Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 8 May 2010 22:20 On May 8, 7:07 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On May 6, 2:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 6, 7:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 4, 9:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > If the electric force has an opposite which acts as an attraction it > > > > would mean that the electron and protons ought to come together > > > > because of it. But you have to force these particles together so how > > > > can you say they attract one another? > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > No, it does NOT mean that electrons and protons ought to come together > > > because of it. > > > No that makes no sense that they are attractive but they don't come > > together without force. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > The reason is angular momentum. > > > The simple test you can do in the town library where you make your > > > posts is to swing a pail of water in a vertical circle. You'll note > > > that if you swing fast enough, the water does not fall out of the pail > > > onto your head, even when the pail is overhead and gravity is pulling > > > the water downward. Note that gravity and the pressure from the sides > > > and bottom of the pail are the only forces acting on the water. > > > So, once you figure out why gravity doesn't make the water fall out of > > > the pail onto your head when you do this, you'll understand perhaps > > > why the moon doesn't fall into the earth, why the earth doesn't fall > > > into the sun, and why the electron doesn't fall into the proton. > > > Can youi please show how attraction doesn't bring them together? > > Lets be sensible. > > this site (as provided above by Cwatters)http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090214124530AAfM4lg > gives a good answer but I think it's easier to see it from a view > point of energy. > By itself the neutron is unstable with a half-life of 10 minutes. It > decays into a proton, an electron, an anti-electron neutrino, and a > release of energy (not much, but some) > To drive this process backwards (recombine the electron and proton) > requires an input of energy. So they don't combine for the same reason > that water doesn't run uphill. > Now as to the deeper question, why is the neutron unstable, no one > knows. > Them's the rules, that all.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It makes no sense that these attractive particles should never come together except under the pressure required to create neutronium. Mitch Raemsch
From: waldofj on 8 May 2010 22:39 > > Einstein's idea seems to involve speeds of c-v and c+v, each > > of which he divides by c. wrong > > > 1) a = (c-v)/c > > 2) b = (c+v)/c > > > then he figures he can multiply a * b, take its square root, invert it > > and call it beta. dream on > > 3) beta = 1/sqrt(a*b) > > = 1/sqrt( (c-v)/c *b) > > = 1/sqrt( (c-v)/c * (c+v)/c) > > = 1/sqrt( (c-v) * (c+v)/c^2) > > = 1/sqrt( (c^2-v^2)/c^2) > > = 1/sqrt( c^2/c^2 -v^2/c^2) > > = 1/sqrt( 1 -v^2/c^2) > > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img37.gif > > > Since v+c would contradict SR (according to ben6993) then beta, > > the cornerstone of SR, contradicts SR. good algebra, wrong reasoning, wrong conclusion > > What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say > > the speed of light from A to B is c-v, > > the speed of light from B to A is c+v, > > the "time" each way is the same? He never said that. Here is what he did say (paraphrasing): from the view point of the stationary system (K): the closing speed of the ray of light and point B (from A to B) is c- v, the closing speed of the ray of light and point A (from B to A) is c +v, and the times are different. from the view point of the moving system (k): the speed of light from A to B is c, the speed of light from B to A is c, and the times are the same.
From: waldofj on 8 May 2010 23:10 > It makes no sense that these attractive particles should never come > together except under the pressure required to create neutronium. > > Mitch Raemsch you just have to keep in mind there is a lot more going on here then just electrostatic attraction. The uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and none of it is intuitive or makes any kind of sense at all. I assume you looked at the link Cwatters provided and didn't understand a word of it. Well, that's your goal, to learn what you need to understand it. Good luck
From: Mathal on 9 May 2010 00:45 On May 8, 9:27 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:cd88f1b6-ed33-4b8b-adf5-a007fbac9933(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On May 8, 10:49 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > > > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:b28e16f5-1f87-4265-8e54-8326b3387d1e(a)q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > On May 7, 4:58 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:a9ab2242-2a85-488d-aa6e-9cd17951f56c(a)k29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.... > > > On May 6, 10:38 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 6, 12:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 6, 2:29 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 6, 12:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 11:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 1:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 7:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 9:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the electric force has an opposite which acts as an > > > > > > > > > > > > attraction it > > > > > > > > > > > > would mean that the electron and protons ought to come > > > > > > > > > > > > together > > > > > > > > > > > > because of it. But you have to force these particles > > > > > > > > > > > > together so how > > > > > > > > > > > > can you say they attract one another? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it does NOT mean that electrons and protons ought to > > > > > > > > > > > come together > > > > > > > > > > > because of it. > > > > > > > > > > > No that makes no sense that they are attractive but they > > > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > > come > > > > > > > > > > together without force. > > > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason is angular momentum. > > > > > > > > > > > The simple test you can do in the town library where you > > > > > > > > > > > make your > > > > > > > > > > > posts is to swing a pail of water in a vertical circle. > > > > > > > > > > > You'll note > > > > > > > > > > > that if you swing fast enough, the water does not fall > > > > > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > > > of the pail > > > > > > > > > > > onto your head, even when the pail is overhead and > > > > > > > > > > > gravity > > > > > > > > > > > is pulling > > > > > > > > > > > the water downward. Note that gravity and the pressure > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > the sides > > > > > > > > > > > and bottom of the pail are the only forces acting on the > > > > > > > > > > > water. > > > > > > > > > > > So, once you figure out why gravity doesn't make the > > > > > > > > > > > water > > > > > > > > > > > fall out of > > > > > > > > > > > the pail onto your head when you do this, you'll > > > > > > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps > > > > > > > > > > > why the moon doesn't fall into the earth, why the earth > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't fall > > > > > > > > > > > into the sun, and why the electron doesn't fall into the > > > > > > > > > > > proton. > > > > > > > > > > > Can youi please show how attraction doesn't bring them > > > > > > > > > > together? > > > > > > > > > > Lets be sensible. > > > > > > > > > > There's nothing like seeing things with your own eyes. This > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > why I > > > > > > > > > suggested the pail of water trick, which you can actually > > > > > > > > > do. > > > > > > > > > > Then try to tell yourself what you're seeing doesn't make > > > > > > > > > sense. > > > > > > > > > > If it actually happens, it has to make sense. It's just that > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > haven't figured out how to make sense of it.- Hide quoted > > > > > > > > > text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > If an electron and a proton have to be forced together it > > > > > > > > makes > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > sense that they are attractive. > > > > > > > > Who says they have to be forced together? > > > > > > > Neutronium says they have to be forced together. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Are you talking about a wiki article?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Wackypedia thinks that science has a explanation to a rainbow when it > > > > is all made up. That phenomenon doesn't yield to science. > > > > > How can raindrops hang in a circular arc without falling? > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > As I understand it, everyone has their own rainbow. > > > > ============================================= > > > Before you go there, first note that the idiot Raemsch is challenging > > > the existence of the rainbow itself, not the explanation for its > > > existence. You are likely to get into futile discussions that way. > > > ============================================= > > > > You can make your > > > own with a spray bottle of water on a sunny day. It is like being in > > > the just the right position to be dazzled by sunlight reflected > > > reflected from an office block window. There are not many office > > > windows open at the correct angle, but there can be lots of water > > > droplets available.. > > > > The question about the electron and proton .... > > > I don't understand why 'forcing' was mentioned. > > > Not all material orbits: Comet Shoemaker Levy crashed into Jupiter. > > > The question should be 'do some electrons manage to be pulled into the > > > nucleus and get absorbed there'? > > > The limitation on how many electrons can be in each shell may decide > > > whether electrons can get into into the nucleus. The electron seems > > > to need too much room to cater for its wave nature to get into and > > > stay in the nucleus? > > > If the charges in the nucleus are moving/vibrating, that might create > > > a magnetic field which could deflect the incoming electron. But I am > > > way beyond what I know here... > > > > Also, any electrons in outer shells could repel free electrons before > > > they approached the nucleus. > > > ============================================= > > > That's the problem with analogies. They never fit the facts perfectly.. > > > Once you've created the solar system model of the atom you've > > > automatically made certain assumptions without realizing it, such > > > as giving the electron mass and a gravitational attraction to the > > > nucleus as well as inertia to fly on by and maintain an orbit. Then > > > when you mentally take out the angular momentum you end up > > > wondering why it doesn't just fall into the nucleus and cancel the > > > charges, creating a neutron from a proton. Since this doesn't happen, > > > perhaps we have the wrong model.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I know that classical orbiting was only an analogy here, but it is > > hard to get along without analogies. > > I have since looked up the 'centrifugal barrier' > > onhttp://www.tampa.phys.ucl.ac.uk/~sam/PHYS2B22/slides6.pptwhichseems > > a useful reference and I can read it with my new 'QM for Dummies' > > text. > > The quantised angular momentum is the cause: as the angular momentum > > is quantised, decreasing the distance to the nucleus means > > proportionally increasing the angular velocity, to keep the angular > > momentum a constant. Which makes it ever harder to continue to > > decrease the distance. It doesn't explain why angular momentum is > > quantised though, but 'why' questions cannot always be answered. > > ======================================================= > > I don't have PowerPoint so I cannot look at your slides. > > Are you trying to understand Nature or someone's theory of how > > they think Nature works? The former is science, the latter is a game > > of mathematics with their rules and you only get brownie points by > > agreeing with them.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > They are not my slides except insofar as I found them on a website. It > seemed like a reliable source. I have copied one appropriate slide > as an image:http://cid-96da7c9fa3b3d81c.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/sci%5E_physic... > > ======================================================== > Assumes m. > As I said above, "you've automatically made certain assumptions without > realizing it, such as giving the electron mass". > We have no evidence for the mass of an electron, it is entirely an > assumption. For it to have intuitive mass it has to be intuitive matter, > so what is matter? When I stand on a bathroom scale I measure > the compression of a spring, a force, and that may be useful in > considering the state of my health and what I should be eating, > but I still don't know what mass/matter is except in terms of > gravitational force. > I don't know what the charge on an electron is either, except in terms of > force. The electron seems to have a lot more electrical force than it does > gravitational force. Perhaps it doesn't have any mass at all. > I fail to see the purpose of an equation unless the terms in it represent > real physical quantities that are measurable, and you have an m that > isn't measurable in your "barrier", the equation isn't giving me any > understanding at all. > > "Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to > make it precise." > -- Bertrand Russell > ================================================= > > I am trying to understand Nature, but reading others' work is > necessary as I only have one lifetime and no lab and I am no Newton. > ================================================= > Making one discovery is about all anyone can expect in a lifetime, > most people never make any. Nature hides her secrets well from > those that make assumptions and refuse to look. By ignoring the > assumptive assertions of others and employing the principles of > science I have discovered the secret of the variable stars. But... > nobody cares except me. > > "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do. " > -- Bertrand Russell whatever Mathal
From: BURT on 9 May 2010 01:02
On May 8, 8:10 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > It makes no sense that these attractive particles should never come > > together except under the pressure required to create neutronium. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > you just have to keep in mind there is a lot more going on here then > just electrostatic attraction. > The uncertainty principle, > wave-particle duality, > the weak nuclear force, > the strong nuclear force, > and none of it is intuitive or makes any kind of sense at all. > I assume you looked at the link Cwatters provided and didn't > understand a word of it. > Well, that's your goal, to learn what you need to understand it. > Good luck If we can't verify an attraction what does that mean for the theory? NO. There are no charges. There is only repulsive electric field and aether. The proton and electron are the same. Mitch Raemsch |