0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Only if you place it in a uniform electric field. However you have to have charges to generate that field. However since the field is uniform those charges can be a large distance away.Question: What does "nearby" mean in this context? Angstroms? Millimeters? Kilometers?
Quote from: PmbPhy on 01/02/2015 00:32:03Only if you place it in a uniform electric field. However you have to have charges to generate that field. However since the field is uniform those charges can be a large distance away.Question: What does "nearby" mean in this context? Angstroms? Millimeters? Kilometers?Allow me to reword that, a controlled environment where the electrons are suspended within a vacuum
If suspend an electron in an EM field is impossible, quantum physicists will go nuts.
Exactly as the title suggests, I am wondering whether an electron can be suspended in an electromagnetic field in a vacuum without protons or neutrons nearby.
Particles can be held in magnetic traps.Antiprotons and positrons especially require it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_trap_%28atoms%29
A magnetic trap is an apparatus which uses a magnetic field gradient to trap neutral particles with magnetic moments.
Electrons are suspended in EM field all the time, otherwise no atoms able to form.
Anyone can explain it without using magic?
PmbPhy , a double negative has snuk in in your description of Earnshaws theory
In electron's eye, everywhere is vacuum.Electrons can never touch each other by nature - they repel each other.Electron will follow force and move like anything else. But electron is chicken, dare to get too close to proton.If suspend an electron in an EM field is impossible, quantum physicists will go nuts.
Pete,I still have no clue. No matter who's theory, got to be logical to the mind.Atoms made matter. How atom formed? What's in an atom? Let's see hydrogen atom, 1 electron and 1 proton, they attract each other. Then what? How it works? The electron is suspended by what?
I still have no clue. No matter who's theory, got to be logical to the mind.
I can't even accept the above statement, can you? Worse than Bible story to me.
Pete, that's from how stuff works.You are my teacher and best friend here, always will be.
Quote from: jccc on 02/02/2015 14:26:14Pete, that's from how stuff works.You are my teacher and best friend here, always will be.Thanks. Then explain to me why you won't answer questions I directly ask of you?
Pete,I'm such an attention seeker, if I have the answer, I'll answer before you even ask.
Pete,I been reading some QM and watching youtube related video.
The thing is I can't finish what ever, I just don't believe what I am getting.
Another reason, I think I am lazy. Never had students worse then me?
Tell me you can read the whole Bible.
Don't watch videos. It's a bad way to learn.
There are good videos and bad videos.
Puzzles me, The Earth/ground stops us sinking to gravity center, what stops electron sinking to nucleus?
Peter, can you refer me books on Quantum Mechanics?...That you believe are meant for someone who's just starting and are not with a lot of maths symbols. (...Or if so, atleast it describes those symbols unlike some books I have had a peek at.)
Everything we see is bound by gravity. In micro world, electrostatic force.An electron bound by nucleus force field should be similar to a man bound by gravity.The difference is the force strength, 1 vs 10^40. Image how strong is the force field between nucleus and electron. The vacuum in between should be 10^40 denser than Earth. Otherwise, atom will self-discharge, means electron falls in and release energy. It's like if gravity suddenly increased to 10^40 times, we will sinking into Earth toward center almost freely without resistance.I think, electron, and everything else, is suspended in EM field. Nothing really touches each other, but the force field of the matter interact.Puzzles me, The Earth/ground stops us sinking to gravity center, what stops electron sinking to nucleus?
What exactly is your math background? Non-existent from the sound of it.
Jccc, wouldn't it be easier to understand if one just accepted a electron as a bunch of rules quantum mechanically? I see that you want it to have classical properties, but that's not how it is treated. Atomic Structure: The Quantum Mechanical Model. Quantum mechanically decoherence is the idea of what leads from the microscopic to the macroscopic. Even macroscopically there are only a few parameters holding this universe together, as causality. Without that observer dependencies should make it magical to us.=(don't get fooled by the shapes shown in 'atomic structure' btw. They just represent the probability density of where one most probably expect a electron to be found in a measurement.)