If an electron falls through the nucleus of an atom...

[Butch]

What might its peak velocity be and how would its apparent mass compare to its rest mass?

[studiot]

What sort of electron?

[Butch]

Good question, I assume you are referring to quantum v ... Please educate me.

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Butch said:

Good question, I assume you are referring to quantum v ... Please educate me.

No I mean this.

There are two types of electron.

1) Those that belong to the same atom/molecule as the nucleus.

2) Those that are exterior to this atom/molecule.

 

 

 

 

[Butch]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

No I mean this.

There are two types of electron.

1) Those that belong to the same atom/molecule as the nucleus.

2) Those that are exterior to this atom/molecule.

 

 

 

 

Oh, okay... Much simpler than I thought.. those that belong to the nucleus of an atom (not a molecule for now.).

Edited December 12, 2017 by Butch

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

What might its peak velocity be and how would its apparent mass compare to its rest mass?

Velocity of an orbital electron is not well-defined. It will have a kinetic energy, of several electron-Volts (perhaps tens of eV), depending on the atom. S-state electrons do this quite a lot.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Butch said:

Oh, okay... Much simpler than I thought.. those that belong to the nucleus of an atom (not a molecule for now.).

Molecules are fine too, they work the same (at least in principle).

 

OK so for (1) you require solutions to the Schrodinger equation.

This is full on quantum mechanics. Have you seen any plots of electron densities/probabilities? These are commonly called atomic/molecular orbitals.

The point about these is that they answer the age old question: Why does the orbiting electron not spiral down into the nucleus?

If you look at an atomic orbital (there ae plenty of images on Google) you will notice that the probability of finding the electron at the origin is essentially zero.

So this is saying that bound electron won't fall into or through the nucleus.

 

For completeness, when an external electron approaches an atom (whether it belongs to another atom or not) it 'sees' the atom's cloud of circling electrons shielding the nucleus.
Of course this cloud is negatively charged, like the electron so the approaching electron is repelled ever more strongly, the closer it gets.
The equation in this case is called Lennard-Jones potential theory.
Again this means that the electron will never fall into the nucleus.

 

So we are left with firing incredibly energetic beta particles (electrons) in an atom smasher to find out what happens.
Here I look forward to one of Sensei's posts.

 

 

 

[Butch]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

Velocity of an orbital electron is not well-defined. It will have a kinetic energy, of several electron-Volts (perhaps tens of eV), depending on the atom. S-state electrons do this quite a lot.

Excellent! I am trying to put together an atomic model sans neutrons... It seems to work well. I am proposing a model in which the electrons (and the protons in the nucleus for that matter) have a rythm to them, a simple example would be deuterium as one electron approaches the nucleus another is approaching apogee... Giving the illusion of a neutral particle and a single electron. The electron in close vicinity to the nucleus would have greater velocity and greater apparent mass. Tritium would be similar. If we add a fourth electron proton pair we will get either a very unstable isotope of hydrogen... Or if the rythm is right a very stable helium atom sans protons in the same manner.

The models I have built in my head and even some I have built with direct3d seem to work, note that the dance of such a model would become more critical with the complexity of the atom.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Butch
Elaboration

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, Butch said:

... Or if the rythm is right 

Are you sending them to dancing class?

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by studiot

[Butch]

14 minutes ago, studiot said:

Are you sending them to dancing class?

 

If we could do that we would be God's! I am saying that in stable isotopes the dance is there. If it is not, "close but no cigar" and no atom. The dance does not have to be perfect, some atoms will decay quickly.

Note that in this model we can also do away with the strong and weak nuclear forces as the higher energy electrons falling through the nucleus would tend to "herd" the protons and I have already mentioned that more complex elements and isotopes would have a more critical dance and would tend to "decay" with a shorter half life.

The models I have built use only gravity and electric, I am a bit short on physics and math to do much more. The models seem to work, however I can only observe them for a few hundred cycles over a period of days. I have however pushed a deuterium atom to decay.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Butch
Elaboration

[swansont]

Why don't the electrons radiate? (and, as studiot asks, then spiral into the nucleus)

10 hours ago, studiot said:

  If you look at an atomic orbital (there ae plenty of images on Google) you will notice that the probability of finding the electron at the origin is essentially zero.

So this is saying that bound electron won't fall into or through the nucleus.

But the nucleus is not a point. S-state orbitals have an appreciable overlap with the nucleus, which is one reason ground-state hyperfine splitting is large for these orbitals. If one over-layed a classical interpretation on this (as we're doing here), the electrons could be passing through the nucleus, without going through the origin. IIRC the probability integral depend on rdr instead of dr; the former gives a larger result, which is important for small r.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Why don't the electrons radiate? (and, as studiot asks, then spiral into the nucleus)

But the nucleus is not a point. S-state orbitals have an appreciable overlap with the nucleus, which is one reason ground-state hyperfine splitting is large for these orbitals. If one over-layed a classical interpretation on this (as we're doing here), the electrons could be passing through the nucleus, without going through the origin. IIRC the probability integral depend on rdr instead of dr; the former gives a larger result, which is important for small r.

Nor is the electron a point.

In fact it could be regarded as a smeared out comet like something with a dense head and a long tail that it drags through/past the nucleus.

In this view the nucleus is much closer to a point than an electron in an atom.

The electron could be said to gather itself together in a more pointlike fashion in an electron beam, when it is free of the atom.

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

Nor is the electron a point.

In the QM view. Not in the classical view as we are using here. 

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

In the QM view. Not in the classical view as we are using here. 

 

Then why is this thread in Modern and Theoretical Physics, not Classical Physics, if we can't use all available to explain/describe something?

How, for instance, do purely mechanical charged balls lead to chemical bonding?

And why does a classical nucleus, with all that positive charge, not violently tear itself apart?

Edited December 13, 2017 by studiot

[swansont]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Then why is this thread in Modern and Theoretical Physics, not Classical Physics, if we can't use all available to explain/describe something?

The first several posts were consistent with that. But you have a valid point; this is now in speculations. We discuss the questions in light of the OP's parameters: the electron has a trajectory, as described.

[Butch]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

The first several posts were consistent with that. But you have a valid point; this is now in speculations. We discuss the questions in light of the OP's parameters: the electron has a trajectory, as described.

Very true, my model is quite linear... While the true nature of any particle is a field or interaction of fields, the basic sub--atomic particles have a center (outside of qm of course.). I will admit that I am not a fan of qm,  but it is certainly valid science. I suspect I will not gather many fans of my hypothesis, I will not call it valid science as I lack the math and physics abilities to take it very far. That being said... On the surface it fits very well with the sequence of elements, perhaps it presents a better view of bonding, but I really start to hit an n-body problem beyond lithium. I am able to plug math (given definition of terms) into the model, I just don't have the math or physics (or fast enough processors). 

The benefits seem worth the effort, perhaps we could manipulate materials in ways that we cannot now imagine. 

7 hours ago, studiot said:

Then why is this thread in Modern and Theoretical Physics, not Classical Physics, if we can't use all available to explain/describe something?

How, for instance, do purely mechanical charged balls lead to chemical bonding?

And why does a classical nucleus, with all that positive charge, not violently tear itself apart?

In my successful models, indeed one would expect the nucleus to tear apart, however even with the simple physics of my models the electrons seem to herd the protons, they take one step forward and then one step back as they hurl the electrons away. 

Bonding, I have not begun to attempt.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Butch

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, Butch said:

In my successful models, indeed one would expect the nucleus to tear apart, however even with the simple physics of my models the electrons seem to herd the protons, they take one step forward and then one step back as they hurl the electrons away. 

 

Although my question was rhetorical and addressed to swansont, thank you for attempting an answer.

I would be more than interested for you to expand on the mechanics of a positive proton hurling a negative electron away as well as electrons herding protons.

 

[Butch]

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Although my question was rhetorical and addressed to swansont, thank you for attempting an answer.

I would be more than interested for you to expand on the mechanics of a positive proton hurling a negative electron away as well as electrons herding protons.

 

In my model as an electron passes through the nucleus the protons are pulled back towards the "center" , note that the protons maintain a separation... I have never witnessed anything close to a collision... Not surprising I am sure you will agree. The "nucleus" is a rather loose knit affair and seems to reach a quiessent state... A balance. 

I realize that by this model, atoms would usually evolve from the first isotope of hydrogen where indeed the electron orbits the nucleus (a single proton). A helium atom forming spontaneously would be a very rare event as the protons would likely never find proximity.

I have been able to construct the three stable isotopes of hydrogen and the most stable isotope of hydrogen... No more... At this point I believe it would be best if I presented schematic models to someone who can deal with the complex orbital math.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Butch

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, Butch said:

In my model as an electronic passes through the nucleus the protons a pulled back towards the "center" , note that the protons maintain a separation... I have never witnessed anything close to a collision... Not surprising I am sure you will agree. The "nucleus" is a rather loose knit affair and seems to reach a quiessent state... A balance. 

I realize that by this model, atoms would usually evolve from the first isotope of hydrogen where indeed the electron orbits the nucleus (a single proton). A helium atom forming spontaneously would be a very rare event as the protons would likely never find proximity.

I don't follow this.

You say the protons are pulled back.

Why or what do you think pulls the proton(s)?

Pulled back from where to where?

[Butch]

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't follow this.

You say the protons are pulled back.

Why or what do you think pulls the proton(s)?

Pulled back from where to where?

The electrons passing through the nucleus have great velocity, great enough to pull the protons back towards the "center" of the atomic structure... I created atoms by just putting things on my direct3d space and starting the animation. I was rarely successful(the first one was an accident created while I was exploring another hypothesis, which has proven false). Think of this as the same effect that occurs when planets orbit suns, only gravity has very little to do with this, the electric force is the main operator here.

Deuterium is the simplest to understand, the path of the electrons are duplicates, but operating on opposite sides of the atomic structure.

.          o.o

Like that.

Note that the nucleus represented by the o's(protons) and the . (electron) would seem to have a potential of +1.

The apparent mass of the nucleus would be greater than the combined rest mass of 2 protons and 1 electron.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Butch

[studiot]

 

18 minutes ago, Butch said:

Deuterium is the simplest to understand, the path of the electrons are duplicates, but operating on opposite sides of the atomic structure.

Note deuterium has only one electron.

 

Here is my problem.

Take the simplest atom, that of hydrogen with exactly one proton and one electron.

You say that the electron passes through the nucleus, and the centre of the hydrogen nucleus is smack bang in the centre of its only proton.

So the electron must pass clean through the proton.

 

[Butch]

35 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Note deuterium has only one electron.

 

Here is my problem.

Take the simplest atom, that of hydrogen with exactly one proton and one electron.

You say that the electron passes through the nucleus, and the centre of the hydrogen nucleus is smack bang in the centre of its only proton.

So the electron must pass clean through the proton.

 

Hydrogen is the exception, in hydrogen the electron simply orbits the proton.

In my model deuterium has two electrons and two protons... No neutrons however an electron is almost always in the "area" we refer to as the nucleus. The nucleus is not a tightly packed collection of protons and neutrons, but rather an associated group of protons with plenty of space for electrons to fall through.

I would love to present a movie of my model unfortunately it would take a month or more to produce a meaningful few seconds, also direct3d is incremental and the model is huge(proper representation of an atom would allow a movie of on ly the nucleus). This model will require calculus and very complex orbital equations... And then there is the n-body problem. I am a competent programmer, perhaps someone knows of a suitable animation app? I am currently limited to my smart phone.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Butch
Spelling

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Very true, my model is quite linear... While the true nature of any particle is a field or interaction of fields, the basic sub--atomic particles have a center (outside of qm of course.). I will admit that I am not a fan of qm,  but it is certainly valid science. I suspect I will not gather many fans of my hypothesis, I will not call it valid science as I lack the math and physics abilities to take it very far. That being said... On the surface it fits very well with the sequence of elements, perhaps it presents a better view of bonding, but I really start to hit an n-body problem beyond lithium. I am able to plug math (given definition of terms) into the model, I just don't have the math or physics (or fast enough processors). 

Solve hydrogen first, before you worry about the n-body problem. You'll have enough of a problem with that, I suspect.

[Butch]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Solve hydrogen first, before you worry about the n-body problem. You'll have enough of a problem with that, I suspect.

Hydrogen 1 is simple, the electron orbits the proton, the proton will wobble a bit, but very easily a stable atom and the building block of more complex atoms... And that is where the dance becomes important.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Butch
Spelling

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, Butch said:

In my model deuterium has two electrons and two protons... No neutrons however an electron is almost always in the "area" we refer to as the nucleus. The nucleus is not a tightly packed collection of protons and neutrons, but rather an associated group of protons with plenty of space for electrons to fall through.

 

Then it is not deuterium, it is helium.

 

So let us model helium with two protons and consider your model of the passage of one of the electrons through the gap.

Classically, as you say, the electron will exert a pulling together force on both protons.

At some point when it is close enough this force will be greater than the mutual repulsive force of the two positive charges, depending upon the dimensions of the gap.

This effect will be greatest when the electron is centered between the two protons.

After this point the effect will diminish as the electrons passes the centre.

So the passage of the electron will cause the protons to oscillate closer and further in position.

 

Have I understood your model correctly?