Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: waldofj on 13 May 2010 06:50 On May 12, 10:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:af611b1e-80b1-4dfb-8748-9e9e542cd1d4(a)i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 12, 5:55 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 10, 7:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On May 9, 12:45 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > On May 8, 7:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > >> > > > - Show quoted text - > > >> > > The simplest answer is that the proton and electron do come together. > >> > > They stick together like 2 magnets. > > >> > We know that they do not make contact. > > >> And just how do we know they do not make contact? What experimental > >> evidence can you point to? > > > The size of the electron is known from scattering experiments to be > > less than 1E-18 m. The size of the proton is known similarly to be > > about 1E-15m. The average distance of the electron from the proton in > > the atom is about 1E-10m, which is 100,000 times bigger than the size > > of the proton and 100,000,000 times bigger than the size of the > > electron. > > > Here's the way you can imagine it, if you like. > > Take a 1 mm BB, and a 1 meter beach ball. Set the beach ball on the > > ground. Now walk 60 miles and set the BB on the ground. This is a > > scale model of the atom. Does it look like to you that the BB is in > > contact with the beach ball? > > Except the BB doesn't have a particular location on the beach but just a > probability of existing at various places on the beach. > > Some orbitals are not even spherical shells. http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html?pop=yes&pid=621 check out video 51
From: Androcles on 13 May 2010 07:02 "ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2244ee3e-4794-48bc-8ae1-5c78c491b4cf(a)b7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... On May 13, 10:01 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7f5a614f-5ea0-43f7-abe9-085678938f39(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > <snip to the nitty gritty> > > Hi Androcles > > Using Einstein's (1905) two frames: K (stationary, t, x, y, z) and k > (moving, tau, xi, eta, zeta). > Let Androcles make measurements in the stationary frame K. > Assume that the speed v is sufficient (approx. 0.866c) to produce a > measured length in K which is half of what it is in k. > In assuming this, it is needed to show that Androcles measures the > length as x, where x is half of the length measured as xi. > I.e. need to show that x = 0.5 xi. > > - - - -- > > Einstein's formula is xi = beta (x-vt) > At t=0, xi=beta x > > This is Einstein's beta, where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 0.5 > > so beta = 1/0.5 = 2 > > so in Einsein's formula xi= beta x, therefore xi = 2x. > > xi=2x, > therefore x = 0.5 xi which is what we set out to prove. > ============================================= > Very good. You have indeed proven that Einstein's moving frame is > twice as long as his stationary frame at your chosen speed. > Well done, we agree, and it seems your round tuit has had the > desired result. > > If you go faster you'll have further to go. > ============================================= > So Einstein's equations seem to me to agree with the Lorentz formula. > =============================================== > You really should learn the difference between multiplication and > division, which is taught in third grade. Have another round tuit. > > Lorentz claims L = L0 * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > Einstein claims L = L0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > L0 is the length in Lorentz's aether frame > and > L0 (=x-vt) is the length in Einstein's stationary frame (which you've now > proven). > > Can you see that Lorentz's L is 0.5 and Einstein's L is 2 at your chosen > speed? > > =============================================== > I am disappointed, Androcles, as I had put off doing this previously > because I had thought it was complicated. Unless I am overlooking > something complicated? > ============================================ > Well, yes. I do understand that division is more complicated than > multiplication and both Einstein and Lorentz were clowns, but I'm > please to see that you've proven Einstein to be the clown with > the more ridiculous bigger feet to trip over and fall flat on his face. L0 is the length in k (where measurements are in tau and xi) ============================================ Nope. L0 is the reference length in the "stationary" frame K. You have it backwards. Because the whole Earth is moving around the Sun (and carrying us and all our experiments with it) it is moving in the aether or "stationary" frame. The aether is the medium in which light is supposedly "waving", and the diameter of the Earth is L, it is moving. Lorentz imagined that the aether pressure on the moving Earth and all its molecules (you'll feel a pressure on your hand if you put it out of the car window at 60 mph) would compress the Earth like one hammer crushes an orange without an anvil, so L = L0 * beta. In other words Lorentz theorised he could ignore Newton's third law. L is the length in K (where Androcles is measuring in x and t) ============================================== Nope. "It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.'' - Last sentence of section 1 in http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ together with http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif I (and you) are moving through Einstein's stationary space, we measure xi and tau. Our speed in stationary space is the distance the Earth moves around the Sun, 150,000,000 kilometers multiplied by 2pi, and divided by one year. That comes out at about 0.0001c. ============================================== so replace L0 by xi and replace L by x. ================================================ Nope. replace L0 (which you cannot measure without stopping the Earth) with x-vt. Lorentz claims L = L0 * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) becomes x = xi *sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) ================================================ Nope, L0 becomes x' = x-vt and Lorentz claims x' = xi / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) but Einstein claims xi = x' / sqrt (1-v^2/c^2) ie x=xi/beta (Einsteins beta = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) ================================================== Nope, xi = x' * beta. (Einstein's beta = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), not sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) ) ie xi=beta x ================================================= Not quite, xi = beta x', where x' = x-vt OK, as this is Einstein's formula. ============================= Yep, but it isn't Lorentz's formula. You say that Einstein claims that L = L0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) =============================================== Yep. Here it is: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif I don't claim what I can't quote. ie x = xi/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) ie x= xi beta (Einsteins beta = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) NOT OK, as this is not Einstein's formula. ================================================= True enough, x isn't x' = x-vt. Einstein's formula is xi=beta x ==================================================== Nope. Einstein's formula is xi=beta x' Here it is: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif I don't claim what I can't quote. so you should not think that that Einstein says that L=L0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). ================================================= Yes I should because he did say that. Or you should make it clear to me why you think that this is what Einstein is saying. =================================================== I've been making it as clear as I can. Perhaps this will help: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/x'=x-vt.gif "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time." -- Einstein, Section 3.
From: waldofj on 13 May 2010 07:41 On May 13, 5:32 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 13, 10:01 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> > wrote: > > > > > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:7f5a614f-5ea0-43f7-abe9-085678938f39(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com.... > > > <snip to the nitty gritty> > > > Hi Androcles > > > Using Einstein's (1905) two frames: K (stationary, t, x, y, z) and k > > (moving, tau, xi, eta, zeta). > > Let Androcles make measurements in the stationary frame K. > > Assume that the speed v is sufficient (approx. 0.866c) to produce a > > measured length in K which is half of what it is in k. > > In assuming this, it is needed to show that Androcles measures the > > length as x, where x is half of the length measured as xi. > > I.e. need to show that x = 0.5 xi. > > > - - - -- > > > Einstein's formula is xi = beta (x-vt) > > At t=0, xi=beta x > > > This is Einstein's beta, where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 0.5 > > > so beta = 1/0.5 = 2 > > > so in Einsein's formula xi= beta x, therefore xi = 2x. > > > xi=2x, > > therefore x = 0.5 xi which is what we set out to prove. > > ============================================= > > Very good. You have indeed proven that Einstein's moving frame is > > twice as long as his stationary frame at your chosen speed. > > Well done, we agree, and it seems your round tuit has had the > > desired result. > > > If you go faster you'll have further to go. > > ============================================= > > So Einstein's equations seem to me to agree with the Lorentz formula. > > =============================================== > > You really should learn the difference between multiplication and > > division, which is taught in third grade. Have another round tuit. > > > Lorentz claims L = L0 * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > Einstein claims L = L0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > > L0 is the length in Lorentz's aether frame > > and > > L0 (=x-vt) is the length in Einstein's stationary frame (which you've now > > proven). > > > Can you see that Lorentz's L is 0.5 and Einstein's L is 2 at your chosen > > speed? > > > =============================================== > > I am disappointed, Androcles, as I had put off doing this previously > > because I had thought it was complicated. Unless I am overlooking > > something complicated? > > ============================================ > > Well, yes. I do understand that division is more complicated than > > multiplication and both Einstein and Lorentz were clowns, but I'm > > please to see that you've proven Einstein to be the clown with > > the more ridiculous bigger feet to trip over and fall flat on his face. > > L0 is the length in k (where measurements are in tau and xi) > L is the length in K (where Androcles is measuring in x and t) > > so replace L0 by xi and replace L by x. > > Lorentz claims L = L0 * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > becomes x = xi *sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > ie x=xi/beta (Einsteins beta = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) > ie xi=beta x > OK, as this is Einstein's formula. > > You say that Einstein claims that L = L0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > ie x = xi/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > ie x= xi beta (Einsteins beta = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) > NOT OK, as this is not Einstein's formula. > > Einstein's formula is xi=beta x > so you should not think that that Einstein says that L=L0 / sqrt(1 - > v^2/c^2). > Or you should make it clear to me why you think that this is what > Einstein is saying. If the rod is in system k and you want to know how it appears in system K you have to transform from k to K which you do using: x = (xi + v*tau)beta t = (tau + vxi/c^2)beta the mistake that Androcles consistently makes is to set tau = 0 so you get x = xi * beta which is an expansion the problem is when you are transforming from k to K you want a transform that ends up with t = 0. If you look at the equation for t you don't get this by setting tau = 0. you have to set tau = -vxi/c^2 which gives x = (xi - xiv^2/c^2)beta x=(xi(1 - v^2/c^2))beta 1 - v^2/c^2 is 1/beta^2 so x = xi/beta which is a contraction
From: ben6993 on 13 May 2010 09:54 On May 13, 12:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2244ee3e-4794-48bc-8ae1-5c78c491b4cf(a)b7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On May 13, 10:01 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> > wrote: > > > > > > > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:7f5a614f-5ea0-43f7-abe9-085678938f39(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com.... > > > <snip to the nitty gritty> > > > Hi Androcles > > > Using Einstein's (1905) two frames: K (stationary, t, x, y, z) and k > > (moving, tau, xi, eta, zeta). > > Let Androcles make measurements in the stationary frame K. > > Assume that the speed v is sufficient (approx. 0.866c) to produce a > > measured length in K which is half of what it is in k. > > In assuming this, it is needed to show that Androcles measures the > > length as x, where x is half of the length measured as xi. > > I.e. need to show that x = 0.5 xi. > > > - - - -- > > > Einstein's formula is xi = beta (x-vt) > > At t=0, xi=beta x > > > This is Einstein's beta, where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 0.5 > > > so beta = 1/0.5 = 2 > > > so in Einsein's formula xi= beta x, therefore xi = 2x. > > > xi=2x, > > therefore x = 0.5 xi which is what we set out to prove. > > ============================================= > > Very good. You have indeed proven that Einstein's moving frame is > > twice as long as his stationary frame at your chosen speed. > > Well done, we agree, and it seems your round tuit has had the > > desired result. > > > If you go faster you'll have further to go. > > ============================================= > > So Einstein's equations seem to me to agree with the Lorentz formula. > > =============================================== > > You really should learn the difference between multiplication and > > division, which is taught in third grade. Have another round tuit. > > > Lorentz claims L = L0 * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > Einstein claims L = L0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > > > L0 is the length in Lorentz's aether frame > > and > > L0 (=x-vt) is the length in Einstein's stationary frame (which you've now > > proven). > > > Can you see that Lorentz's L is 0.5 and Einstein's L is 2 at your chosen > > speed? > > > =============================================== > > I am disappointed, Androcles, as I had put off doing this previously > > because I had thought it was complicated. Unless I am overlooking > > something complicated? > > ============================================ > > Well, yes. I do understand that division is more complicated than > > multiplication and both Einstein and Lorentz were clowns, but I'm > > please to see that you've proven Einstein to be the clown with > > the more ridiculous bigger feet to trip over and fall flat on his face. > > L0 is the length in k (where measurements are in tau and xi) > ============================================ > Nope. L0 is the reference length in the "stationary" frame K. > You have it backwards. > Because the whole Earth is moving around the Sun (and carrying > us and all our experiments with it) it is moving in the aether or > "stationary" frame. The aether is the medium in which light is > supposedly "waving", and the diameter of the Earth is L, it is > moving. Lorentz imagined that the aether pressure on the moving > Earth and all its molecules (you'll feel a pressure on your hand if > you put it out of the car window at 60 mph) would compress the > Earth like one hammer crushes an orange without an anvil, so > L = L0 * beta. > In other words Lorentz theorised he could ignore Newton's third law. > > L is the length in K (where Androcles is measuring in x and t) > > ============================================== > Nope. > > "It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the > stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the > stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.'' - Last > sentence of section 1 inhttp://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > together with > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif > I (and you) are moving through Einstein's stationary space, we measure xi > and tau. > Our speed in stationary space is the distance the Earth moves around the > Sun, > 150,000,000 kilometers multiplied by 2pi, and divided by one year. That > comes > out at about 0.0001c. > ============================================== > > so replace L0 by xi and replace L by x. > ================================================ > Nope. > replace L0 (which you cannot measure without stopping the Earth) with x-vt. > > Lorentz claims L = L0 * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > becomes x = xi *sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > ================================================ > Nope, L0 becomes x' = x-vt > and Lorentz claims x' = xi / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > but Einstein claims xi = x' / sqrt (1-v^2/c^2) > > ie x=xi/beta (Einsteins beta = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) > > ================================================== > Nope, > xi = x' * beta. (Einstein's beta = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), not sqrt(1 - > v^2/c^2) ) > > ie xi=beta x > > ================================================= > Not quite, xi = beta x', > where x' = x-vt > > OK, as this is Einstein's formula. > ============================= > Yep, but it isn't Lorentz's formula. > > You say that Einstein claims that L = L0 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > =============================================== > Yep. Here it is: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif > I don't claim what I can't quote. > > ie x = xi/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) > ie x= xi beta (Einsteins beta = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)) > NOT OK, as this is not Einstein's formula. > ================================================= > True enough, x isn't x' = x-vt. > > Einstein's formula is xi=beta x > ==================================================== > Nope. > Einstein's formula is xi=beta x' > Here it is: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif > I don't claim what I can't quote. > > so you should not think that that Einstein says that L=L0 / sqrt(1 - > v^2/c^2). > ================================================= > Yes I should because he did say that. > > Or you should make it clear to me why you think that this is what > Einstein is saying. > =================================================== > I've been making it as clear as I can. > Perhaps this will help: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/x'=x-vt.gif > "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must > have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time." -- Einstein, Section > 3.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You mentioned aether wrt Lorentz. I don't know much about aether and don't want to go there, unless my arm is twisted. Not yet anyhow. There doesn't seem to be much point in having frame k if we don't use it. We did not previously specify that the object being measured was at rest in frame k, but I was assuming it. Say L0 is a measurement of the length of a stationary object in the stationary frame K. Ie x=L0. If you re-measure, in stationary frame K (t, x, y, z), the length of the object when the object is moving within frame K then the object will no longer have length L0 in frame K. Ie x <>L0. If the object is stationary within frame k and frame k itself is moving at speed v compared to frame K, the object can be measured in moving frame k (tau, xi, eta, zeta). Ie xi=L0. I earlier used Einstein's equations with t=0. You are bringing time into the explanations and its seems perhaps that you are going into a path where you want me to check Einstein's derivation of his equations. I was intending to use his equations, not derive them. But to be more general I will derive the required result for any time t. Say the nearest point of an object at rest in frame k is at xi0 and the object's furthest point is at xi1, at any time tau measured in moving frame k. And as the stationary object in frame k is of length L0, then L0=xi1- xi0. Using Einstein's equation with beta=2, [ie sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = 0.5]: xi=2(x-vt) therefore -2vt= xi-2x. For the nearest point of the object ie at xi=xi0 and x=x0 therefore -2vt= xi0-2x0 For the furthest point of the object ie at xi=xi1 and x=x1 therefore -2vt= xi1-2x1 so xi0-2x0 = xi1-2x1 = L0 + xi0 -2x1 ie -2x0 = L0 + -2x1 L0 = 2(x1-x0) +2L ie L = 0.5 L0 where L is the length of the object as measured in the stationary frame K. This gives the contracted length of one half the length measured when at rest.
From: PD on 13 May 2010 10:41
On May 12, 9:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:af611b1e-80b1-4dfb-8748-9e9e542cd1d4(a)i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 12, 5:55 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 10, 7:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On May 9, 12:45 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > On May 8, 7:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > >> > > > - Show quoted text - > > >> > > The simplest answer is that the proton and electron do come together. > >> > > They stick together like 2 magnets. > > >> > We know that they do not make contact. > > >> And just how do we know they do not make contact? What experimental > >> evidence can you point to? > > > The size of the electron is known from scattering experiments to be > > less than 1E-18 m. The size of the proton is known similarly to be > > about 1E-15m. The average distance of the electron from the proton in > > the atom is about 1E-10m, which is 100,000 times bigger than the size > > of the proton and 100,000,000 times bigger than the size of the > > electron. > > > Here's the way you can imagine it, if you like. > > Take a 1 mm BB, and a 1 meter beach ball. Set the beach ball on the > > ground. Now walk 60 miles and set the BB on the ground. This is a > > scale model of the atom. Does it look like to you that the BB is in > > contact with the beach ball? > > Except the BB doesn't have a particular location on the beach but just a > probability of existing at various places on the beach. > > Some orbitals are not even spherical shells. This is true. However, neither is the electron nestled up against the proton. If it were, atoms would be 1E-15m across. They're not. |