Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 15 May 2010 10:22 On May 14, 8:52 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > 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, No evidence of that, John. Of course, you're prone to just say you believe it is, but that it's an INVISIBLE radiation. Something like the exhalation of angels. > 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. Yes, from the gravitational collapse of dispersed matter. Where did you think they came from? > Similarly an electron can- nay, MUST > radiate, What on earth makes you think it MUST? Shouldn't statements be made on the basis of observation? > but is constantly replenished through > another pathway. > > Quantum mechanics is non-logic, What do you think is non-logical about quantum mechanics? You mean it is counter to your common sense? > and therefore non-science. Is it your belief that scientific facts must always appeal to your common sense? > I fail to see how it hypnotizes > perfectly intelligent people. > > john
From: BURT on 15 May 2010 15:54 On May 15, 7:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 14, 8:52 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > 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, > > No evidence of that, John. Of course, you're prone to just say you > believe it is, but that it's an INVISIBLE radiation. Something like > the exhalation of angels. > > > 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. > > Yes, from the gravitational collapse of dispersed matter. Where did > you think they came from? > > > Similarly an electron can- nay, MUST > > radiate, > > What on earth makes you think it MUST? Shouldn't statements be made on > the basis of observation? > > > but is constantly replenished through > > another pathway. > > > Quantum mechanics is non-logic, > > What do you think is non-logical about quantum mechanics? You mean it > is counter to your common sense? > > > and therefore non-science. > > Is it your belief that scientific facts must always appeal to your > common sense? > > > > > I fail to see how it hypnotizes > > perfectly intelligent people. > > > john- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If electrons and protons are attractive how come it never shows up? Why would they need to be forced together to form neutronium? Mitch Raemsch
From: john on 15 May 2010 18:16 On May 15, 8:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 14, 8:52 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > 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, > > No evidence of that, John. Hey, if you can't see something, you're saying it's not there?Of course, you're prone to just say you > believe it is, but that it's an INVISIBLE radiation. Something like > the exhalation of angels. Or neutrinos. > > > 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. > > Yes, from the gravitational collapse of dispersed matter. Where did > you think they came from? Explain that process; I can hardly wait. "Stars produce matter. Collapse of matter produces stars." Good one , PD. > > > Similarly an electron can- nay, MUST > > radiate, > > What on earth makes you think it MUST? Shouldn't statements be made on > the basis of observation? Electrons move in curved pathways. They are charged. > > > but is constantly replenished through > > another pathway. > > > Quantum mechanics is non-logic, > > What do you think is non-logical about quantum mechanics? You mean it > is counter to your common sense? No, it is counter to everyone's common sense. It is B.S. > > > and therefore non-science. > > Is it your belief that scientific facts must always appeal to your > common sense? No, they must 'make sense'- i.e. contain no contradictions. Contradictions like 'point particle', and 'singularity'. > > > > > I fail to see how it hypnotizes > > perfectly intelligent people. > > > john- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: bert on 15 May 2010 19:30 On May 15, 6:16 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On May 15, 8:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 14, 8:52 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > 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, > > > No evidence of that, John. > > Hey, if you can't see something, you're > saying it's not there?Of course, you're prone to just say you> believe it is, but that it's an INVISIBLE radiation. Something like > > the exhalation of angels. > Or neutrinos. > > > > 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. > > > Yes, from the gravitational collapse of dispersed matter. Where did > > you think they came from? > > Explain that process; I can hardly > wait. "Stars produce matter. Collapse of > matter produces stars." Good one , PD. > > > > > > > > Similarly an electron can- nay, MUST > > > radiate, > > > What on earth makes you think it MUST? > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - To Ya All Come up with a clear and good theory on how objects attract and repell over distance,and you are Nobel . O ya TreBert
From: franklinhu on 17 May 2010 01:33
On May 14, 1:37 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. Well, at this point, this is all idle speculation, it may or may not work, although my own theories indicate that since the charge attraction is due to a phased wave interaction, the closest a positron and electron could approach would be one wavelength of the resonant frequency for positrons/electrons. Protons, being 2 positrons and 1 electron, (in my model) may have properties which may still keep the electron some distance from the proton. > > 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. > Huh? What does this have to do with anything? The neutral bar is attracted to any point charge - this is generally how I think gravity works, but that is another story entirely. > > > > 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. Oh sure, I've looked it up plenty of times and right off the bat, it makes an ASSUMPTION that all of the charge is concentrated in the scattering cross section. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rutsca.html "The scattering of alpha particles from nuclei can be modeled from the Coulomb force and treated as an orbit. The scattering process can be treated statistically in terms of the cross-section for interaction with a nucleus which is considered to be a point charge Ze." Notice the use of "cross-section for interaction" and "considered to be a point charge Ze" http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/crosec.html#c1 > > > 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. Well, I can't say that I at all convinced by your explanation. Can you elaborate how you can tell the full spatial extent of an object based upon just the scattering cross section which by definition concentrates all the interaction zone into a compact circular region? Unless you can scan from side to side, I don't think you can determine the spatial extent of an 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. > > 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. Well of course, in "ionziation" experiments, the electron has been ionized or ejected from the nucleus and is of course flying around in such experiments and must have a measurable KE - what else would one expect? But, you will never, ever, ever, find any evidence that the electron has KE in a ground state atom, never! Of course, probably nobody has tried to do so, but if they did, they'd find only enough KE to account for the ambient heat energy. > > > 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 assure you, over the past 6 year or so since I became interested in this topic, I am well aware of all the references and I have wonderful access to all the experimental data thanks to the internet. I confront very "old" problems because they do not explain things like: What is charge? What is gravity? How do electrons take on these epicycle like electron shells? How do these crazy electron shells manange to not knock each other apart? How do these negative electron shells, then manage to attract to form molecules? How does mass turn into energy and how does energy turn into mass. No, I am not stumbling on something new, I'm stumbling on something which is "old" and indeed does go back to the 18th century. Back in those days, we were making rapid progress on discovering electricity, magnetisim, the nuclear forces. But in the last 100 years - we've not come any closer to understanding things like charge and gravity than we were a 100 years ago, no progress at all, nothing. We will never be able to control mass, inertia, charge and gravity at this rate. The ability to control any of these would be a fantastic and useful breakthrough, but current science has NO answers at all. I, on the other hand, do have answers to all of these questions and in a way which has the same kind of beauty as the Copernican revolution of removing the Earth centered universe. The main "wrong" belief at this point is that "there is no aehter". As long as we continue to deny the most fundamental basic foundation for all physics and instead choose to believe that space is "nothing", we will continue to be lost. This is why my most recent posts have been concentrating on finding and identifying the poslectron aether particle. In case anyone is wondering about the explantions I have, see: http://franklinhu.com/theory.html Of course, this would require science to toss out the past 100 years, but heck, that is what is fun about it. I'm not going to sit in a science lab and add another digit of precision onto some old constant. I think everyone senses that there is something seriously wrong with physics - it is too kooky - and is waiting for the next Einstein to shake things up and make it all clear. That's what all us crackpots/ cranks are up to. > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » |