What stabilizes the atom

[SpaceTime]

I realise the latest atomic model is based on quantum mechanics but.

 

Why does the atom, which is composed of pure oppositely charged electrical particles, not fuse together into neutrons similar to the suns nuclear process?

 

What keeps the negative electron away from the positive proton? and why at the fixed bohr radial distance?

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[Dave]

It's all to do with exchange particles. Each type of force has its own exchange particle. I can't think of a decent way to describe it, but the nuclear force has the gluon exchange particle - quarks exchange this particle and because of it they're stuck together with the nuclear force. For the electromagnetic force (which is what keeps electrons in their associated energy levels) the proton is an exchange particle. As for the Bohr radius - the particles will only exchange within a certain distance of each other.

 

That was a pretty lame description, but I've only had the experience of A-level two years ago There's a much better explanation here.

[swansont]

I realise the latest atomic model is based on quantum mechanics but.

 

Why does the atom' date=' which is composed of pure oppositely charged electrical particles, not fuse together into neutrons similar to the suns nuclear process?

 

What keeps the negative electron away from the positive proton? and why at the fixed bohr radial distance?

 

Signed

SpaceTime[/quote']

 

The Bohr model is wrong - electrons don't orbit at a fixed distance. The Bohr radius is the most probable distance, and that's fixed by the energy of the electrons having the amount of energy they do.

 

The don't fall into the nucleus because their energy and angular momentum are quantized. Bohr got that part right, at least - if you quantize the angular momentum, you get a minimum energy for the system, and quantized energy levels. Having a lower energy, and thus a smaller average orbital radius, is not allowed.

 

Another factor that comes into play is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. An electron confined to a nucleus has a very small position uncertainty, and thus a large momentum uncertainty, and so it leaves the nucleus - it's moving around too much. Electrons do spend part of their time in the nucleus, especially those in the S orbital. They just don't stay there.

 

Electrons can be captured by a proton, in a decay called (not surprisingly) electron capture, in which you form a neutron and release a neutrino, but this can only happen of the reaction releases energy. Even when it's possible it is unlikely because it is mediated by the weak nuclear force, which has a very short range.

[SpaceTime]

It's all to do with exchange particles. Each type of force has its own exchange particle. I can't think of a decent way to describe it' date=' but the nuclear force has the gluon exchange particle - quarks exchange this particle and because of it they're stuck together with the nuclear force. For the electromagnetic force (which is what keeps electrons in their associated energy levels) the proton is an exchange particle. As for the Bohr radius - the particles will only exchange within a certain distance of each other.

 

That was a pretty lame description, but I've only had the experience of A-level two years ago There's a much better explanation here.

 

But the exchange particles, are they not mythical like the graviton which has not yet been found.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[SpaceTime]

Hi Swansont,

 

You say the Bohr model is fundamentally wrong why? I think there is a lot of uncertainty in what you are actually saying.

 

Why does the atom not function using classical electrical mechanics?

 

An electron or proton in motion produces opposite magnetic fields is this correct?

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[swansont]

Hi Swansont' date='

 

You say the Bohr model is fundamentally wrong why? I think there is a lot of uncertainty in what you are actually saying.

 

Why does the atom not function using classical electrical mechanics?

 

An electron or proton in motion produces opposite magnetic fields is this correct?

 

Signed

SpaceTime[/quote']

 

The Bohr model predicts classical, circular orbits for the electrons, and they don't do this. It fails to predict a lot of behavior as well. It does get the energy spacing right, for the principle quantum numbers, in Hydrogen-like systems.

 

Atoms fail using classical models because classical models fail under quantum conditions - classical electro-mechanics is not complete.

 

Charges in motion do create magnetic fields. So does spin. The use of "opposite" requires some context that you haven't provided.

[SpaceTime]

The Bohr model predicts classical' date=' circular orbits for the electrons, and they don't do this. It fails to predict a lot of behavior as well. It does get the energy spacing right, for the principle quantum numbers, in Hydrogen-like systems.

 

Atoms fail using classical models because classical models fail under quantum conditions - classical electro-mechanics is not complete.

 

Charges in motion do create magnetic fields. So does spin. The use of "opposite" requires some context that you haven't provided.[/quote']

I agree that electrons do not follow circular orbits but disagree with your statement re the reason for the failure of classical models.

 

The Classical model was replaced by the quantum theory model because of the apparent lack of electromagnetic radiation detected from the orbiting electron which could not be explained and the classical model predicted this electromagnetic radiation should happen.

 

The opposite referred to in the last statement meant that if I moved a proton in the same direction as an electron then the magnetic fields produced would be opposite and out of phase and concequentially repulsive, you aggree with this?

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[swansont]

I agree that electrons do not follow circular orbits but disagree with your statement re the reason for the failure of classical models.

 

The Classical model was replaced by the quantum theory model because of the apparent lack of electromagnetic radiation detected from the orbiting electron which could not be explained and the classical model predicted this electromagnetic radiation should happen.

 

How is this not a failure of the classical model? Classically' date=' the electron should fall into the nucleus, radiating continuously.

 

The opposite referred to in the last statement meant that if I moved a proton in the same direction as an electron then the magnetic fields produced would be opposite and out of phase and concequentially repulsive, you aggree with this?

You should get a field that has the opposite helicity, looking along the velocity vector, but I don't see how you can say they are out of phase. And yes, antiparallel currents repel.

[SpaceTime]

This was the failure of the classical model it should have an electron that radiated but didn't. For this reason the quantum model was then developed.

 

Getting back to the two opposite charged particles (the proton and electron) if they are in motion travelling in the same direction, should they not electro-magnetically repel each other proportional to their velocity then?

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[Klaynos]

How is this not a failure of the classical model? Classically, the electron should fall into the nucleus, radiating continuously.

 

By that same sentimant the moon should fall into the earth, centripetal forces etc... Angular momentum...

 

but,,,

 

The classical model DOES fail, we predicting things using the classical model, go and do an experiment to prove or disprove what we predict it disproves it. We look confussed for a while, some bright spark comes along and thinks up quanutm theory, we predict, we test IT WORKS!!!!!

 

Classical theory is not complete. It belives electrons are particles, which is wrong, and can be proved wrong. I can't actually remember much more about the bohr model or why it's wrong...

[SpaceTime]

Hi Klaynos,

I realise the classical model is incomplete, but the quantum model is basically a working mathematical model only. This quantum model is an atomic model, which is composed of pure electrical particles but does not conform to classical electrical laws, to me this is suspicious and suggests that we may have overlooked something in the classical model.

 

This is why I am also going to discuss the motion of the proton and the electron.

 

All the current atomic models are primarily based on a near stationary nucleus or in a hydrogen atom a stationary proton. This is the fundamental failure of the current atomic models.

 

Wether the electron is a particle or not is not under dispute here, it still has mass.

 

I respect that you are a physics master student.

 

I have been studying physics for more than twenty years, also a qualifield electronics technician, currently working in research and development in the area of electromagnetics, and at times I feel I know nothing.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[swansont]

By that same sentimant the moon should fall into the earth' date=' centripetal forces etc... Angular momentum...

[/quote']

 

Centripetal forces do no work, and any physics masters student should know this. The higher order moments of the earth syatem ensure that energy is, in fact transferred and the moon is slowly receding from the earth.

 

What exactly about classical theory would have the moon spiral into the earth? Does the moon carry a charge?

[SpaceTime]

Hi Swansont,

Getting back to the two opposite charged particles (the proton and electron) if they are in motion travelling in the same direction, should they not electro-magnetically repel each other proportional to their universal velocity then?

 

This then produces two electromagnetic fields that are identical in strength but opposite, because the charge values are equal although opposite.

 

Outside of the atom the magnetic fields cancel out but inside they form a powerful magnetic repulsion between the charged particles, which is directly proportional to the velocity, do you agree with this?.

 

In this way the oppositely charged particales attraction will still occurr but the magnetic repulsion will prevent them fusing together, agree?

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[swansont]

Hi Swansont' date='

Getting back to the two opposite charged particles (the proton and electron) if they are in motion travelling in the same direction, should they not electro-magnetically repel each other proportional to their universal velocity then?[/quote']

 

THERE IS NO PREFERRED REFERENCE FRAME.

 

The laws of physics apply in any inertial frame, and you have to be able to treat the particles as if they were at rest. Many, many experiments and observations confirm this.

 

If the "universal velocity" mattered and this shifted the energy, several things would happen. There would be an overal shift in the spectrum because you've changed the energy, and measurements would disagree with the theory. There would also be a splitting of the spectrum depending on the spin orientation of the electrons in the magnetic field you've created. These splittings and the shift would be time dependent, as the earth changed velocity over the course of the year. We don't observe this. This is not surprising, because Maxwell's equations work, and require c to be constant, in all inertial frames.

[SpaceTime]

Hi Swansont,

It is time for you to go back to school, your babbling again, examine the laws governing parallel current carrying wires, this same affect applies within the vacuum of space, and the electrical particles don't have to travel within a wire (see vacuum tube theory), and this law does apply to atomic structure.

 

Click here to start your education: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/torrance.htm

 

P.S. The only preferred reference frame is the right one, You obviously haven't found it yet.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[swansont]

Hi Swansont' date='

It is time for you to go back to school, your babbling again, examine the laws governing parallel current carrying wires, this same affect applies within the vacuum of space, and the electrical particles don't have to travel within a wire (see vacuum tube theory), and this law does apply to atomic structure.

 

Click here to start your education: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/torrance.htm

 

P.S. The only preferred reference frame is the right one, You obviously haven't found it yet.

 

Signed

SpaceTime[/quote']

 

I'll speak with you again when you have actually addressed the objections to your model. Repeating the same tripe over and over won't make it right.

 

Until that time, consider my responses to any of your posts just corrections for anyone else who is reading that might actually want to learn some physics, and silence on my part should be in no way construed to mean I agree with you.

[Dave]

It is time for you to go back to school, your babbling again

 

I don't really want to step in and ruin this thread, but there's no need for things like this around here. As we clearly state in the rules, ad hominem attacks are just not on.

 

In short: if you have valid arguments, then go right ahead and post them. However, if you're not willing to take constructive criticism and don't want to post in a respectable, mature fashion then please don't bother posting at all. We can do without personal insults on here, thanks.

[5614]

... And Swansont is a working physicist with a PhD in atomic physics, he's one of the cleverest people (esp. at physics) on this site and is respected by most people. And sure people make mistakes, but it is rare and the difference between making a genuine mistake and saying something which you may not agree with is quite a big difference!

 

Also this is a debate forum, you are more than welcome to state your view and back it up, and argue a point, but to tell someone to just go to school isn't really getting anyone anywhere.

[SpaceTime]

I appologise if I have insulted anyone in this forum in particular you Swansont, and thank you 5614 for the information about Swansont. I had continued discussing theory with Swansont because he had appeared to know what he talking about. I do respect his opinions but I do not always agree with 100+ year old atomic principles.

 

With respect to the preferred frames of reference it is important to note that the atomic models based from the beginning assume that it has no universal velocity.

 

There is a big difference between assuming :

 

1: I am stationary relative to the atom next to me, and that the laws of physics apply in any inertial frame, and also that you have to be able to treat the particles as if they were at rest:

 

My viewpoint whereby:

 

2: I am in universal motion along with the atom next to me, and the atomic model cannot assume the particles are at rest, but must always account for this universal motion:

 

I feel this, along with the fact that charged particles in any form of universal motion, generate electric currents and subsequent magnetic fields, which the current Quantum atomic model does not address and does infact ignore.

 

This is the fundamental differences of opinion which we have expressed in this forum.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[5614]

I am in universal motion along with the atom next to me, and the atomic model cannot assume the particles are at rest, but must always account for this universal motion:

 

I feel this, along with the fact that charged particles in any form of universal motion, generate electric currents and subsequent magnetic fields, which the current Quantum atomic model does not address and does infact ignore.

 

I think it is interesting but quite explainable why QM doesn't really deal with whether absolute motion is possible.

 

Firstly QM is not by any means "classical" so whether SR (and absolute motion) applies or not could be debated.

 

Secondly it doesn't make a difference to QM whether there is absolute motion everywhere or not, as it wouldn't effect it... I mean it may, but it's not like; in room A there is absolute motion and in room B there isn't.... there either is or isn't, its a constant.

 

QM deals with one thing, SR with another, if someone made a QSR it'd be one thing, but as it stands at the moment, QM and SR are seperate things.

[Bob182]

If the "universal velocity" mattered and this shifted the energy' date=' several things would happen. There would be an overal shift in the spectrum because you've changed the energy, and measurements would disagree with the theory. There would also be a splitting of the spectrum depending on the spin orientation of the electrons in the magnetic field you've created. These splittings and the shift would be time dependent, as the earth changed velocity over the course of the year. We don't observe this. This is not surprising, because Maxwell's equations work, and require c to be constant, in all inertial frames.[/quote']

 

Space Time, you haven't addressed Swansonts point.

[swansont]

QM deals with one thing, SR with another, if someone made a QSR it'd be one thing, but as it stands at the moment, QM and SR are seperate things.

 

Actually it's GR and QM that have the problem - there is no quantum theory of gravity. QED, on the other hand, incorporates special relativity into it.

 

The bottom line is that QED works...spectacularly.

[SpaceTime]

Space Time, you haven't addressed Swansonts point.

Why when a stick is half placed in water and the other half is out of the water why does it appear bent at the point of entry?

 

If gravitational fields also cause the refractive index to change then it is highly likely that the speed of light can be changed by the density of space-time, influenced by gravitational fields, this affect would become extreme near black holes.

 

This area of debate is quite speculative and somehow does not really relate to the debate as to whether we should consider adding the universal velocity environment to be included in the QM atomic model.

 

Just like current theories I dont have all the answers, but I feel I have some strong valid questions, re the atomic model.

 

Signed

SpaceTime

[Bob182]

The speed of individual photons through a material is still c, however, electrons can absorb a photon and jump to a higher energy quantum state before re-emitting another photon. Thus light appears to travel through a material at a speed less than c, resulting in the optical effect you mentioned.

 

Such interactions between electrons and photons are described very nicely by QED.

[SpaceTime]

The speed of individual photons through a material is still c, however, electrons can absorb a photon and jump to a higher energy quantum state before re-emitting another photon. Thus light appears to travel through a material at a speed less than c, resulting in the optical effect you mentioned.

 

This statement of yours re the speed of light c through a material is contradictory to the educational institutions statements. For example the speed of light through water is stated to be 33% slower than c.

 

The speed of light more than appears to be slower than c, it is slower than c.

 

Signed

SpaceTime