Effects of Gravity

[steevey]

We aren't talking about a macroscopic scale (where charge neutrality — in part because electrostatic forces are strong — is the reason we don't see the effects), we're talking about the attraction between a proton and electron. We can calculate this, if needed to show that some effect is there or not, rather than handwaving.

 

I don't know how to sugarcoat this: You don't have training in physics. Perhaps you should reconsider trying to answer physics questions. Guesswork presented as expertise does more harm than good.

 

If gravity was really strong on that level, then electrons probably would fall into the nucleus. If the attraction between individual electrons and protons was a lot stronger, then electrons would probably fall into the nucleus, but once again, things are very small and close to nothing on that scale, so there's more room for freedom and forces are a lot less stronger. In fact, the reason an electron does have those probable places only around the nucleus and not in it could be the fact that on an individual basis a proton isn't strong enough to pull an electron directly inward with all the momentum and wave-like movement an electron has.

 

On a macroscopic scale, since atoms on that level are grouped into units and have a total summed effect on other groups of atoms, you can see that in the case of the gravity of even the Earth that it pulls these "waves" towards its center and two the ground since gravity on that level is strong enough too even though the matter still has those wave characteristics.

 

 

I think you don't realize that I'm not asking "why do electrons fall into the nucleus?", when I am actually exploring "why do electrons exist in those regions instead?". So I already know electrons act like waves, we should be past that, so I'm explaining why they still decide to only hang around the nucleus instead of going in it even though they are waves. Your trying to say that because they are waves that they don't fall into the nucleus, but I'm still saying that there's even an explanation for that.

 

 

Edited April 15, 2011 by steevey

[swansont]

If gravity was really strong on that level, then electrons probably would fall into the nucleus. If the attraction between individual electrons and protons was a lot stronger, then electrons would probably fall into the nucleus, but once again, things are very small and close to nothing on that scale, so there's more room for freedom and forces are a lot less stronger. In fact, the reason an electron does have those probable places only around the nucleus and not in it could be the fact that on an individual basis a proton isn't strong enough to pull an electron directly inward with all the momentum and wave-like movement an electron has.

 

How strong would the EM interaction have to be for this to happen?

[steevey]

How strong would the EM interaction have to be for this to happen?

 

Possibly any integer stronger than what it is now, but one integer may just shift all the orbitals inward somewhat as it would then require that much more energy to exist at the previous higher distance from the nucleus and thus making the same amount amount of energy closer to the nucleus. I'd need the equations really answer this with an exact answer though.

 

I'd want to say that if you used more massive electrons like muons that they would be closer to the nucleus because the same amount of energy wouldn't allow them to move as far away from the nucleus and the uncertainty principal would also state that its position or momentum is becoming more precise as its mass becomes less precise, but I don't know if scientists have done that experiment with being able to actually record strange electrons interacting in normal matter.

Edited April 15, 2011 by steevey

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

This topic was split off the original.

[swansont]

Possibly any integer stronger than what it is now, but one integer may just shift all the orbitals inward somewhat as it would then require that much more energy to exist at the previous higher distance from the nucleus and thus making the same amount amount of energy closer to the nucleus.

 

I have no idea what "an integer stronger" is supposed to mean.

 

The original idea, that electrons should spiral into the nucleus, is a classical one. In that light it doesn't matter how strong the interaction is — that only tells you how quickly it would occur. Positing that the electromagnetic force is weak means nothing without a comparison — weak (or strong) is a relative term. It's like asking "what's the difference between a duck?"

[farmboy]

Possibly any integer stronger than what it is now, but one integer may just shift all the orbitals inward somewhat as it would then require that much more energy to exist at the previous higher distance from the nucleus and thus making the same amount amount of energy closer to the nucleus. I'd need the equations really answer this with an exact answer though.

 

I'd want to say that if you used more massive electrons like muons that they would be closer to the nucleus because the same amount of energy wouldn't allow them to move as far away from the nucleus and the uncertainty principal would also state that its position or momentum is becoming more precise as its mass becomes less precise, but I don't know if scientists have done that experiment with being able to actually record strange electrons interacting in normal matter.

 

You are still thinking about electons like they are little balls of negative charge flying around a nucleus at different distances depending on their energy levels. This isn't an accurate representation of what an atom is actually like though, this is just something that we teach children when they are first learning chemistry because it gives them an idea about the nature of atoms without making it too complex. Orbitals actually look like this....

 

 

 

....with the energy levels increasing left to right and top to bottom.

[steevey]

I have no idea what "an integer stronger" is supposed to mean.

Well you know things on that scale are quantized right? So particles can only have specific integers of charges, and if a proton and aa single increased integer of a unit of electron-magnetic attraction, electrons might fall into the nucleus or at least be closer.

 

The original idea, that electrons should spiral into the nucleus, is a classical one. In that light it doesn't matter how strong the interaction is — that only tells you how quickly it would occur. Positing that the electromagnetic force is weak means nothing without a comparison — weak (or strong) is a relative term. It's like asking "what's the difference between a duck?"

 

It should be pretty clear what the comparison is, especially for someone who has said they have taken QM classes. Obviously, as I've stated before, things are not as strong on an atomic scale as a macroscopic scale. Like gravity for example. On a macroscopic scale, gravity is so strong it can actually directly effect the position of these "waves particles", but on an atomic scale, gravity is so weak it doesn't really do anything noticeable. Its the same with the electro-magnetic force. Also, the mathematics used to described these particle-waves are classical as well, we just see them more on an atomic level. In classical mechanics, waves also oscillate, have a minimums and maximums, have frequency, depth, wavelength, etc.

 

You are still thinking about electons like they are little balls of negative charge flying around a nucleus at different distances depending on their energy levels. This isn't an accurate representation of what an atom is actually like though, this is just something that we teach children when they are first learning chemistry because it gives them an idea about the nature of atoms without making it too complex. Orbitals actually look like this....

 

 

 

....with the energy levels increasing left to right and top to bottom.

 

Little balls of charges is actually the opposite of how I think about matter on an atomic scale, its been clearly shown multiple times that you need wave mechanics to describe the location of a particles on that level. However, particles on that level still have some finite or not oscillating properties such as mass and spin (its always 1/2 for an electron) which is where some particle properties come out, and on top of that, when these "wave-particles" become measured, even their position collapses down to a single region.

Edited April 15, 2011 by steevey

[swansont]

Well you know things on that scale are quantized right? So particles can only have specific integers of charges, and if a proton and aa single increased integer of a unit of electron-magnetic attraction, electrons might fall into the nucleus or at least be closer.

 

You are talking about making it stronger. There's no reason the interaction strength has to be quantized. Dial up the Coulomb constant and make it stronger. At what point do get electrons confined to the nucleus?

 

 

It should be pretty clear what the comparison is, especially for someone who has said they have taken QM classes. Obviously, as I've stated before, things are not as strong on an atomic scale as a macroscopic scale. Like gravity for example. On a macroscopic scale, gravity is so strong it can actually directly effect the position of these "waves particles", but on an atomic scale, gravity is so weak it doesn't really do anything noticeable. Its the same with the electro-magnetic force. Also, the mathematics used to described these particle-waves are classical as well, we just see them more on an atomic level. In classical mechanics, waves also oscillate, have a minimums and maximums, have frequency, depth, wavelength, etc.

 

No, it's not obvious at all, perhaps because I've taken physics classes. As a result I know that "things are not as strong on an atomic scale as a macroscopic scale" is NOT TRUE. Electromagnetic interactions are actually quite large, and it's because of cancellation that we don't see this on a macroscopic scale.

[farmboy]

 

Little balls of charges is actually the opposite of how I think about matter on an atomic scale, its been clearly shown multiple times that you need wave mechanics to describe the location of a particles on that level. However, particles on that level still have some finite or not oscillating properties such as mass and spin (its always 1/2 for an electron) which is where some particle properties come out, and on top of that, when these "wave-particles" become measured, even their position collapses down to a single region.

 

You say that dude, but then every single time you talk about electrons you do so from a classical perspective.

 

If the electromagnetic force isn't strong, why do the electrons even hang around? Why do we need to put in large amounts of energy to seperate an electron. And how do you explain the fact that the energy of electrons is quantized rather than continuous?

[steevey]

You are talking about making it stronger. There's no reason the interaction strength has to be quantized. Dial up the Coulomb constant and make it stronger. At what point do get electrons confined to the nucleus?

I don't have enough mathematical equations to calculate that. But I really don't see how you can say if it was a lot stronger that it still wouldn't fall into the nucleus when thats really the only reason an electron is around a photon at all is because of the opposite charges.

 

 

 

 

No, it's not obvious at all, perhaps because I've taken physics classes. As a result I know that "things are not as strong on an atomic scale as a macroscopic scale" is NOT TRUE. Electromagnetic interactions are actually quite large, and it's because of cancellation that we don't see this on a macroscopic scale.

 

So your telling me a single photon has a great electromagnetic attraction than a horseshoe magnet I can hold in my hand? I think your thinking that I don't know that the electromagnetic force gets weaker at greater distances, by the square of the distance in fact, so for an INDEVIDUAL proton, its EM force gets weaker on a macroscopic level, but with groups of protons, their force does not get weaker in the same way because objects would be experiencing a force from all of them in a substnace, which is at least trillions, which is why on a macroscopic level, the EM force and gravity pass a point where they are stronger than at the atomic level and 0 distance from an individual atomic level.

You say that dude, but then every single time you talk about electrons you do so from a classical perspective.

 

If the electromagnetic force isn't strong, why do the electrons even hang around? Why do we need to put in large amounts of energy to seperate an electron. And how do you explain the fact that the energy of electrons is quantized rather than continuous?

 

 

Because they also have classical wave mechanics and can move very freely as they have very low mass, and probably some other undiscovered factors.

Edited April 16, 2011 by steevey

[mooeypoo]

So your telling me a single photon has a great electromagnetic attraction than a horseshoe magnet I can hold in my hand? I think your thinking that I don't know that the electromagnetic force gets weaker at greater distances, by the square of the distance in fact, so for an INDEVIDUAL proton, its EM force gets weaker on a macroscopic level, but with groups of photons, their force does not get weaker in the same way because objects would be experiencing a force from all of them in a substnace, which is at least trillions, which is why on a macroscopic level, the EM force and gravity pass a point where they are stronger than at the atomic level and 0 distance from an individual atomic level.

 

 

A photon has no charge. I assume you mean electron.

Here's where your comparison to macroscopic world fails: horseshoe magnet is made of many many many microscopic particles. So the way to look at it, really, is one single electron versus many many electrons. That's a better comparison. However, we need to remember, also, that in the macroscopic world there's also macroscopic DISTANCES.

 

the force decreases in distance. When you go to microscopic effects, the 1 electron affects the 1 proton much more (and vise versa) because the distance between them is billionfold'th smaller than the distance between either one of them to another particle or any other particle in the item you're getting close to your horseshoe magnet.

 

If you want to compare micro to macro, do it right.

 

Second, it's "you're" and "individual". Sorry, these bugged me.

 

~mooey

[steevey]

A photon has no charge. I assume you mean electron.

Here's where your comparison to macroscopic world fails: horseshoe magnet is made of many many many microscopic particles. So the way to look at it, really, is one single electron versus many many electrons. That's a better comparison. However, we need to remember, also, that in the macroscopic world there's also macroscopic DISTANCES.

 

the force decreases in distance. When you go to microscopic effects, the 1 electron affects the 1 proton much more (and vise versa) because the distance between them is billionfold'th smaller than the distance between either one of them to another particle or any other particle in the item you're getting close to your horseshoe magnet.

 

If you want to compare micro to macro, do it right.

 

Second, it's "you're" and "individual". Sorry, these bugged me.

 

~mooey

 

Except you'd have to automatically assume that when looking at my comparison. The only way mathematically my comparison works is because trillions of protons at great distances are stronger than just one proton at a very very small distances which I even summed up at the end of that quote you have of me.

Edited April 16, 2011 by steevey

[mooeypoo]

Except you'd have to automatically assume that when looking at my comparison. The only way mathematically my comparison works is because trillions of protons at great distances are stronger than just one proton at a very very small distances which I even summed up at the end of that quote you have of me.

 

When you make mathematical statements, you need to show them mathematically.

 

Go ahead. Calculate, and show us. It will help us continue this debate more clearly, actually.

[swansont]

I don't have enough mathematical equations to calculate that. But I really don't see how you can say if it was a lot stronger that it still wouldn't fall into the nucleus when thats really the only reason an electron is around a photon at all is because of the opposite charges.

 

If the attraction is negligible, why does the electron hang around at all?

[steevey]

If the attraction is negligible, why does the electron hang around at all?

 

Oh, so NOW your saying the electromagnetic attraction ISN'T strong at all? But I thought you said

 

"things are not as strong on an atomic scale as a macroscopic scale" is NOT TRUE

 

So which is it?

 

 

When you make mathematical statements, you need to show them mathematically.

 

Go ahead. Calculate, and show us. It will help us continue this debate more clearly, actually.

 

I really don't even need to do math though, I can just say an object located 100 angstroms away will not experience as strong of an attraction as millions of protons 100 angstroms away by just knowing that the electromagnetic force gets weaker by the square of the distance.

But, I guess I can give you an example since you'd probably ask me to anyway. Lets say a proton has an attractive force equal to 1 unit (I know its actually +1.602 x 10-19 Columbs but I'm keeping it simple). The EM force gets weaker by the square of the distance, so lets pick an object located 100 angstroms away. 1/100^2=.0001. The attractive force at 100 angstroms of a single proton is .0001 units. Now, lets take a look at a large substance. I still want to measure the force at the same point, but in a substance, some atoms are closer and further, and lets pick standard hydrogen isotopes. Let's say there's a million protons, some are 10% are 60 angstroms away from that point, 10% are 70 angstroms away, 10% are 80 angstroms away, etc. 100,000 protons, the ones at 150 angstroms away will have an attractive force equal to (1/150^2)100,000 which is about 4.44444444444444 units. A single proton 100 angstroms away would have an attractive force of 1/150^2 which is about .000044 units.

 

As this clearly shows, many protons at great distances can be more powerful than small amounts of protons at short distances.

However, the individual attraction of all those protons is extremely weak, which is why in the macroscopic world, large substances don't always just take individual electrons away unless they are ionized.

This is one of the reason the QM world is so different. The macroscopic world is built off of a culmination of very small forces added together, while the QM world works on an individual basis since forces are individually stronger and more concentrated in those small areas but still insignificant compared to what I was saying before about the macroscopic force.

Edited April 16, 2011 by steevey

[mooeypoo]

Oh, so NOW your saying the electromagnetic attraction ISN'T strong at all? But I thought you said

 

 

 

So which is it?

He's not saying anything, he's testing the theory you're proposing.

If you can't answer his question, it seems like there's a (BIG) problem with your idea.

 

 

 

[steevey]

He's not saying anything, he's testing the theory you're proposing.

If you can't answer his question, it seems like there's a (BIG) problem with your idea.

 

The electron hangs around because A, unlike forces attract each other, an electron is negative and a proton is positive, B, it doesn't radiate its energy away since its not actually accelerating, so an electron always has that momentum and has some other static properties. Because those properties are static, and the electron's location waves, the electron's existence happens to oscillate in a pattern which is around the nucleus and since its quantized, no where else.

 

These wave properties can change with the interaction of other particles such as y and z and w bosons however.

 

It almost makes it seem as though there's a "wave force" which is stronger than all the other forces.

Edited April 16, 2011 by steevey

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The electron hangs around because A, unlike forces attract each other, an electron is negative and a proton is positive, B, it doesn't radiate its energy away since its not actually accelerating, so an electron always has that momentum and has some other static properties.

How is it not accelerating, if there's an attractive force?

[steevey]

How is it not accelerating, if there's an attractive force?

 

The electron's wave characteristics inhibit it from accelerating in a classical manner around a proton as to cause it to radiate its energy. When an electron is bound to a nucleus, it doesn't accelerate, but rather exists in a quantized region due to some wave characteristics. However, it's quite possible that because the electron passes right through the nucleus and forms some wave patterns as if there were no attractive charge that there is yet another undiscovered force or particle and that the EM force really just isn't enough at that level to do anything. It's almost as if the election is being slightly repelled in some way by some other force. Although, those quantized wave patterns also could be the result of the attractive force. You don't see dumbbells and toruses in unbound electrons.

 

Even electrons with the lowest possible amount of energy, those in Bose-Einstein condensates don't fall into the nucleus to form other particles, but in a particle accelerater, they do collide and release energy and form other particles. Maybe electrons just completely "miss" the quarks in the nucleus, but in a particle accelerator, since they gain more energy, they become more localized...

 

The real question is, why do those electron regions exist at all?

Edited April 17, 2011 by steevey