Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: waldofj on 14 May 2010 13:36 > Ah... you won't understand until you tackle the question. > Get your round tuit out and have a go: > -- > Ref: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif > > 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: franklinhu on 14 May 2010 16:03 On May 12, 6:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I suppose we would have to define what we mean by a proton and electron to be "in contact" since protons/electrons do not likely have such a hard and defined shell that can rest upon each other. In this case, I mean when the electron/proton reach a steady state upon which the electron can move no closer to the proton. Such a thing could happens since the charge distribution of a proton suggest that it contains negative charges and there may be a point where the repulsion equals the attraction and the electron goes no closer to the proton. The point at which this happens would likely have nothing to do with the "cross section" of a proton/electron found from scattering experiments. The "cross section" also merely represents the equivalent target area that a proton represents if it were concenterated in a little round plate. Scattering experiments are done much like firing bullets into a black room. If your target is truely a small round disk, then your measurements are accurate. However, if your target looks more like a square cage, the measurement you get would in no way reflect upon the true size and extent of the object. This is a crucial limitation of scattering experiments and so, I think it would be possible that the physical structure of the proton could be much larger than just the scattering cross section of 1E-15m. So, the scattering cross section alone does not preclude the possiblity that the electron and positron are sitting at a static relationship to one another at a 1E-10m distance. Do you have any direct experiments, rather than drawing conclusions from data which may not be relevant? I think it more telling that if the electron and proton were not sitting on each other and the electron were somehow in motion aruond the proton, that it should emit energy and thus fall into the proton. We see no such radiation, so this confirms the electron is not in motion aroud the proton. I am also not terribly convinced that restricting the orbits to specific distances as done in quantum physics in any way explains why it doesn't emit energy and fall from these specific distances. So, while the electron and proton may not be in a sense 'touching', the electron has gotten as close to the proton as it can and is in a resting energy state. > > 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? > > > > > > > > > The real question is why we think > > > > they don't. We actually have no reason to believe that the 2 particles > > > > simply do not come to rest on each other - they don't blow up or > > > > anything, why should they? > > > > > See my cubic atomic model to see how:http://franklinhu.com/theory.html > > > > >fhucubic- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 14 May 2010 16:37 On May 14, 3:03 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 12, 6:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > I suppose we would have to define what we mean by a proton and > electron to be "in contact" since protons/electrons do not likely have > such a hard and defined shell that can rest upon each other. In this > case, I mean when the electron/proton reach a steady state upon which > the electron can move no closer to the proton. Such a thing could > happens since the charge distribution of a proton suggest that it > contains negative charges and there may be a point where the repulsion > equals the attraction and the electron goes no closer to the proton. > The point at which this happens would likely have nothing to do with > the "cross section" of a proton/electron found from scattering > experiments. This is where a little calculation would be in order, and a little experiment, Franklin. First, the calculation. There are indeed negative charges in the proton, and indeed the repulsive force gets stronger as the electron gets closer. But there are also positive charges in the proton, and the attractive force has the same dependence on distance as the repulsive force does (see Coulomb's law). So there is no way that the repulsion of the negative charges could become *stronger* than the attraction of the positive charges at some radius. Furthermore, there are *more* positive charges in the proton than there are negative charges. Second, the experiment. Take a metal meter stick and balance it on something insulating, like a half a ping-pong ball. Now blow up a balloon and tie it off, and rub it on your hair to put a static charge on the balloon. Then hold the balloon close to one end of the meter stick, but off to one side so that the meter stick can rotate on the pivot. Which way does it pivot, toward the balloon, or away from the balloon? Keep in mind that the meter stick is electrically neutral, with just as many negative charges as there are positive charges. So explain your observations. > > The "cross section" also merely represents the equivalent target area > that a proton represents if it were concenterated in a little round > plate. Actually, no, it doesn't mean that at all. You may want to take a look at Rutherford's analysis of Coulomb scattering from the nucleus. That was over a century ago, by the way. > Scattering experiments are done much like firing bullets into a > black room. If your target is truely a small round disk, then your > measurements are accurate. However, if your target looks more like a > square cage, the measurement you get would in no way reflect upon the > true size and extent of the object. This simply isn't true, Franklin. > This is a crucial limitation of > scattering experiments and so, I think it would be possible that the > physical structure of the proton could be much larger than just the > scattering cross section of 1E-15m. > > So, the scattering cross section alone does not preclude the > possiblity that the electron and positron are sitting at a static > relationship to one another at a 1E-10m distance. This is true. There are abundant experiments otherwise that say that electrons are not sitting in a static relationship. The kinetic energy of the electron is a *measured* quantity in ionization experiments, for example. You can open up any freshman chemistry text for this kind of info. > Do you have any > direct experiments, rather than drawing conclusions from data which > may not be relevant? > > I think it more telling that if the electron and proton were not > sitting on each other and the electron were somehow in motion aruond > the proton, that it should emit energy and thus fall into the proton. > We see no such radiation, so this confirms the electron is not in > motion aroud the proton. No, it does not confirm anything, though it was a puzzle around 1910. This is what is referred to as the "ultraviolet catastrophe". The VERY FIRST PROBLEM that quantum mechanics addressed was how an electron could be in motion around the proton and not radiate. It appears, Franklin, that you are trying to retrace all the steps of physics from the middle of the 18th century onward, on your own, without references and without access to any of the experimental data. This is why you are confronting very old problems that have already been solved a century ago, and you are imagining that you have stumbled on something new. > I am also not terribly convinced that > restricting the orbits to specific distances as done in quantum > physics in any way explains why it doesn't emit energy and fall from > these specific distances. But it does. It helps to understand what "quantum" means here, and why the energy of the electron can ONLY be in multiples of -13.6 eV/n^2, where n is an integer, and thus why continuous radiation does not happen. > > So, while the electron and proton may not be in a sense 'touching', > the electron has gotten as close to the proton as it can and is in a > resting energy state. If it has nonzero kinetic energy about the center of mass of the atom, it can't be said to be resting. > > > > > 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? > > > > > > The real question is why we think > > > > > they don't. We actually have no reason to believe that the 2 particles > > > > > simply do not come to rest on each other - they don't blow up or > > > > > anything, why should they? > > > > > > See my cubic atomic model to see how:http://franklinhu.com/theory..html > > > > > >fhucubic- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Androcles on 14 May 2010 16:52 "waldofj" <waldofj(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:9cba347f-fa5d-4bf7-9a8a-49ddf01e7d8b(a)r11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... 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. =========================================== Excellent. I'm glad you've now understood emission theory and have condemned Einstein's hocus pocus to the annals of history, although I somehow doubt that you've understood what you have said.
From: john on 14 May 2010 21:52
On May 14, 2:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 14, 3:03 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 12, 6:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > I suppose we would have to define what we mean by a proton and > > electron to be "in contact" since protons/electrons do not likely have > > such a hard and defined shell that can rest upon each other. In this > > case, I mean when the electron/proton reach a steady state upon which > > the electron can move no closer to the proton. Such a thing could > > happens since the charge distribution of a proton suggest that it > > contains negative charges and there may be a point where the repulsion > > equals the attraction and the electron goes no closer to the proton. > > The point at which this happens would likely have nothing to do with > > the "cross section" of a proton/electron found from scattering > > experiments. > > This is where a little calculation would be in order, and a little > experiment, Franklin. > > First, the calculation. There are indeed negative charges in the > proton, and indeed the repulsive force gets stronger as the electron > gets closer. But there are also positive charges in the proton, and > the attractive force has the same dependence on distance as the > repulsive force does (see Coulomb's law). So there is no way that the > repulsion of the negative charges could become *stronger* than the > attraction of the positive charges at some radius. Furthermore, there > are *more* positive charges in the proton than there are negative > charges. > > Second, the experiment. Take a metal meter stick and balance it on > something insulating, like a half a ping-pong ball. Now blow up a > balloon and tie it off, and rub it on your hair to put a static charge > on the balloon. Then hold the balloon close to one end of the meter > stick, but off to one side so that the meter stick can rotate on the > pivot. Which way does it pivot, toward the balloon, or away from the > balloon? Keep in mind that the meter stick is electrically neutral, > with just as many negative charges as there are positive charges. So > explain your observations. > > > > > The "cross section" also merely represents the equivalent target area > > that a proton represents if it were concenterated in a little round > > plate. > > Actually, no, it doesn't mean that at all. You may want to take a look > at Rutherford's analysis of Coulomb scattering from the nucleus. That > was over a century ago, by the way. > > > Scattering experiments are done much like firing bullets into a > > black room. If your target is truely a small round disk, then your > > measurements are accurate. However, if your target looks more like a > > square cage, the measurement you get would in no way reflect upon the > > true size and extent of the object. > > This simply isn't true, Franklin. > > > This is a crucial limitation of > > scattering experiments and so, I think it would be possible that the > > physical structure of the proton could be much larger than just the > > scattering cross section of 1E-15m. > > > So, the scattering cross section alone does not preclude the > > possiblity that the electron and positron are sitting at a static > > relationship to one another at a 1E-10m distance. > > This is true. There are abundant experiments otherwise that say that > electrons are not sitting in a static relationship. The kinetic energy > of the electron is a *measured* quantity in ionization experiments, > for example. You can open up any freshman chemistry text for this kind > of info. > > > Do you have any > > direct experiments, rather than drawing conclusions from data which > > may not be relevant? > > > I think it more telling that if the electron and proton were not > > sitting on each other and the electron were somehow in motion aruond > > the proton, that it should emit energy and thus fall into the proton. > > We see no such radiation, so this confirms the electron is not in > > motion aroud the proton. > > No, it does not confirm anything, though it was a puzzle around 1910. > This is what is referred to as the "ultraviolet catastrophe". The VERY > FIRST PROBLEM that quantum mechanics addressed was how an electron > could be in motion around the proton and not radiate. > Well, if that was its very first whitewash- er I mean, problem, it's no wonder evrything is so f***ed up. The electron is constantly radiating, as are stars. But no matter that stars burn out regularly, the galaxy still has stars! Where do they come from? They form and are born from something all the time. Similarly an electron can- nay, MUST radiate, but is constantly replenished through another pathway. Quantum mechanics is non-logic, and therefore non-science. I fail to see how it hypnotizes perfectly intelligent people. john |