Escape Velocity from the Earth

[Mr Skeptic]

People tell me this whenever I so much as suggest there is any similarity between the two types of systems. Despite this, I continue to see something very fundamental in the way an orbiting body remains in motion as a result of the satellite's inertia while simultaneously generating a more or less stabile trajectory. I see this as the basis for the volume of matter, though I continue to wonder why electrons wouldn't fall into the nucleus or continuously deteriorate in orbital level due to energy losses via radiation.

 

Exactly -- that model doesn't work. That's why its no longer used.

[lemur]

For good reason, because there isn't. You are basing this on an insufficient understanding of both orbital mechanics and the structure of the atom. This is known as GIGO.No. Electron clouds are probability based. They just define where you are likely to find the electron. At a given instant, the electron might not even be in the area defined by the cloud.

I understand the data and reasoning that supposedly conclusively undermine planetary atomic modeling but I still think it's the best qualitative/mechanical model for how electrons and protons interact. The fact that electrons jump around relatively unpredictably and inexplicably could have a number of reasons/causes, but why does it necessarily mean that the model as a whole is 100% worthless? I am willing to discuss the flaws in my understanding of both orbital mechanics and atomic structuring, but I suspect you aren't. You just expect to emphasize insistently that I'm wrong and then cite history as your reason for not having interest or patience for discussing the matter. For you, science is a closed history book and you find it perfectly legitimate to throw it at anyone who refuses to self-censor their own studies of atomic structuring.

 

More GIGO. Forming an opinion from faulty premises.

On what basis can/do you prove that premises are faulty?

 

 

 

 

lemur, orbitals and orbits are completely different things. If you must make an analogy to some classical situation, you'll be closer to the truth if you think of an electron as a standing wave instead of a little object zipping around. The orbital is just the shape of that standing wave.

Thanks, but why is it necessary to differentiate between particles and the waves that they appear to generate in another frame of reference? To me an electron is a point-centered field whose manifest form seems to change according to the context of its motion. If it was still it could be a sphere but since it moves, its contours change according to ??? parameters.

 

The reason only certain energy levels are "allowed" is just a mathematical consequence of their wave nature, similar to how it's only possible to have certain patterns of peaks and troughs on a vibrating drum.

Yes, I know but I don't think it's completely inexplicable in terms of mechanics. An vehicle moving between Earth and Mars, for example, could trace myriad different paths and basically continue intersecting with Earth's gravitation in one way or another causing it to "tend" to harmonize with Earth's orbit. However, once it reached a certain proximity to Mars, it would shift to being focussed on Mars in its solar-orbit tendencies. If you would speed this process up with multiple orbits per second, I would think it would appear as if the vehicle "jumped" from one orbit to the other as a probability-coincidence of it increasing solar-distance and therefore increasing probability of experience Mars-gravity attraction to influence its solar-orbit behavior.

[D H]

I understand the data and reasoning that supposedly conclusively undermine planetary atomic modeling but I still think it's the best qualitative/mechanical model for how electrons and protons interact.

No, its not. There is a good reason the old quantum theory, with the Bohr model playing a central role, was abruptly dropped in 1925, including by Bohr himself. It had very limited applicability. It is not a good model.

[lemur]

No, its not. There is a good reason the old quantum theory, with the Bohr model playing a central role, was abruptly dropped in 1925, including by Bohr himself. It had very limited applicability. It is not a good model.

Maybe people were too inflexible in their ability to modify the model to accommodate facts. Maybe they were fixated on aspects of planetary motion that didn't translate well as being essential so they didn't/couldn't modify the model sufficiently. What analogical model has been put forth to replace planetary motion as the basis for theorizing the atom? You have to have some empirically conceivable basis for modeling it besides just the equations. I understand that many QM devotees would love to dispense with all but equations but that's not really sufficient for conceptual modeling.

Edited December 14, 2010 by lemur

[Mr Skeptic]

I understand the data and reasoning that supposedly conclusively undermine planetary atomic modeling but I still think it's the best qualitative/mechanical model for how electrons and protons interact. The fact that electrons jump around relatively unpredictably and inexplicably could have a number of reasons/causes, but why does it necessarily mean that the model as a whole is 100% worthless? I am willing to discuss the flaws in my understanding of both orbital mechanics and atomic structuring, but I suspect you aren't. You just expect to emphasize insistently that I'm wrong and then cite history as your reason for not having interest or patience for discussing the matter. For you, science is a closed history book and you find it perfectly legitimate to throw it at anyone who refuses to self-censor their own studies of atomic structuring.

 

It's useful for the narrow-minded to visualize, since the model is in terms of things they have experience with. I think it gives nearly accurate energies if you artificially insert quantization, at least for hydrogen. It won't give you the shapes of the orbitals nor quantization though. So no, not 100% worthless. Almost nothing science has accepted ever is -- and I suspect a lot of what we accept today will someday be considered an approximation but still useful for its simplicity.

[lemur]

It's useful for the narrow-minded to visualize, since the model is in terms of things they have experience with.

I think that you will find that all conceptualizable models are ultimately extensions of some visualizable instance. I don't see how cognition would be capable of moving from one comprehensibility to another with linkage.

 

 

 

I think it gives nearly accurate energies if you artificially insert quantization, at least for hydrogen. It won't give you the shapes of the orbitals nor quantization though.

Why is it that in one post someone claims that the position of electrons is unknowable and in another someone claims that the orbital shapes are defined?

 

So no, not 100% worthless. Almost nothing science has accepted ever is -- and I suspect a lot of what we accept today will someday be considered an approximation but still useful for its simplicity.

Thank you for recognizing that nothing is 100% worthless. Now, if you could just acknowledge the importance of qualitative theoretical description . . .

[Sisyphus]

Why is it that in one post someone claims that the position of electrons is unknowable and in another someone claims that the orbital shapes are defined?

 

Because both are true. The shape of the wave is defined, but the position and momentum of its interactions are unknowable ahead of time. That's wave-particle duality for you.

[D H]

Why is it that in one post someone claims that the position of electrons is unknowable and in another someone claims that the orbital shapes are defined?

The orbital shape is a depiction of some aspect of the wave function for that orbital. The wave function is well-defined and is computable. The wave function is a probabilistic function. It does not say where the electron is so much as it says where the electron is likely to be found. By way of analogy, suppose you know some random variable has a given probability distribution function such as a Gaussian distribution. A plot of that distribution function will give you a mental image of the likely values for that variable. Back to the problem at hand, the various depictions of the wave function are doing exactly the same thing: They are showing where you are likely to find the electron. One thing they are not doing is showing the shape of the electron. The electron is just a point particle in quantum physics.

 

 

[lemur]

First of all, thank you both for trying to explain the logic of probability clouds to me. I believe I understand what you mean and why. My problem starts when I try to decipher between statistical modeling and the underlying reality statistical probabilities try to describe.

One thing they are not doing is showing the shape of the electron. The electron is just a point particle in quantum physics.

The electron is not "just a point" to the extent it has a surounding field with decreasing intensity. If I hold two magnets near each other, their attraction or repulsion begins at a lower level and intensifies as the distance between them closes. What are the "points" at the center of the fields except a geometrical center of the field-force, or at least one pole of it?

[D H]

The electron is not "just a point" to the extent it has a surounding field with decreasing intensity. If I hold two magnets near each other, their attraction or repulsion begins at a lower level and intensifies as the distance between them closes. What are the "points" at the center of the fields except a geometrical center of the field-force, or at least one pole of it?

You are now conflating the fields (which are conceptually infinite in extent) generated by the electron with the electron itself. That will just cause pain and confusion. Remember the doctor's advice to a patient's complaint along the lines of "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"

 

 

 

[lemur]

You are now conflating the fields (which are conceptually infinite in extent) generated by the electron with the electron itself. That will just cause pain and confusion. Remember the doctor's advice to a patient's complaint along the lines of "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"

How do physicists get so good at using social factors as a basis for reasoning about physical materiality? I forget in which thread it was where the issue of distinguishing between a particle and its field(s) came up, but I basically reached the conclusion that the field IS the particle. What basis is there to distinguish between field and particle? If particles are 0-dimensional points, then their volume is their field-force, no?

 

Here's a vaguely related issue: in a magnet, what causes the solidity of the molecules of the magnet to be distinct from the electrostatic field surrounding it? In other words, if I'm pushing the south poles of two magnets together, I can push through the magnetic field-repulsion but the materiality of the magnets themselves are also the product of electron-electron repulsion, right? So why this distinction between the repulsive gradient of solid matter vs. that of a magnetic field? Don't both emanate from the same electrons?

Edited December 14, 2010 by lemur

[between3and26characterslon]

How do physicists get so good at using social factors as a basis for reasoning about physical materiality? I forget in which thread it was where the issue of distinguishing between a particle and its field(s) came up, but I basically reached the conclusion that the field IS the particle. What basis is there to distinguish between field and particle? If particles are 0-dimensional points, then their volume is their field-force, no?

 

Here's a vaguely related issue: in a magnet, what causes the solidity of the molecules of the magnet to be distinct from the electrostatic field surrounding it? In other words, if I'm pushing the south poles of two magnets together, I can push through the magnetic field-repulsion but the materiality of the magnets themselves are also the product of electron-electron repulsion, right? So why this distinction between the repulsive gradient of solid matter vs. that of a magnetic field? Don't both emanate from the same electrons?

 

My understanding is that if particles were truly point like then their radius wold be zero and if r=0 then their field strength would be infinite, however like in massive objects such as the Earth as you go below the surface the net effect is that gravity decreases and is zero at the centre, then the net effect is that the field strength at the centre of a particle is also zero. The point is I saw a lecture where Richard Fynman said, "particles are point like, well not truly point like otherwise their field strength would be infinite".

 

Also the field of a particle extends to infinity which would make the particle infinitely big in your view.

 

As for the magnets v electrons arguement I think if you had say 5g of electrons repelling 5g of electrons the force would be incredible but if you have two 5g magnets (each having as many protons as electrons) then all you have is the net effect of slightly polar particles. ie. Two electrons would repel each other and they would fly apart but in two H atoms the net force between the atoms is zero but they would turn as protons repel protons but attract electons and electrons repel electrons and attract protons

Edited December 15, 2010 by between3and26characterslon

[toruk]

Listen all, I had to be away for awhile. I cannot tell you how pleased I am with the debates going on here. There are other forums where you would be lucky to get ONE intelligent response! Thanks again. I still have to attend other matters however you are the best!

[lemur]

My understanding is that if particles were truly point like then their radius wold be zero and if r=0 then their field strength would be infinite, however like in massive objects such as the Earth as you go below the surface the net effect is that gravity decreases and is zero at the centre, then the net effect is that the field strength at the centre of a particle is also zero. The point is I saw a lecture where Richard Fynman said, "particles are point like, well not truly point like otherwise their field strength would be infinite".

I guess I'll have to read what this Richard Feynman person writes since his name keeps coming up and the mechanics/dynamics of these force-fields is very interesting to me. It makes sense that gravity decreases and ultimately cancels out at the center of the planet, but that is because the gravity of all the constituent particles cancels each other out there geometrically. So you're saying that even an individual particle can be r=0 because its field strength would be infinite, but why couldn't the field just be finite because it is, the same way light doesn't travel at infinite speed?

 

Also the field of a particle extends to infinity which would make the particle infinitely big in your view.

Not necessarily. It could just mean that it doesn't have an absolute boundary/volume. Or you could say that its boundary-radius varies according to the force at which it collides with other fields. If I push my two repelling magnets together with little force, they deflect at a larger distance than if I push them together with greater force. This seems like it could be related to space dilation/contraction since higher gravitation promotes harder average collisions between electrons, which would mean they deflect at shorter distances rendering them smaller qua active volume.

 

As for the magnets v electrons arguement I think if you had say 5g of electrons repelling 5g of electrons the force would be incredible but if you have two 5g magnets (each having as many protons as electrons) then all you have is the net effect of slightly polar particles. ie. Two electrons would repel each other and they would fly apart but in two H atoms the net force between the atoms is zero but they would turn as protons repel protons but attract electons and electrons repel electrons and attract protons

I'm trying to picture what you're saying about the two H atoms with repulsions and turning but I don't get it. I'd like to, though, because it sounds instructive. But what you're basically saying about the magnets is that not all the electrons in the magnets are polarized, only a relatively small fraction of them. So if all the atoms/electrons were polarized, would the magnetic field-force of the magnet exceed its solidity as a normal object? Could you even say that as magnetic polarization increases, EM randomness decreases and that EM randomness is the cause of material solidity?

 

 

 

 

[between3and26characterslon]

I guess I'll have to read what this Richard Feynman person writes since his name keeps coming up and the mechanics/dynamics of these force-fields is very interesting to me. It makes sense that gravity decreases and ultimately cancels out at the center of the planet, but that is because the gravity of all the constituent particles cancels each other out there geometrically. So you're saying that even an individual particle can be r=0 because its field strength would be infinite, but why couldn't the field just be finite because it is, the same way light doesn't travel at infinite speed?

 

You may find this interesting I think it's the right one but it is part of a series http://www.vega.org....eo/programme/45

 

Not necessarily. It could just mean that it doesn't have an absolute boundary/volume. Or you could say that its boundary-radius varies according to the force at which it collides with other fields. If I push my two repelling magnets together with little force, they deflect at a larger distance than if I push them together with greater force. This seems like it could be related to space dilation/contraction since higher gravitation promotes harder average collisions between electrons, which would mean they deflect at shorter distances rendering them smaller qua active volume.

 

This doesn't quite make sense to me; a magnet has mass, if you apply a force to a mass it accelerates therefore if you apply a force to a magnet it will accelerate, but the force between two magnets is dependant upon the strength of the two magnets and the distance between them.

 

I'm trying to picture what you're saying about the two H atoms with repulsions and turning but I don't get it. I'd like to, though, because it sounds instructive. But what you're basically saying about the magnets is that not all the electrons in the magnets are polarized, only a relatively small fraction of them. So if all the atoms/electrons were polarized, would the magnetic field-force of the magnet exceed its solidity as a normal object? Could you even say that as magnetic polarization increases, EM randomness decreases and that EM randomness is the cause of material solidity?

 

The net force between two atoms is zero, this is because the net charge on an atom is zero (otherwise it would be an ion) but one side of the atom might be slighty negative δ- compared to the other side of the atom (which conversely would be slightly positive δ+) so yes only a tiny part of the electrons' charge goes towards the magnet.

 

Put two bar magnets together and they will turn, as their opposite poles attract, and snap together. Two polar atoms would also turn as their opposite poles attract, I must concede though that they too would probably snap together (which is not what I said originally).

 

I don't understand the last two sentances you wrote.

 

EDIT: I just watched that link I gave, takes a while to get going but is interesting. It doesn't mention that particles can not have r=0 but I'm sure I heard Feynman say it, perhaps in one of the other lectures http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

Edited December 16, 2010 by between3and26characterslon

[lemur]

This doesn't quite make sense to me; a magnet has mass, if you apply a force to a mass it accelerates therefore if you apply a force to a magnet it will accelerate, but the force between two magnets is dependant upon the strength of the two magnets and the distance between them.

What I mean to say is that if I push one magnet toward another with the south poles repelling each other, and let's say I move the two magnets together at 1cm/s. As the two magnets get closer, their repulsion will increase until they divert from each other (let's say this occurs at 1cm). Now increase the speed to 2cm/s. Now the magnets will not divert from each other until, say, 0.5cm. (I know these numbers aren't correct but they're just approximates for illustration). So the range at which the magnets divert from each other could be viewed as their volume-boundary. At higher force-level, the volume is smaller because they penetrate further into the field before diverting. See my point now?

 

The net force between two atoms is zero, this is because the net charge on an atom is zero (otherwise it would be an ion) but one side of the atom might be slighty negative δ- compared to the other side of the atom (which conversely would be slightly positive δ+) so yes only a tiny part of the electrons' charge goes towards the magnet.

Maybe something to do with motion patterns in the various layers/levels of electrons and a tendency to converge and diverge in regular intervals forming an asymetrical arrangement?

 

I don't understand the last two sentances you wrote.

I was saying/asking if magnetism is caused by relative alignment of the electron orbits, then would the strength of the magnetic field correlate with the amount of non-randomness in the electron orbits? So, for example, a totally aligned set of electrons/atoms would translate all their electrostatic force into magnetism, in which case none would be left over for what we normally think of as "material solidity." In the same way, is the solidity of non-magnetic material due to total randomization of the electric fields around the atoms?

 

 

[between3and26characterslon]

What I mean to say is that if I push one magnet toward another with the south poles repelling each other, and let's say I move the two magnets together at 1cm/s. As the two magnets get closer, their repulsion will increase until they divert from each other (let's say this occurs at 1cm). Now increase the speed to 2cm/s. Now the magnets will not divert from each other until, say, 0.5cm. (I know these numbers aren't correct but they're just approximates for illustration). So the range at which the magnets divert from each other could be viewed as their volume-boundary. At higher force-level, the volume is smaller because they penetrate further into the field before diverting. See my point now?

 

 

But the force is proportional to distance, so if one of your magnets is fixed and you put your other magnet 10cm away the force between the magnets will be x and if you put the magnets 5 cm appart the force will be say 2x. The force is the same at the same distance whether the magnets are moving or not.

 

Then you have the problem of 3 particles ie. electrons a, b and c, a is staionary relative to b but c is moving towards b at some speed therefore b is smaller relative to c than it is relative to a.

 

Also the fastest you could fire 2 electrons together is SOL so either at SOL their volume is zero (r=0) or the electrons repel each other before their volume reaches zero (r≠0) and therefore they have a fundamentaly smallest possible size.

[lemur]

But the force is proportional to distance, so if one of your magnets is fixed and you put your other magnet 10cm away the force between the magnets will be x and if you put the magnets 5 cm appart the force will be say 2x. The force is the same at the same distance whether the magnets are moving or not.

I know, but I don't see the relevance of that. My point is that two repellant fields can be described as having volumes according to the distance they achieve before deflecting. So if my two magnets deflect from each other at 10cm, you could call their volume "sphere with r=5cm" but if they deflect at 5cm distance, you could call their volumes "sphere with r=2.5cm." Of course I'm assuming the "sphere" shape for lack of a better assumption and I'm assuming they're contributing equally to the deflection because they are presumably identical.

 

Then you have the problem of 3 particles ie. electrons a, b and c, a is staionary relative to b but c is moving towards b at some speed therefore b is smaller relative to c than it is relative to a.

What's the problem with this? Why does volume of a field-force particle have to be the same in all contexts? It's not a solid object but a force-field.

 

Also the fastest you could fire 2 electrons together is SOL so either at SOL their volume is zero (r=0) or the electrons repel each other before their volume reaches zero (r≠0) and therefore they have a fundamentaly smallest possible size.

Good point. Isn't this where you could get into relativistic velocities and spacetime dilation and length-contraction and that kind of Einsteinian craziness?

 

 

[between3and26characterslon]

I know, but I don't see the relevance of that. My point is that two repellant fields can be described as having volumes according to the distance they achieve before deflecting. So if my two magnets deflect from each other at 10cm, you could call their volume "sphere with r=5cm" but if they deflect at 5cm distance, you could call their volumes "sphere with r=2.5cm." Of course I'm assuming the "sphere" shape for lack of a better assumption and I'm assuming they're contributing equally to the deflection because they are presumably identical.

 

If you have two magnets sitting on a table then you will see exactly what you describe but if you have two magnets floating in space and some more sensitive equipment than your eyes then you will see that they do not get closer before they deflect, they will deflect less at the same distance the faster they approach, so essentially what you're saying is electrons get bigger with time.

 

 

What's the problem with this? Why does volume of a field-force particle have to be the same in all contexts? It's not a solid object but a force-field.

 

see above.

 

Good point. Isn't this where you could get into relativistic velocities and spacetime dilation and length-contraction and that kind of Einsteinian craziness?

 

Maybe but I think that's several levels above my comprehension.

[lemur]

If you have two magnets sitting on a table then you will see exactly what you describe but if you have two magnets floating in space and some more sensitive equipment than your eyes then you will see that they do not get closer before they deflect, they will deflect less at the same distance the faster they approach, so essentially what you're saying is electrons get bigger with time.

An object in motion stays in motion by its inertia until acted upon by an external force, right? So an electron moving toward another would be deflected by the repulsive force of the intersection of their combined fields, right? So couldn't you say that the electrons/fields act like springs compressing according to how much energy they absorb during impact? In a system where the average compression of all the "springs" was relatively high, the average volume of the springs would be relatively small whereas if the average compression was low, the average volume would be higher, right? Presumably this would also correlate with average speed between collisions.

 

Maybe but I think that's several levels above my comprehension.

Well, then I guess there's no point in explaining but I'll go ahead and give you my version anyway and maybe it will motivate you to learn about the topic and poke holes in my perversion of it that I'm about to explain. If electrons are compressed more by higher levels of gravitation translated into higher collision-speeds as a result of them piling up on each other, then their volume (i.e. the volume of their effective field radius) would shrink. This could be described as volume/space contraction. If the "spring" contracted and expanded faster because the energy they absorb and release is greater, they would move faster on average and this could be described as time dilating/contracting.

 

Now I have to qualify this by saying that some physics expert will read what I just wrote and say this has nothing to do with space/time dilation/contraction and to stop spreading false information. I'm not trolling. I'm just trying to understand this stuff for myself so I'm telling you what I think and recommending that you go study it and then you can maybe explain to me why the experts keep telling me I don't get it.