What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
in [Relativity]
|
From: David Cross on 27 Mar 2005 22:48 On 27 Mar 2005 19:08:58 -0800, "Nick" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >You say attraction causes motion? >But how? > >Do you know that? > >I didn't think so. We adopt the requirement that in order for the standing wave to be present, that the electron in its particle guise must revolve about the nucleus in such a fashion as to ensure overall equilibrium in the system wherein the electrostatic force pulling in exactly balances the mechanical inertia of the electron. I suppose it is not necessary to assume this, but it makes the introductory quantum mechanics easy to do. --- David Cross dcross1 AT shaw DOT ca
From: macromitch on 27 Mar 2005 22:59 No answer here. A lot of fancy though.
From: RP on 28 Mar 2005 00:06 David Cross wrote: > On 27 Mar 2005 19:08:58 -0800, "Nick" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>You say attraction causes motion? >>But how? >> >>Do you know that? >> >>I didn't think so. > > > We adopt the requirement that in order for the standing wave to be present, > that the electron in its particle guise must revolve about the nucleus in such > a fashion as to ensure overall equilibrium in the system wherein the > electrostatic force pulling in exactly balances the mechanical inertia of the > electron. > > I suppose it is not necessary to assume this, but it makes the introductory > quantum mechanics easy to do. Such a system can only be stable in the absence of external forces. It is the lorentz interactions that provide the stability, being proportional to cos(theta)*v^2 the orbital is completely independent of angular velocity. QM is the next logical step when em forces between quanta are completely misunderstood. Richard Perry
From: Bilge on 28 Mar 2005 01:53 The Ghost In The Machine: >In sci.physics, Nick ><macromitch(a)yahoo.com> > wrote >on 27 Mar 2005 01:00:25 -0800 ><1111914025.767519.298700(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>: >> What is the velocity of an electron in a shell? >> Can they move at different speeds and remain in the >> same shell? >> >> More imporatant is what sustains them in their perpetual motions? >> Mitch -- Light Falls -- >> > >The Bohr model, like the J. J. Thompson variant before it, >was discredited long ago. The general QM variant might >be able to give one a probability curve of momenta and >positions, but that's about it. > >I'd frankly have to restudy QM at this point (specifically >the eigenvalues/vectors of the hydrogen atom) to see what >one might deduce regarding the speed (as opposed to the >velocity) of an electron therein. Velocity is not an observable. The dirac equation allows only two velocity states -- +/-c. The velocity v < c originates from zitterbewegung between the two opposite velocity states. In the case of the hydrogen atom, that's c/137.
From: David Cross on 28 Mar 2005 02:13
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:06:48 -0600, RP <no_mail_no_spam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 27 Mar 2005 19:08:58 -0800, "Nick" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>You say attraction causes motion? >>>But how? >>> >>>Do you know that? >>> >>>I didn't think so. >> >> We adopt the requirement that in order for the standing wave to be present, >> that the electron in its particle guise must revolve about the nucleus in such >> a fashion as to ensure overall equilibrium in the system wherein the ( snip ) >Such a system can only be stable in the absence of external forces. It >is the lorentz interactions that provide the stability, being >proportional to cos(theta)*v^2 the orbital is completely independent >of angular velocity. QM is the next logical step when em forces >between quanta are completely misunderstood. By no means did I intend the description to be the be-all-and-end-all. :) It's simply a way of trying to point out that we don't say the electromagnetic interaction between the nucleus and the electrons is causing the motion around the nucleus, instead we say that since there is a wave nature and a particle nature there has to be a way of reconciling the two and so assuming the movement of the electron from the get-go is the first step. --- David Cross dcross1 AT shaw DOT ca |