus registered the presence of an electron at 3:33:29pm. We keep repeating that kind of thing and then add these numbers up. We then calculate a probability density. Etc.

Quote from: Vern
I'm still looking. None found.
If that’s true then it’s because you didn’t understand the theory and thus didn’t know what to look for or how to look for it. We can certainly observer nature and conclude that nature is consistent with the concept of wave function collapse.

Quote from: Vern
We have a habit of reporting our conclusions as experimental results.
[/quotes]
Who is “we”? I know of nobody that ignorant.



*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: evan_au
The short answer is that a "proton and electron stuck together" does happen, in a neutron.
That is quite incorrect. The neutron cannot be thought of that way, It can be shown that an electron cannot exist inside a neutron and exist as a neutron/electron system. I can't  recall where I came across that fact but no matter. It's a well-known fact. I had to prove it as part of my studies of quantum  mechanics.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
Quote from: evan_au
The short answer is that a "proton and electron stuck together" does happen, in a neutron.
That is quite incorrect. The neutron cannot be thought of that way, It can be shown that an electron cannot exist inside a neutron and exist as a neutron/electron system. I can't  recall where I came across that fact but no matter. It's a well-known fact. I had to prove it as part of my studies of quantum  mechanics.

There is no discrete electron-proton pair within a neutron--it is a single particle. However a neutron is the result of a proton "capturing" an electron: p+ + e →  n  +  νe

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The fact that atoms don't collapse just shows that the classical electron-proton model is inadequate. There is no "why" in nature: stuff happens, and the best we can do is to generate predictive models of what happens. The classical model of electrostatics works pretty well for widely separated charges but just doesn't describe the behaviour of electrons in an atom - and there's no reason why it should.

The test of quantum theory is whether it describes what we see at a very small scale, and reduces to the classical continuum description at the mesoscopic scale: and it does. The reverse test, attempting to describe small objects form the behaviour of large ones just doesn't work.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: chiralSPO
There is no discrete electron-proton pair within a neutron--it is a single particle.
Not according to the Stadard Model. In particle physics the neutron is not a single particle but a system of three particles calledquarks of which there are several types. The neutron is composed of two down quarks and one up quark. When Murry Gell-Mann developed the theory of quarks it was just a nice gimmick to help describe what was being observed. Later on Gell-Mann decided to accept the reality of them as being "real" particles. Deep inelastic scattering shows that in the case of the proton the evidence suggests three lumps of charge instead of one. This is strong support for the quark model.

See see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

Quote from: chiralSPO
However a neutron is the result of a proton "capturing" an electron: p+ + e →  n  +  νe
Just because a proton can be created that way it doesn't mean that's the only way and it doesn't mean that's what a neutron "is." There are other ways to create neutrons. It is therefore wrong to identify a neutron as "that which results when a proton captures an electron."

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Let's pretend Enertron is real, ...
That's equivalent to saying []Let's pretend that nature does not behave the way that we observe that it does and see what happens.[/i] That can result in anything that you'd like because what you're describing goes by another name, i.e. magic.

Magic is like anything that you'd like it to be so you're now free to create anything that you'd like. Have fun.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
Enertron should play a roll in many things including energy transfer, energy density, temperature etc,.
Why?

Each particle that exists is able to exist because it has all the properties which allow it to exist according to the laws of physics. Now you come along and say "The Enertron particle exists." which quite literally means that it exists outside the range of normal experience. That’s the ramification of assuming what you’re telling us to assume. Do you know what that’s called? I.e. do you know what we call a phenomenon that exists outside the range of normal range of experience? It has a very particular name. It’s know as the Paranormal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal

Magic is the attempt to control or otherwise work with the paranormal. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)

Quote from: jccc
Open mind, watch and think, predict and test. Isn't that science?
If you’re doing it with respect to those things that exist in nature than it’s called science. If you’re creating things out of thin air which in doing so violate the laws of nature by their very existence then no. That’s not science. That’s magic.

Quote from: jccc
I suggest a model …
No you didn’t. At least not yet. All you said was Let's pretend Enertron is real,.. which is the furthest thing from a model that you can get.

Quote from: jccc
...to explain atomic structure, created enertron sub particle idea, not magic. Not as magicle as QM.
There’s nothing in any of your recent posts which explains anything, never mind atomic structure. You never created an “enertron”. You merely pretended it existed. When you did so and did so outside the laws of nature then you’re talking about the paranormal.

Please find a dictionary and look up the term “paranormal.”

Perhaps you have no training whatsoever in particle physics. If so then that’d explain a few things. Particle physics is a theory of elementary particles. It tells us what particles can exist and what the properties of those particles are. In this thread I’m assuming the idea situation by which there exists a theory of particles whose properties we fully know. Also in this thread I’m assuming that the theory which we’re assuming that we have is able to fully account for the existence of all particles that either exist now or can be created. I’m also assuming in this thread that this “enertron” is something you dreamed up which is something which is not on any list of currently known particles. If it is then please tell me where to find the list on which this particle exists.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
I haven't think out a way to detect it to proof or disproof its existence, can you help?
You'd do it the same way that you'd prove or disprove the existance of unicorns.

Quote from: jccc
Physics laws are created by men, men don't create particles.
What's your point? The laws of physics are indeed created by man but they describe nature whose existance man does not dictate.

Please do yourself a major favor. Study the following articles very carefully;

http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/philosophy_physics.pdf
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/what_is_science.pdf
« Last Edit: 07/06/2014 04:37:01 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
You didn't come out anything you knew besides from books.

Can you proof enertron is not there? How you explain electrons not stick to proton?
Wait few more years, learn more new theories and discoveries. Science is advancing.

Since this is a science forum, we're all here to discuss what science currently knows.  If you'd like to discuss what you think might be discovered in the future, please keep the discussion to the New Theories forum.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Quote from: Sarah Raphaella Rodgers
So why don't electrons stick to protons instead of flying around the nucleus? Magnets do it, so why can't atoms?
The present state of physical science does not allow "why" questions. Any answer will have to be speculative.

Why not? Science should be always allows why questions?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Why not? Science should be always allows why questions?

No. "Why" implies an ulterior purpose. There is no evidence of one, nor that fundamental particles have any knowledge of such a purpose. Purpose is a construct of living things, not a property of their constituent atoms.

Science is concerned with "how" - though biologists may occasionally ask "why" as long as they are wary of excessive anthropomorphism. Hence the truly scientific answer to why the chicken crossed the road.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Science is all about applying the scientific method to come up with models of nature.  The key term (for this discussion) is models.  Science doesn't deal with coming up with a fundamental "real" cause for everything.  All we as scientists can do it to come up with accurate models and then leave it to philosophers to argue over whether the model itself is reality or whether it is simply a model of some deeper underlying reality. 

The problem with posting ideas like "I think an electron can stick to a proton" is that there is no science to back that up.  It may or may not be a good idea, but unless you can show:

a) The theory is consistent with other existing measurements
b) The theory is testable and falsifiable

It is not even on the track to being a scientific theory.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
I never posted ideas like "I think an electron can stick to a proton".

I posted ideas like this.

"If the speed of force is c, then the speed limit is c.

A 100 miles per hour train cannot push a man move faster than 100 miles per hour.

The force we use is electromagnetic force, its speed is c. Therefore, we can never travel at light speed."

What's your comment? Do you think force has a speed?
« Last Edit: 07/06/2014 09:00:14 by jccc »

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Force is caused by a change in momentum which is in turn caused by the exchange of particles or fields.  The speed at which one object can exert a force on another is determined by the speed of those particles or fields.  The upper speed limit to anything we know of is the speed of light, since both fields and particles obey special relativity.  Of course, forces can travel slower.

So no, there is no "speed of force."  There is speed of objects which can transfer momentum.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

I am very confused. Isn't Newton ask why apple falls so to discover gravitation? Isn't scientist ask why there is red shift so to make big bang theory?

Why can't we ask why to any thing we don't understand?

Seriously, what is science all about?

You can indeed ask why, but the best a scientist can tell you is how.

I am being very pedantic, but for a good reason: words in science all have very precise and noninterchangeable meanings. To a journalist, force, energy and power are all the same thing but they are entirely different in physics, and the difference is crucial to understanding and describing how things work.

It is arguable that Newton was still labouring under the illusion of a created universe with a purpose, and his work certainly predated the word "scientist" which was invented in 1833. It has been suggested that belief in a purposeful creator was the reason why natural philosophers  like Newton sought rational and consistent explanations, hence the theistic "why" was entangled with "how" in their minds, and actually laid the foundation for systematic investigation of what was presumed to be a systematic universe. But an atheistic view cannot assume an ultimate purpose, indefinitely consistent systematics, or that common logic, applied ad infinitum, will explain everything: you may have to accept from time to time that "that's just the way it is", and that certainly applies to quantum mechanics. 

So we observe red shift and ask how it can be explained. You can look at the known phenomena of doppler shift and general relativity, and deduce that distant objects in general are moving away from each other, which suggest that at some time they were closer together (or that space was smaller) hence there must have been a starting point before which the universe bore no resemblance to its present state. No "why" because no need for an ultimate purpose - it just is, and apparently was, so let's untangle the mechanism of "how" it got from there to here.   
« Last Edit: 07/06/2014 10:24:48 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd
You can indeed ask why, but the best a scientist can tell you is how.
I used to think that was true but experience has shown me that it's not. After I took the time to sit down and look at all the questions that scientists have been asking and answering over the last hundred years I came to see how wrong I was and how wrong your assertion is. And I'm far from being the only physicists to think so too.

From The Inflationary Universe by Alan H. Guth. On page ix, the Foreword, written by Alan Lightman, reads
Quote
In the 1970’s, the study of cosmology went through a major conceptual change. Prior to this time, modern cosmologists asked such questions as; What is the composition of galaxies and where are they located in space? How rapidly is the universe expanding? What is the average density of matter in the cosmos? After this time, in the “new cosmology,” cosmologists began seriously asking questions like: Why does matter exist at all, and where did it come from? Why is the universe as homogenous as it is over such vast distances? Why is the cosmic density of matter such that the energy of expansion of the universe is almost exactly balanced by its energy gravitational attraction? In other words, the nature of the questions changed. “Why?” was added to “What?” and “How? and “Where?”. Alan Guth was one of the young pioneers of the new cosmology, asking the Whys, and his Inflationary Universe theory provided  many answers.

Quote from: alancalverd
So we observe red shift and ask how it can be explained. You can look at the known phenomena of doppler shift and general relativity, and deduce that distant objects in general are moving away from each other, which suggest that at some time they were closer together (or that space was smaller) hence there must have been a starting point before which the universe bore no resemblance to its present state. No "why" because no need for an ultimate purpose - it just is, and apparently was, so let's untangle the mechanism of "how" it got from there to here.   
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I hope that you're not trying to discourage people from asking questions in a way that feels natural to them. People want to know why certain things are the way they are. E.g. if somone wishes to ask "If the entire floor in my house has the same temperature then why does the ceramic tiled floor of the bathroom colder than the wooden floor in the kitchen?" then you shouldn't try to get them to change the way they phrase it because it has a very simple answer.

The flaw in your argument is that you're only using examples which are consistent with your assertion and are igoring those which demonstrate that you're wrong. If you used the questions that Alan Guth was asking during the research which led to the inflationary theory of the universe then your argument falls apart.

I gave an example of a "Why" question recently in this forum - Why is the sky blue? is a very legitimate question which has a very direct and valid answer. The question which started this thread is also a valid question which also has a very direct and valid answer which I also gave.

Take a look at all the usolved problems in physics at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

Notice how they're phrased:
- Why is the distant universe so homogeneous when the Big Bang theory seems to predict larger measurable anisotropies of the night sky than those observed?

- Why aren't there obvious large-scale discontinuities in the electroweak vacuum if distant parts of the observable universe were causally separate when the electroweak epoch ended?

- Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?

- Why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause a large cosmological constant?

- Why is the energy density of the dark energy component of the same magnitude as the density of matter at present when the two evolve quite differently over time;

- Why does the predicted mass of the quantum vacuum have little effect on the expansion of the universe?

- Why is gravity such a weak force? It

- Why are there three generations of quarks and leptons?

etc

There are basically two different kinds of "Why?" questions. There are the kinds which are seeking deep spiritual meaning like "Why am I the person I am rather than someone else?" or "Why did I have to get cancer?"

See - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/why

The kinds that science can address are those of "cause." The kind that science cannot answer is "reason." Therefore

Science can answer the question - "What causes the sky to be blue?"

Science cannot answer the question - "What is the reason that the sky to be blue?" if by "reason" one is asking why "God" didn't make the sky red or purple
« Last Edit: 07/06/2014 18:03:09 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
After 4 pages of discussion, I still don't understand this question - Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?

Please someone help me to understand, or let me know where else to find answer.
And I don't understand why you don't want to understand that electrons in an atom are not little balls and so to describe their behaviour you have to use quantum mechanics.

--
lightarrow

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4251
    • View Profile
how can they not attract each other and stick together?

A very crude analogy: Imagine you had an airport, with a slight indentation down towards a drain hole that is perhaps 1 inch across.
- If you place a jumbo jet on this indentation, will it be attracted towards the drain-hole? Yes, because there is an energy gradient.
- Why doesn't the jumbo jet stick there? It will stick there, unless a greater external force moves it away.
- Why doesn't the jumbo jet go down the drainhole? It's too big, and it takes a considerable amount of energy to squash it down and turn it into a drainhole plug.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 17:29:48 by evan_au »

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4062
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The short answer is that a "proton and electron stuck together" does happen, in a neutron.

However, a neutron is unstable, and will break down in about 15 minutes, releasing an electron (beta particle) and proton, plus a ghost-like particle called a neutrino. This decay releases a lot of energy. So, a hydrogen atom (=proton+electron) is much more stable than a isolated neutron.

Neutrons can be stable, if they are combined into an atomic nucleus with protons in the right ratio. In this case, the strong nuclear force provides the binding force to keep the nucleus stable.
  • Too many neutrons, and one could decay (releasing an electron, as described above)
  • Too few neutrons, and an inner electron can be captured, forming a neutron, just as you asked
  • There are other nuclear decay paths too; for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_nuclei

I have only just picked up on this thread and haven't read it all the way through. The fact that we can even have a particle like the neutron shows that the electron can become part of the nucleus. However as this requires energy the electron cannot become part of a proton so is forced to orbit due to the spin of the proton and the spin of the electron. If it had enough energy it would form a neutron. However if this were easier as in a property defined at the big bang every particle would be neutral and no solid matter would form as atoms would not exist. The question should not be why doesn't it fall into the nucleus but why doesn't this combination more easily form neutrons. It actually has fallen as far as it can towards the nucleus.

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4251
    • View Profile
The energy involved in electrostatic interactions between electrons and protons is around a few electron-Volts - the level of energy that is involved in chemical reactions.
The energy involved in the nuclear force between protons or protons & neutrons is typically around a million times stronger, at Mega-electron-Volts.

So it takes an immense amount of energy to get electrons to interact with a nucleus - an amount of energy that cannot come from normal chemical reactions. For humans to achieve such an interaction, the energy would have to come from a high-powered particle accelerator.

There is another source of the necessary energy - a nucleus which is already severely stressed by having too many protons for the number of neutrons - this stress represents MeV of potential energy. There is a very small probability that such a nucleus will capture an electron, releasing the pent-up energy in a neutrino, to balance the necessary nuclear equations.

So three reasons protons don't routinely capture electrons:
- Electrons have far too little energy (by a factor of a million or so)
- Fundamental properties must balance before and after the interaction, which does not happen without production of an energetic neutrino.
- This interaction involves the weak nuclear force, which means it can take a long time...

*

Offline acsinuk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 237
    • View Profile
    • electricmagnofluxuniverse.blogspot.com
"So three reasons protons don't routinely capture electrons:
- Electrons have far too little energy (by a factor of a million or so)
- Fundamental properties must balance before and after the interaction,"
 Evan you are refering to energy balance but the only stuff inside a molecule is the electrostatic charge and magnetic forces and these need to balanced.
As the inside of the molecule must balance perfectly electrically; a strong nuclear force of 10^38 G will be needed to force the like charges in the proton bundles together. Same force applies to the neutron bundle as well.  The proton bundle must be pushed away from the neutron bundle electro-magnetic by an EMF curling force of 10^ 36 G which also pushes away the electron enclosure.  As the normal repulsion of same charges force is weaker at 10^ 25 G ; this pushes the complex molecules proton bundles away from the other compound proton bundles thus the molecule is electrostatically and electromagnetically stable.
CliveS
A.C.Stevens

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4062
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
This brings up a question about neutron stars. Do they have a magnetic field? If so then is it simply electrons that cause it? The neutrons being neutrally charged are unlikely candidates. This would make the field mono-polar.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
I don't know how important this is for neutron stars, but neutrons in atomic nuclei are certainly magnetic--both protons and neutrons have "nuclear spin" that results in a small magnetic field. I don't know to what extent the spins would arrange themselves to cancel out in a neutron star, but it would only take a small imbalance to have a fairly large magnetic moment. (A neutron has a spin of magnitude 1/2, some of the most out-of balance, but still stable nucleons have a spin of 7/2. Some more extreme nuclear states only last a short while (110Ag has a 12/2 nuclear spin, but a half life of only 253 days, and 43Sc has a 19/2 nuclear spin, but a half-life of only 450 ns!)

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4251
    • View Profile
the only stuff inside a molecule is the electrostatic charge and magnetic forces and these need to balanced.
There are 4 known forces, of which the "Strong Nuclear Force" is the strongest one we know, and it provides most of the glue that holds the nucleus together against electrostatic replulsion of the protons.

As you suggest, Gravity is the weakest, and its effect can almost be ignored on a scale any less than a neutron star.

The proton bundle must be pushed away from the neutron bundle electro-magnetic
As I understand it, the protons and neutrons are mixed together in the nucleus of an atom. The neutrons do not repel each other electrostatically, but they contribute to the strong nuclear force which holds the protons together against the electrostatic repulsion of the protons.

which also pushes away the electron enclosure
The electrons enclosing the nucleus are attracted to the protons in the nucleus, due to their opposite charge. As far as I know, the effect of neutrons on electrons is much weaker than the impact of protons on electrons.

It is the wave nature of the electrons which prevent them collapsing into the nucleus.

the only stuff inside a molecule is the electrostatic charge and magnetic forces
There are other factors which must be balanced when considering nuclear interactions.

Like macroscopic interactions between particles, mass/energy and momentum are conserved.

Interactions involving the Strong Nuclear Force also must  obey CP symmetry, which permits some interactions, and forbids others.

The Weak Nuclear force has some slightly looser constraints on which interactions are permitted and sometimes violates CP symmetry, but these interactions have much lower probability, like a nucleus consuming an inner electron.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation#CP-symmetry

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4062
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I don't know how important this is for neutron stars, but neutrons in atomic nuclei are certainly magnetic--both protons and neutrons have "nuclear spin" that results in a small magnetic field. I don't know to what extent the spins would arrange themselves to cancel out in a neutron star, but it would only take a small imbalance to have a fairly large magnetic moment. (A neutron has a spin of magnitude 1/2, some of the most out-of balance, but still stable nucleons have a spin of 7/2. Some more extreme nuclear states only last a short while (110Ag has a 12/2 nuclear spin, but a half life of only 253 days, and 43Sc has a 19/2 nuclear spin, but a half-life of only 450 ns!)

In the case of densely packed neutrons the strong nuclear force and gravitation probably act together to bind the mass. I think it is likely that an electron cloud produces the magnetic field and without a well defined positive component to the field would swamp the gravitational effect. In black holes this would become important. I am following any observations of G2 and Sag A* as this would confirm this if the cloud remains mainly intact. It would not matter if the gas cloud contains a host star.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2014 09:33:45 by jeffreyH »

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
I rather to be a neutron than an electron, how about you?

*

Offline McKay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 148
    • View Profile
Well, here is something to read about this: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality
And in my mind, something like this provides a much better understanding of how things work - much better than: "an equation [or a principle] says so" ..

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4062
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Well, here is something to read about this: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality
And in my mind, something like this provides a much better understanding of how things work - much better than: "an equation [or a principle] says so" ..

I vote de Broglie. He seems to have been sidelined and never made any further significant contributions to physics. It would be a testament to his foresight and give him more significance in the history of physics. I have for years thought quantum mechanics lacking clarity. No wonder quantum gravity has eluded physics for 100 years.

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4062
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
From the previously mentioned article.

"The experiments began a decade ago, when Yves Couder and colleagues at Paris Diderot University discovered that vibrating a silicon oil bath up and down at a particular frequency can induce a droplet to bounce along the surface. The droplet’s path, they found, was guided by the slanted contours of the liquid’s surface generated from the droplet’s own bounces — a mutual particle-wave interaction analogous to de Broglie’s pilot-wave concept."

In a modified form this describes gravity.

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4251
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
If we can force electron and proton in hydrogen atoms to marry each other, the nucleus force field will break down and release all the energy stored
You can't really use an electron to release energy from a nucleus.
- For one thing, the electron very rarely interacts with the nucleus of an atom.
- And in those rare instances where an interaction does occur, much of the energy is carried away by the ghostly neutrino, which we can't capture as an energy source.

Combining two deuterium nuclei (or a dueterium & a tritium) to make a Helium nucleus does release a usable amount of energy.
- However, the wavelength of an electron is too long to draw the two nuclei together close enough for a nuclear reaction to occur at a usable rate.
- The wavelength of a negative muon is short enough to react deuterium nuclei together; unfortunately, the lifetime of the muon is too short to generate usable amounts of energy. (Or fortunately - if the muon were much better at catalysing a nuclear reaction between hydrogen nuclei, much of the hydrogen in the universe would already have fused to Helium...)

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4251
    • View Profile
Quote
If energy is stored within nucleus force field, it should be negative charged in nature.

I don't think that conclusion is correct. The way I understand it:
  • Energy is stored in by electrical field in the nucleus, which exerts a force between the protons. But the electrical charge in the nucleus is positive, not negative.
  • Even more energy is stored by the strong nuclear field in the nucleus, which exerts a force between the protons and neutrons. But the strong nuclear force requires no electrical charge to function.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
How do you calculate "10^6 nucleus energy" out for e + p+ → n ??

The equation E = keQ1Q2(1/rinitial–1/rfinal) gives no sensible answer if rfinal = 0 (as one might expect for the merger of the two point charges). Some theories predict charge separation within the neutron, but as far as I know, this has not been verified experimentally in any way. If I try values of about 1–2 fm as the final charge separation (approximate radius of a neutron) energy release is on the order of 2x10–13 J...  What was your calculation? What is nucleus energy? If the whole neutron were converted to energy (E = mc2), I calculate that as 1.5x10–10 J, which is not a factor of 106 different from anything... I am confused.

At any rate, we know experimentally that neutrons spontaneously decay exothermically (releasing energy) to produce electrons and protons, so unless the first law of thermodynamics doesn't apply here for some reason, I wouldn't expect the reverse reaction, your "neusion," to be exothermic. Am I missing something?
« Last Edit: 10/07/2014 23:36:31 by chiralSPO »

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
I don't have calculation. I am thinking energy is stored within atoms, not nucleus. To release all the energy, we must break down nucleus force field to destroy the atoms.

Nucleus reactions only released a fiction of the energy stored within atoms. Because by products are still atoms.

Experiment should not be too hard, if I have a lab I'll be very busy.

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4251
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
The nucleus force field is larger than atom radius, so that atoms can form matter.

The smallest atoms are Hydrogen (covalent radius around 30,000 femtometers) and Helium (radius 28,000 femtometers).

The nucleus is primarily held together by the strong nuclear force, which has a range of 1-3 femtometers. This is far less than the radius of even the smallest atom.

The distance which forms the chemical compounds in matter is determined by the quantum nature of electrons, not the nuclear force. (For gases, the Van Der Waals radius of a Hydrogen molecule is 120,000 femtometers.)

Jccc, please provide a hyperlink to the website which gave you the idea that the range of the nuclear force field is similar to the radius of an atom. (Note: "I just made it up" is not a good reference; experimental results are the best...)
« Last Edit: 11/07/2014 12:56:53 by evan_au »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
JCC, I think some of the confusion here has to do with trying to think classically about things on the atomic scale (and especially at the nuclear scale). Picturing protons and electrons as little charged balls that move like macroscopic balls will naturally lead to paradoxical and contradictory predictions.

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4251
    • View Profile
The experimental result which first showed the distribution of charge within the atom was conducted by Geiger & Marsden in a 5-year period around 1910.

They fired alpha particles (positive charge) at a gold foil (electrically neutral). The results can be explained by classical replusion of electric charges. This experiment was not sensitive enough to measure the strong nuclear force, which occurs on much smaller scales.

Up to that time, there were a variety of models for charge within an atom; one of them (developed by J J Thomson) looks a bit like the Jccc model.

However, as a result of these experiments, an alternative model developed by Rutherford was accepted, where the positive charge is concentrated in a very small volume at the very center of the atom. (Rutherford was the director Geiger's lab).

The idea that "The nucleus force field is larger than atom radius" was discarded about 100 years ago, based on experimental evidence.

Science does need theories, but the most useful output of a theory is identifying a method to disprove that theory.

There have been many theories proposed, and anything you can think of has probably already been tried in some form by someone else - that's why they hand out Nobel prizes for genuinely new discoveries in certain fields. So, Jccc, it's useful to look at some of the history of science, so you don't resurrect theories which are already disproven. You are welcome to propose new theories, but identify them as a "maybe", not state them as a "fact"; do post them in the "New Theories" section, and try to suggest a way that will disprove your new theory.

That just leaves this thread with finding a simple explanation of the more complex quantum theory,  which was developed over the subsequent 40 years, partly to explain why the negative electrons don't collapse into the positive nucleus. I suggest you start your historical catch-up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
 For some time I was puzzled by what seemed to be a reciprocity failure between electron jumps away from and towards the nucleus.  I reasoned that if an electron was attracted towards the nucleus, it should require more energy to move it away from the nucleus than towards it.  The conclusion I eventually reached was that as this was a quantum leap, the electron could not be said to be anywhere when it was not occupying an energy level.  If the electron could not be said to be anywhere, it could not be using or exchanging energy.  Thus it made no difference which way it was going.  The energy necessary to accomplish the jump would be the same.

I would appreciate comments on my reasoning, please.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
The experimental result which first showed the distribution of charge within the atom was conducted by Geiger & Marsden in a 5-year period around 1910.

They fired alpha particles (positive charge) at a gold foil (electrically neutral). The results can be explained by classical replusion of electric charges. This experiment was not sensitive enough to measure the strong nuclear force, which occurs on much smaller scales.

Up to that time, there were a variety of models for charge within an atom; one of them (developed by J J Thomson) looks a bit like the Jccc model.

However, as a result of these experiments, an alternative model developed by Rutherford was accepted, where the positive charge is concentrated in a very small volume at the very center of the atom. (Rutherford was the director Geiger's lab).

The idea that "The nucleus force field is larger than atom radius" was discarded about 100 years ago, based on experimental evidence.

Science does need theories, but the most useful output of a theory is identifying a method to disprove that theory.

There have been many theories proposed, and anything you can think of has probably already been tried in some form by someone else - that's why they hand out Nobel prizes for genuinely new discoveries in certain fields. So, Jccc, it's useful to look at some of the history of science, so you don't resurrect theories which are already disproven. You are welcome to propose new theories, but identify them as a "maybe", not state them as a "fact"; do post them in the "New Theories" section, and try to suggest a way that will disprove your new theory.

That just leaves this thread with finding a simple explanation of the more complex quantum theory,  which was developed over the subsequent 40 years, partly to explain why the negative electrons don't collapse into the positive nucleus. I suggest you start your historical catch-up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Thanks for the comment and link! I read that page few times before, wish I understand the math. Also read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson. I am far behind every one here, pretty depressed.  It's all your fault.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
For some time I was puzzled by what seemed to be a reciprocity failure between electron jumps away from and towards the nucleus.  I reasoned that if an electron was attracted towards the nucleus, it should require more energy to move it away from the nucleus than towards it.  The conclusion I eventually reached was that as this was a quantum leap, the electron could not be said to be anywhere when it was not occupying an energy level.  If the electron could not be said to be anywhere, it could not be using or exchanging energy.  Thus it made no difference which way it was going.  The energy necessary to accomplish the jump would be the same.

I would appreciate comments on my reasoning, please.


This might help, not QM stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU#aid=P8fZ2oSGqsg

It takes more force to push in than pull away.

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
Quote from: evan_au

The idea that "The nucleus force field is larger than atom radius" was discarded about 100 years ago, based on experimental evidence.

Please explain the evidence, thanks.

Quote from: evan_au

Science does need theories, but the most useful output of a theory is identifying a method to disprove that theory.

How about as I suggested, beam high speed/energy electron into water, measure the energy used and the heat produced, they should be always the same according to present knowledge. If experiments show extra energy?

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
2 H2o + 4e = o2 + E   

Oxygen atom nucleus has 8 protons, it attracts more energy into force field, the energy ball around it is denser than the energy ball around hydrogen atom nucleus.  Therefore, it takes higher energy electron to break down oxygen nucleus.

This give us control to only break down hydrogen atoms in the water. We don't want to break down oxygen atoms, it might produce new atoms and radiations.

Imagine a flash light type device which shoots high speed electron beams, point to a pond, dry it in minutes.

Point it to a watermelon, there is no more.

Do not let Pete have it.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2014 15:28:20 by jccc »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
Quote from: jccc
The nucleus force field is larger than atom radius, so that atoms can form matter.

The smallest atoms are Hydrogen (covalent radius around 30,000 femtometers) and Helium (radius 28,000 femtometers).

The nucleus is primarily held together by the strong nuclear force, which has a range of 1-3 femtometers. This is far less than the radius of even the smallest atom.

The distance which forms the chemical compounds in matter is determined by the quantum nature of electrons, not the nuclear force. (For gases, the Van Der Waals radius of a Hydrogen molecule is 120,000 femtometers.)

Jccc, please provide a hyperlink to the website which gave you the idea that the range of the nuclear force field is similar to the radius of an atom. (Note: "I just made it up" is not a good reference; experimental results are the best...)
I remember we been discussing the possibility to pull the moon closer by charging it. We all agree that electrostatic force do work at long distance.

From F=kq1q2/r^2, also showed force between charged particles is always there even in long distance.

I said the nucleus force field is bigger than atom radius, means the positive charges within the nucleus produces a force field that is beyond atom radius. We can charge electron into neutral matter shows nucleus force attracts electron even out side the atom.

So what's wrong with this concept? The nucleus force field is larger than atom radius, so that atoms can form matter.

In your opinion, how big is nucleus force field? Or proton force field in a hydrogen atom?

It is widely accepted that the electrostatic force acts over long distances. I don't think anyone on this thread disputes that. When it was mentioned that the "nuclear force" exerts no significant effect at even reasonably small distances, what was meant was that the "strong force" which holds the positively charged nucleus together only acts over very, very short distances (femtometer scale)... This strong force is entirely different in nature and mechanism from the electrostatic force.

I am probably wrong here, but my intuition on this is that the strong force is related to an exchange energy of the quarks between the nucleons of the nucleus, so the effect decays exponentially with distance (e–k*r, where k is some constant; analogous to tunneling or exchanging electrons) in addition to the 1/r^2 law which arises from the fact that it spreads out in 3 dimensions. Any thoughts on this from the physicists out there? (this is just a chemist's hand-waving answer that allows me to sleep at night...)

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
2 H2o + 4e = o2 + E   

Oxygen atom nucleus has 8 protons, it attracts more energy into force field, the energy ball around it is denser than the energy ball around hydrogen atom nucleus.  Therefore, it takes higher energy electron to break down oxygen nucleus.

This give us control to only break down hydrogen atoms in the water. We don't want to break down oxygen atoms, it might produce new atoms and radiations.


Any thoughts on this?

I think electron is not as easy to accelerate/energize as proton, maybe beam protons into negative charged water, hoping some head on action to happen.

The net reaction we want is p + e = E. Assume all mass converted.

Never thought I will dream such a small dream, thanks for this palace!

Our future is not in the stars but in the stardusts.
« Last Edit: 14/07/2014 00:48:23 by jccc »

*

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 990
    • View Profile
2 H2o + 4e = o2 + E   

Oxygen atom nucleus has 8 protons, it attracts more energy into force field, the energy ball around it is denser than the energy ball around hydrogen atom nucleus.  Therefore, it takes higher energy electron to break down oxygen nucleus.

This give us control to only break down hydrogen atoms in the water. We don't want to break down oxygen atoms, it might produce new atoms and radiations.


Any thoughts on this?

I think electron is not as easy to accelerate/energize as proton, maybe beam protons into negative charged water, hoping some head on action to happen.

The net reaction we want is p + e = E. Assume all mass converted.

Never thought I will dream such a small dream, thanks for this palace!

Our future is not in the stars but in the stardusts.

This is my proof, try it.

Put e on top of p, what do you see/get? 

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile


The net reaction we want is p + e = E. Assume all mass converted.


Our future is not in the stars but in the stardusts.

Positrons and electrons will annihilate each other to release much energy. Protons and electrons will not convert. There are no positrons in water.

*

Offline jccc

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

Protons and electrons will not convert.


Electrons and protons will not convert? Any proof?

Logically any opposite charges will interact.

The goal is to break down protons positive charge/force field to release stored energy.

It's like to break a bloom to release pressure air. Or cut a robber band to release bonding stuff.

The trigger can be other than electron, maybe laser beam or other particle.

This is just a theory to be tested, looks too good to be true for now.

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4251
    • View Profile
Quote
Electrons and protons will not convert [into Energy]? Any proof?

Proof: Electron+Proton=Hydrogen atom (or two of each will make a Hydrogen molecule, H2)

The Hydrogen atom 1H is stable, with a lifetime of at least tens of billions of years (ie much longer than Uranium - too long for us to measure in a laboratory).

So a proton & electron do not annihilate to release energy.
Quote
The goal is to break down protons positive charge/force field to release stored energy.
A Proton and an electron do interact (to form Hydrogen), and they do release energy, in the form of an ultraviolet photon from the Lyman Series.

The maximum energy released in this photon is 13.6 eV (electron Volts).

The energy remaining in the Hydrogen atom is around 940,000,000 eV.

So the interaction of a proton and an electron releases about 13.6/940,000,000 = 0.000001% of the energy in the interacting particles.

But you can't use this 13.6eV as a source of unlimited energy, as you must supply more energy than this to the equipment which rips the electron off the Hydrogen atom in the first place, and you can't convert ultraviolet photons into electricity with 100% efficiency.