Why don't electrons spiral into protons?

[why06]

<p>Okay easy High-school question. So why do electrons not just spiral down into protons in the nucleus?</p><p>You tell me?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Also why do Nuetrons have such a strong grip on protons?</p><p>&nbsp;Could they be eletrically attracted? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Okay easy High-school question. So why do electrons not just spiral down into protons in the nucleus?You tell me?&nbsp;Also why do Nuetrons have such a strong grip on protons?&nbsp;Could they be eletrically attracted? <br />Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;That is an excellent question.&nbsp; It is in fact one of the key questions that led to the developmente of quantum mechanics.</p><p>The modern explanation is a bit more complicated, but the original explanation gets the point across.&nbsp; Let us consider the hydrogen atom, one proton and one electron.</p><p>You can reasonably imagine a particle like an electron with an negative charge orbiting a positively charged proton in exactly the same way that a satellite orbits the earth, both the electrostatic attraction and the gravitational attraction being inverse square laws.&nbsp; But an accelerating charged particle (and circular motion with a constant change in direction is an accelerating motion) must radiate energy in accordance with Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; So an electron orbiting a nucleus would be radiating energy, slowing and ought therefore to spiral into the nucleus.&nbsp; But it doesn't and this was a puzzle.</p><p>But quantum theory came to the rescue to provide an explanation.&nbsp; de Broglie postulated that all moving objects, like the electron orbiting the nucleus have an associated wavelength</p><p>The first de Broglie equation relates the wavelength <span class="texhtml">&lambda;</span> to the particle momentum <img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/6/7/2675094f0e669eb219507d5a069943e4.png" alt="~p~" /> as</p><dl><dd><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/a/4/ba4a990908bb476038b7e8cabe3a0a9c.png" alt="lambda = frac{h}{p} = frac {h}{gamma mv} = frac {h}{mv} sqrt{1 - frac{v^2}{c^2}}" /> </dd></dl><p>Bohr proposed that an electron orbiting a nucleus could only have an orbit in which the circumference was an integral number of wavelengths.&nbsp; This implies that there are only discrete energies that are allowable for the electron orbiting the nucleus, and therefore it cannot continually radiate energy away.&nbsp; This theory accurately predicts the emission spectra for hydrogen and provides an explanation for why the atom is stable.</p><p>The explanation for nuclear forces is&nbsp;a LOT more complicated and involves the strong and weak forces and wha tis called quantum chromodynamics.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>If you dig into the Hiesenburg Uncertainty Principle you find that the electron exists as a cloud.&nbsp;&nbsp; The more to try to contain the cloud closer to the protron the shorter the wavelength become thus increasing the energy as seen by the eqation above.&nbsp; You are increasing the kenetic energy while decreasing the potential energy.&nbsp; The electron prefers a balance.&nbsp; The electromagnetic attraction isn't strong enough to overcome this.</p><p>Quite simply, in a hydrogen atoms natural state, there isn't enough kinetic energy to collapse the cloud and combine the electron and proton to form a neutron.&nbsp; You need to add enough energy for this to happen as the neutron is heavier than both an electron and proton combined.&nbsp; </p><p>Not sure if I would consider this an easy high school question, but that's my high school answer. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[why06]

<p>okay. You've jogged my memory of chemistry class. Could some one give an example of this happening. I need to picture it to get an understanding.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Also in this case does the electron act like more of a particle or more as a wave?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Also why do Nuetrons have such a strong grip on protons?&nbsp;Could they be eletrically attracted? <br /> Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>Nuclear Force.&nbsp; Neutrons don't have a charge (hence their name) while protons carry a positive charge.&nbsp; There's no electrical attraction.&nbsp; There's an excahnge of mesons which is the force carrying particle (similar to the photon being the force carrying particle for electromagnetic energy).</p><p>Considering proton are positively charged, there needs to be quite a bit of energy to overcome the electromagnetic repulsive force.&nbsp; Again, no attraction here.</p><p>Why is this force strongest of the 4?&nbsp; I have no clue to be honest.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>okay. You've jogged my memory of chemistry class. Could some one give an example of this happening. I need to picture it to get an understanding.&nbsp;Also in this case does the electron act like more of a particle or more as a wave?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>An example of what?</p><p>While the electron is doing it's thing in an atom, it is considered a wave.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[why06]

I meant an example of how this wave level view of electron would explain some observable phonomenon. Like how an example of light being a quantum of energy would be the photoelectric effect. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

<p>And I'll tell you the reason why I'm interested in the exact reason why the Standard model has been explained a certain way. Which is simply the complexity of it all. There seems to me that the ideas of 12 or 11 dimensions as a possible solution have become so complex that they have lost touch with reality. I've always been a strong believer in the "simplest approach must be correct". So I've been reading up on several of these topics of extra dimensions and String theory only to realize at some point I must have lost the basics. Basically I'm looking to understand on the very simplest level where the huge complex theories are being built on before I take in to learning any of it. Being a scientific person by nature I can not believe anything I hear or see simply on the credentials or promise of a certain proffessor or theory. Therefore I must understand it myself.</p><p><strong>&nbsp;However this is merely a side note and should be discussed in another topic. I was getting the feeling that some of my question might be considered as questionable or unneccessary. So here I was merely stating my reasons for the initiating the discussion of the matter-at-hand in hopes of acquiring the greatest amount of assistance.</strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And I'll tell you the reason why I'm interested in the exact reason why the Standard model has been explained a certain way. Which is simply the complexity of it all. There seems to me that the ideas of 12 or 11 dimensions as a possible solution have become so complex that they have lost touch with reality. I've always been a strong believer in the "simplest approach must be correct". So I've been reading up on several of these topics of extra dimensions and String theory only to realize at some point I must have lost the basics. Basically I'm looking to understand on the very simplest level where the huge complex theories are being built on before I take in to learning any of it. Being a scientific person by nature I can not believe anything I hear or see simply on the credentials or promise of a certain proffessor or theory. Therefore I must understand it myself.&nbsp;However this is merely a side note and should be discussed in another topic. I was getting the feeling that some of my question might be considered as questionable or unneccessary. So here I was merely stating my reasons for the initiating the discussion of the matter-at-hand in hopes of acquiring the greatest amount of assistance. <br />Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>You don't need all of those extra dimensions for the standard model.&nbsp; You may need them for the latest incarnation of string theory (M-theory, or F-theory or maybe something else this week), but that is still speculation.</p><p>&nbsp;However, to understand particle physics at the level that you seem to be describing you are going to need a lot more than you will get at an open amateur forum like this.&nbsp; You will need to get some serious mathematics and physics books.&nbsp; And do some serious studying.&nbsp; I think it was Speedfreak who posted a link to a web site that will show you some resources for serious study of theoretical physics.&nbsp; Here is that link http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html#pmathematics</p><p>Let me sugges one other book on a sort of "popular level" but one that actually is quite sophisticated and does not shy away from some deep mathematics.&nbsp; Try <em>The Road to Reality</em> by Roger Penrose.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[why06]

<p>Oh speedfreak still hangs around here? Huh? must be a solar system by now.</p><p>&nbsp;Anyway thank for the info. However I'm really terrible at learning stuff online. So if you could suggest any good books that might go in depth on the basic Standard Model without using more advanced mathematics than Calculus that would be greatly appreciated. I'd specifically like to know more about electron energy levels. However I will look at speedfreak suggestion as well. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[siriusdogstarone]

<p>Could&nbsp; the cause&nbsp; of&nbsp; this happening be an electrostatic charge of&nbsp; electrons picking up&nbsp; the extra proton or electron</p><p>charge forming the proton . That they are attracted to each other&nbsp; .<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#339966">E To The Square</font> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While the electron is doing it's thing in an atom, it is considered a wave.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br />and I would add - that means its spread evenly around the nucleus and so it is not orbitiing it&nbsp;and so it has no reason to spiral down into it</p><p>bottom line, no orbiting happens in atoms, that's a&nbsp;primitive idea from nineteenth century that somehow still today circulates about</p><p>inside atoms everything is quantum mechanical if you want to understand anything about it and nobody understands quantum mechanics, so there</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mickeyl]

<font size="2">Quantum mechanics was an attempt by those who had no clue, to&nbsp;contrive&nbsp;(invent) answers to the observed forces that control the universe.&nbsp; It was an endeavour&nbsp;to force an explanation,&nbsp;that fit their limited understanding of the four forces.&nbsp; Particle physicists say that if you understand their bizarre explanations, then you don't understand their problem.&nbsp; Also, physicists agree the standard model does not work when gravity is introduced into their equations.</font>

 

[neuvik]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Quantum mechanics was an attempt by those who had no clue, to&nbsp;contrive&nbsp;(invent) answers to the observed forces that control the universe.&nbsp; It was an endeavour&nbsp;to force an explanation,&nbsp;that fit their limited understanding of the four forces.&nbsp; Particle physicists say that if you understand their bizarre explanations, then you don't understand their problem.&nbsp; Also, physicists agree the standard model does not work when gravity is introduced into their equations. <br />Posted by mickeyl</DIV><br /><br />all well in good but&nbsp;do you have a better way to explain why an electron does not collide with the protons in the nucleus or did you just wan't to exclaim that science&nbsp;may not&nbsp;know the answer?</p><p>&nbsp;Plus doesn't de Broglies theory satisfy a&nbsp;realativistic equation for a free particle with the relation between energy and momentum? </p><p>E^2=p^2 (c^2) + m^2 (c^2)&nbsp; </p><p>nothings perfect, but&nbsp;a Dalembertian operator later and you got something close enough to predict with some usefullness.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

 

[origin]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Quantum mechanics was an attempt by those who had no clue, to&nbsp;contrive&nbsp;(invent) answers to the observed forces that control the universe.&nbsp; It was an endeavour&nbsp;to force an explanation,&nbsp;that fit their limited understanding of the four forces.&nbsp; Particle physicists say that if you understand their bizarre explanations, then you don't understand their problem.&nbsp; Also, physicists agree the standard model does not work when gravity is introduced into their equations. <br />Posted by mickeyl</DIV><br /><br />I suppose you could just throw out quantum mechanics, but then you could not build computers that operate reliably since quantum mehcanics must be taken into account when designing the semiconductors.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>