Why don't an atom's electrons fall into the nucleus and stick to the protons?
- Thread starter jcc
- Start date
Who says the universe has to have same amount positive and negative charges? If there are only 100 protons and 100000 electrons, would matter/atom able to form?
According to Coulombs law, the universe should be a little ball of matter sounded by empty space. The matter part is the two kinds of particles mixture.
But it might not look like matter we know. Without negative charged space fluid, matter will be tooo dense to support life.
According to Coulombs law, the universe should be a little ball of matter sounded by empty space. The matter part is the two kinds of particles mixture.
But it might not look like matter we know. Without negative charged space fluid, matter will be tooo dense to support life.
Oh good.
What evidence supports your "theory"?
Nope.
That "equation" doesn't specify a density.
Density is mass per unit volume.
Your "equation" is gibberish.
So how do negatively charged electrons manage in a negatively charged "fluid"?
Any evidence of this?
What does "god" have to do with it?
Last edited:
QM atom structure suggests that atoms are like different sized ping pong balls.
Negative electron orbital shell, empty space and center positive nucleus.
3 questions, how electron not stick with nucleus?
Why atoms deep in Planet center not crash under high pressure?
How 2 O atoms form into 1 O2 since the shell of the 2 ping pong balls are all negative charged?
Negative electron orbital shell, empty space and center positive nucleus.
3 questions, how electron not stick with nucleus?
Why atoms deep in Planet center not crash under high pressure?
How 2 O atoms form into 1 O2 since the shell of the 2 ping pong balls are all negative charged?
how do electrons survive floating in this negative charged eather?
how you survive all the enemies in the world around you? You have no where to go but within them.
image the electron carries -1, the fluid carries - 1/10^20/cm^3. something like that.
the electron surrounded by negative fluid, seeks any positive charges in sight, fly to the closest proton. getting closer, the dense negative fluid ball around the proton keeps it not too close. The attraction force is f=pxe/r^2, the repel force form the negative field strength is f=1/r^3, the 2 has to balance at atom radius.
how you survive all the enemies in the world around you? You have no where to go but within them.
image the electron carries -1, the fluid carries - 1/10^20/cm^3. something like that.
the electron surrounded by negative fluid, seeks any positive charges in sight, fly to the closest proton. getting closer, the dense negative fluid ball around the proton keeps it not too close. The attraction force is f=pxe/r^2, the repel force form the negative field strength is f=1/r^3, the 2 has to balance at atom radius.
Nuclei can undergo a process called beta decay, where a positron is given off. The positron is considered the anti-matter version of the electron. Although we call the positron anti-matter, anti-matter it is the source of the positive charge of the proton.
The atom is composed on matter (electron) and anti-matter (positron), with the anti-matter somehow stabilized by the mass within the nucleus. The matter and anti-matter of the atom would like to combine and annihilate, but it can't unless the bond between the nucleus and the positron is broken. The hydrogen proton is extremely stable and will rarely if ever decay. Positron emissions tend to occur in larger nuclei, where the anti-matter positron is more mobile and is being shared within the nucleus.
Interestingly, the neutron is a hot particle by itself, but if we add the anti-matter positron, to make a proton, it becomes extremely stable. How does anti-matter make matter more stable?
The atom is composed on matter (electron) and anti-matter (positron), with the anti-matter somehow stabilized by the mass within the nucleus. The matter and anti-matter of the atom would like to combine and annihilate, but it can't unless the bond between the nucleus and the positron is broken. The hydrogen proton is extremely stable and will rarely if ever decay. Positron emissions tend to occur in larger nuclei, where the anti-matter positron is more mobile and is being shared within the nucleus.
Interestingly, the neutron is a hot particle by itself, but if we add the anti-matter positron, to make a proton, it becomes extremely stable. How does anti-matter make matter more stable?
Do the math. If a nucleus can beta decay and give off a positron to lose one positive charge, than the logical source of that positive charge was the positron. The positron is called the anti-particle of the electron. It is also called anti-matter, yet it can come and go in the nucleus without too big of a deal. The terms, matter and anti-matter are misleading since this does not always go boom, except in certain combo's, for other reasons.
What I would guess is mass condensed from thermal energy, while electrons and positrons split from EM energy, with the mass having a stronger affinity for the positron. This affinity scavenged the positrons, thereby segregating the electrons so all the matter became more stable. The negative proton would also form but this was less stable resulting in the universe predominantly matter with a tiny bit of anti-matter positron.
What I would guess is mass condensed from thermal energy, while electrons and positrons split from EM energy, with the mass having a stronger affinity for the positron. This affinity scavenged the positrons, thereby segregating the electrons so all the matter became more stable. The negative proton would also form but this was less stable resulting in the universe predominantly matter with a tiny bit of anti-matter positron.
Welcome the "old Wellwisher" back - mainly invented nonsense posted now. The positron did not exist in the nucleus of an isotope that emits one during decay any more than the gamma ray did when an isotpe decays with the emission of a gamma ray.
Your ideas about "thermal energy" condensing into mass are even more silly, if that is possible, but you are changing my belief that there was an upper bound on silliness.
Your ideas about "thermal energy" condensing into mass are even more silly, if that is possible, but you are changing my belief that there was an upper bound on silliness.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
An atom of positronium (1 negatively charged electron, 1 positively charged positron or anti-electron) actually do spiral into each other, emitting synchrotron radiation in the process, until they finally annihilate each other at their center.
A proton (not a positron) is many times more massive than either an electron or a positron, and together with electrons form the basis of atomic structure in such a manner as to agree with the Standard Model of particle physics. In order to maintain stability, various kinds of forces (EM, electroweak, strong nuclear, Higgs mechanism) were needed. To simply replace this body of experimentally tested and detailed mathematical modeling of atomic structure with your own based on observations of magnets is, in a word, ludicrous. Unless you can make detailed predictions that the SM cannot, you have exactly no chance of anyone taking your work seriously, scientifically or otherwise.
A proton (not a positron) is many times more massive than either an electron or a positron, and together with electrons form the basis of atomic structure in such a manner as to agree with the Standard Model of particle physics. In order to maintain stability, various kinds of forces (EM, electroweak, strong nuclear, Higgs mechanism) were needed. To simply replace this body of experimentally tested and detailed mathematical modeling of atomic structure with your own based on observations of magnets is, in a word, ludicrous. Unless you can make detailed predictions that the SM cannot, you have exactly no chance of anyone taking your work seriously, scientifically or otherwise.