Jump to content
Science Forums

Stability of the Hydrogen Atom


Recommended Posts

Stability of the Hydrogen Atom (HA):

 

According to classical physics, the hydrogen atom is composed of an

electron orbiting a proton and the assumption here is that the electron

would eventually plunge into the proton because it would lose its energy.

 

This is another example of faulty math that is used to refute Newtonian mathematics.

 

The reason why this math is erroneous is because the Magnetic forces are not considered.

 

So, I would like to explain why that does not happen.

 

The electrons revolution around the proton causes the proton to spin

in the same direction as the motion of the electron because of the ‘coulomb’ force’s attraction between the two particles. The protons spin is synchronous in relation to the electrons motion.

The closer the electron approaches to the proton, the proton spin increases as a result of the electrons increased velocity.

 

These motions of the two particles create magnetic fields that create an intrinsic force that pushes against the two fields to give the electron a boost to its orbital momentum.

So the presence of this force and the electrons momentum keep the electron in this state that is the ‘ground’ state of the HA indefinitely. So the only state where the HA will collapse is in the central regions of the stars where these atoms are fused to form ‘deuterons’ that are the precursors to forming the helium nuclei.

 

If the magnetic field interactions were taken into account, this formula would be complete and it would not fail. As long as there is no excitation, the hydrogen atom will remain in its ground state indefinitely.

 

This magnetic interaction can be easily proven with the 'right hand rule' representing the electrons MF orientation relative to the direction of motion around the proton and the 'left hand rule' that is applicable to the proton spin MF relative to the direction of its spin that is in the same direction as the electrons motion..

 

Just clench your fists in both hands and place them close to your body with the thumbs pointing outward that represent the particles direction of movements . The protons 'spin' side adjacent to the electron is moving in the same direction synchronously with the electrons movement.

Notice that your fingers are pointing upward and outward. Your fingers represent the orientation of the magnetic field lines. Both fields are moving 'upward' and 'outward'. This 'upward' movement in the same direction 'creates' a REPULSION within these fields that gives the electrons momentum an additional boost to resist the coulomb attraction.

 

While in the ground state, the hydrogen atom will radiate a one

angstrom (approximately) sign wave continuum. All other hydrogen atoms

in the same ground state will do likewise. Therefore, there will be no

loss or absorption of energy between them.

 

Photons that are spent by being absorbed by plants or are spent by their expansion to infinite widths are not spent energy to cause the HA to collapse because the electrons have to absorb a photon to reradiate a photon. So here, we also have no loss of energy;

 

Mike C

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stability of the Hydrogen Atom (HA):

 

According to classical physics, the hydrogen atom is composed of an

electron orbiting a proton and the assumption here is that the electron

would eventually plunge into the proton because it would lose its energy.

 

This is another example of faulty math that is used to refute Newtonian mathematics.

 

The reason why this math is erroneous is because the Magnetic forces are not considered.

 

So, I would like to explain why that does not happen.

 

The electrons revolution around the proton causes the proton to spin

in the same direction as the motion of the electron because of the ‘coulomb’ force’s attraction between the two particles. The protons spin is synchronous in relation to the electrons motion.

The closer the electron approaches to the proton, the proton spin increases as a result of the electrons increased velocity.

 

These motions of the two particles create magnetic fields that create an intrinsic force that pushes against the two fields to give the electron a boost to its orbital momentum.

So the presence of this force and the electrons momentum keep the electron in this state that is the ‘ground’ state of the HA indefinitely.

 

The reason that electrons would lose energy under classical physics is that it is a charge traveling in a circular motion, and a circular motion is an accelerated motion. Accelerating charges emit electromagnetic radiation. The energy for this electromagnetic radiation has to come from the electron, thus the electron spirals in.

 

Now let's see how this applies to your "explanation":

 

As the electron reaches its "ground state", it is still moving in a circular motion. Thus it must still be emitting EMR, and still be losing energy. The only place this energy can come from is the proton-electron pair, so they must slow down. Since, according to you, the magnetic forces keeping them apart arise from their motion, forces will weaken and the electron will move closer in. This process will continue until, again, the electron falls into the proton.

 

There are two ways around this.

 

One is to assume that the energy for the EMR comes form some other source than the motion of the pair. But unless you are willing to throw out the conservation of energy, this source would still be finite and would be exhausted eventually.

Besides that. At the rate that an electron orbits the proton, the EMR it would emt would be in the form of hard radiation, meaning for this to be true every atom would be giving off hard radiation, and they don't.

 

The other way is to assume that the orbiting electron does not emit EMR. Not only does this go against classical physics, but if you assume that this is the case, then your explanation becomes moot. If you do away with the electron emitting EMR, you do away with its loss of energy, and you do away with its tendancy to spiral into the proton. The hydrogen atom is stable on its own.

 

Besides that, it seems a little silly to suggest that modern physics has somehow forgotten about magneitc forces when it comes to expalining the stability of the atom.

 

 

Quantum Mechanics answers the problem through a variation of the the idea that the Electron does not emit EMR in its ground state.

 

The wavlength of the EMR emitted by the Electron is determined by the period of its orbit around the proton. The faster the orbit, the shorter the wavelength. Under QM, there is a fixed energy a single photon can have and this depends on the wavelength of the photon. The shorter the wavelength, the greater the energy of the photon has.

 

Therefore, QM explains the stability of the electron thusly.

 

Acclerating charges do tend to emit EMR. In the case of the electron orbit the proton in its ground state, the wavelength of the EMR emitted will be "W".

The energy of a single photon with wavelength W, is E.

 

The total energy the electron has to give up by falling into the proton is "e".

 

For the ground state, E >e. Thus the electron doesn't have the energy needed to generate the photon of the wavelength it would have to emit based on its orbital period.

 

The electron can only emit a photon of wavelength W, but doesn't have the energy available to do so, so it emits no photon at all. And since the electron can only fall in to the proton if its loses energy, and it can't emit a photn to do so, it remains stable in the ground state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Janus

 

The electron does not radiate a photon unless it absorbs a photon first.

 

In the ground state of the HA, it is radiating a continuous sign wave of one angstrom.

The ground state of the HA is the normal balanced state of the HA where all forces and orbital momentum of the electron is balanced.

In this state, all the HA's would also be in the GS. So there is no absorption of energy by any of the surrounding atoms. This complies with the Laws of Conservation of Energy.

 

Even though space is saturated with these one angstrom continuous sign waves, there is nothing in space to absorb these energies.

Photons, on the other hands are absorbed by all plants in the universe and also by the space particles that are scattered throughout space that reradiate in their own wavelengths.

So this energy is replaced by the new star creations that generate new photons.

 

If you say the electron radiates and loses energy, what is absorbing this energy?

 

Mike C

Link to post
Share on other sites
While in the ground state, the hydrogen atom will radiate a one

angstrom (approximately) sign wave continuum.

Mike C, what do you mean by “radiating a sine wave”?

 

“Approximately 1 angstrom” ([math]10^{-10} \,\mbox{m}[/math]) is not an unusual electromagnetic radiation wavelength – it’s in the middle of the X-ray range (about [math]10^{-8}[/math] to [math]10^{-11} \,\mbox{m}[/math]), a common emission frequency of electrons in metal atoms such as Iron, Copper, and Zirconium.

 

Radiation in the x-ray range interacts strongly with many materials, and is easy to detect. If all the ground state hydrogen in the universe was radiating it, it would be obvious. However, no such radiation is observed.

 

Mike C, do you have any support for this or the other strange claims you have made in this thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This doesnt make sense, if the electron is radiating then it is losing energy and the orbit must degrade.

 

You then go to say that space is saturated with these energies.. how convinient that you cant actually go and observe these continuous sine* waves to prove you theory correct..

 

I accept the Bohr model of the HA. In the ground state (Bohr n=1 orbit) the atom is stable and does not radiate any energy.

I visualize the 'Electric Fields' surrounding the electrons to be vibrationg with the electrons movements around the proton. So these fields would be vibrating at the 'one angstrom' frequency.

These fields normally repel each other. So, instead of the atom collapsing, they repel each other as the normal gases do.

 

Therefore, there is no energy lost or gained between these atoms.

 

Bohrs theory is well established and in every physics book. It is 'proven' by his explanation of the HA spectrum.

Plancks math has established that radiation takes place when the electrons change orbits. But they need to absorb radiation before they radiate energy.

 

So I give more credibility to this visualization than any math after Bohrs model.

Schroedingers math only conformed Bohrs energy levels. So that is added proof that Bohrs model is correct.

The schoedinger orbitals do not eliminate the electron as the particle that it is. Introducing an 'instant time' into this picture would reveal the electron as a particle at one point in these orbitals.

 

Mike C

Link to post
Share on other sites

Photons, on the other hands are absorbed by all plants in the universe and ...

 

There are plants elsewhere than on this planet? Where? :computerkeys: (That's a double naughty actually. There are some plants that don't photo-synthesize)

 

Physics is beyond me really, but how could an electron fall into a proton if their charges are opposed? I mean unless you infuse the electron with a ton of extra energy and hurl it toward the proton, it's not going to happen, right?

 

Wouldn't the lowest orbit of an electron in Hydrogen kind of be equivalent to the idea of absolute zero, in that absolute zero is the temperature where no further energy can be extracted from the atoms, but where it does not mean absolutely no energy is left?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike C, what do you mean by “radiating a sine wave”?

 

“Approximately 1 angstrom” ([math]10^{-10} ,mbox{m}[/math]) is not an unusual electromagnetic radiation wavelength – it’s in the middle of the X-ray range (about [math]10^{-8}[/math] to [math]10^{-11} ,mbox{m}[/math]), a common emission frequency of electrons in metal atoms such as Iron, Copper, and Zirconium.

 

Radiation in the x-ray range interacts strongly with many materials, and is easy to detect. If all the ground state hydrogen in the universe was radiating it, it would be obvious. However, no such radiation is observed.

 

Mike C, do you have any support for this or the other strange claims you have made in this thread?

 

Read my reply to Jay Qu.

In space, the HA's repel each other. They can do this because of the interactions of these fields that normally repel each other.

Of course these radiations are very weak since they would and are not detectable.

The only light that we see and measure is the photonic radiation. These photons are generated by the Magnetic portion of the EM radiations with the electric fields acting as the carriers (transmitters)..

 

This is the way I visualize the physics that the books teach.

Math is emphacized as the final word, but I prefer to rely on pictures that teach much more.

 

Mike C

Link to post
Share on other sites

In chemistry, if you take two hydrogen atoms, these combine to form H2 or a molecule of hydrogen. The two shared electrons have opposite spin, such that the right-hand rule, that Mike C pointed out, would imply each electron-proton pair would be time average opposites, with respect to their spin. If we cool this enough we would get solid H2. The time average opposites within each H2 pair stack opposites within the solid.

 

In space, this H2 solid is not stable, but will sublime or evaporate from a solid. The reason is entropy. Entropy will absorb energy, causing some of the alignments to reverse breaking the stability of the solid. If we added more entropy, which also absorbs energy, the opposites in H2 become similar, i.e., same spin, causing the H2 to go back to HA.

 

If the electron could collapse into the proton, the system would give off a lot of energy. But entropy, does not allow this energy to be given off. Entropy only goes in the direction of energy absorption and is therefore countering this movement toward a final exothermic collaspe. The easier direction to release, at least some energy is to head back to H2, since the amount of energy given off is much less than HA collapse. But entropy is also fighting that direction. The result is a cloud of HA. The HA cloud can't fully diffuse into rarification, because of the chemical potential to lower entropy energy by forming H2. But it can't go all the way to H2, or solid H2 for very long, due to the entropy. The system gets stuck in a steady state that looks like a cloud of HA that is sort of self attracting.

 

If we apply gravity, to cause the entropy to lower, the loss of HA cloud entropy will shift the equilibrium toward the H2 and solid H2. At the cold temperatures of space, these should form, if it wasn't for the entropy potential generated by the vacuum of space. But with gravity assisting the lowering of entropy, there is a shift needing to lower energy. For example, the solid hydrogen core that is assume to be inside of Jupiter implied a drop in entropy leading to a state that released energy.

 

Gravity, by causing the entropy to lower in the HA cloud creates a nonequilibrium situation that will require energy release to account for the loss of the potential energy within the entropy. The shift to H2 and liquid and solid H2 is one possible way that goes along with the direction of gravity, which is to decrease the volume of the cloud, while also giving off entropy energy. This direction has a relatively strong chemical potential. Once it starts, it can cause a chain reaction. The result of such a chemical potential chain reaction would be similar to a huge thunderstorm with H rain and hail, vortexes, pressure gradients and H lightning. The chemical potential is pulling it own vacuum and can outrun the affect of gravity, causing the gravity to become amplified.

 

An analogy is rain from a cloud. Gravity is pulling the cloud down, but the entropy within the cloud is preventing the cloud from falling. For gravity to get the water back to earth, it has to use intermediate chemical steps. Some chemical potential is released by forming water dropplets. Once these get a momentum beyond the entropy, they will grow. The gravity doesn't change but its impact is amplied because of the larger drops.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Physics is beyond me really, but how could an electron fall into a proton if their charges are opposed?
In classical electromagnetic theory (and effectively all others), opposite charges attract, so it’s remarkable that electrons aren’t simply stuck to atomic nuclei like BBs to a bar magnet. An early 20th century theoretical model, Thompson’s “plum pudding model” (AKA “chocolate chip cookie” and “blueberry muffin” model), so named for the visual metaphor of raisins stuck to a ball of plum pudding, described it just so, and was popular from about 1904-1909, until Rutherford’s research into the scattering of small (helium) nuclei shot into thin foils of large atoms (gold) invalidated this model by showing that atoms are mostly empty space.
I mean unless you infuse the electron with a ton of extra energy and hurl it toward the proton, it's not going to happen, right?
According to modern theory, protons and electrons do collide, in a mode of radioactive decay known, descriptively, as electron capture. The events don’t require energy, but releases it, in the form of x-ray photons. It’s an unusual decay mode. Although predicted in naturally occurring isotopes such as krypton-78 to selenium-78, via double electron capture, the rate of decay in such isotopes is very low (half-life > [math]10^{20}[/math] years) making it practically impossible to observe. Single electron capture is observed (half-life < 100 days), but only in synthetically-produced isotopes such as rubidium-83.

 

When speaking of electrons and protons colliding, it’s important to understand that, for such small objects, it’s not accurate to imagine them behaving like BBs, raisins, or other everyday-size objects. Though useful in understanding such interactions, these descriptions are really just metaphors for the less intuitive, more mathematically difficult formalism of quantum mechanics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In classical electromagnetic theory (and effectively all others), opposite charges attract, so it’s remarkable that electrons aren’t simply stuck to atomic nuclei like BBs to a bar magnet. .

 

Ok, I knew that! I got to stop responding to posts in the morning. Especially when the clock just changed! :hihi:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Read my reply to Jay Qu.

In space, the HA's repel each other. They can do this because of the interactions of these fields that normally repel each other.

Of course these radiations are very weak since they would and are not detectable.

The only light that we see and measure is the photonic radiation. These photons are generated by the Magnetic portion of the EM radiations with the electric fields acting as the carriers (transmitters)..

 

This is the way I visualize the physics that the books teach.

Math is emphacized as the final word, but I prefer to rely on pictures that teach much more.

 

Mike C

Did you also know that Borhs model only works for the hydrogen atom? it can be derived from a more complete and complicated approach.

 

What do you mean vibrating at 'one angstrom' frequency? one angstrom is a measure of length not Hertz. You also so that the EM is incredibly weak and its out of the visual range so we cant detect it, well firstly we can detect EM from very long wavelength - radio, all the up to very short wavelengths - Gamma rays. Its also incorrect to say something is to weak for us to detect because a good CCD can detect single photons, the smallest possible emission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So why don't you post the supposedly correct math.....if you can? Otherwise you can just admit that you can't support your unfounded claim.

 

 

I am not an expert mathematician, that is why I rely on visualization that teaches me more than the 'word' that is what math is.

 

Since we know that HA's do not collapse, than I wondered why?

So I came up with what I consider the solution to this problem.

Magnetic forces are easier to understand than some math that may lack credibility.

By applying the right and left hand rules to the particle magnetic fields, it provides the solution.

 

Mike C

Link to post
Share on other sites
Magnetic forces are easier to understand than some math that may lack credibility.

 

The math doesn't lack any credibility. It can be performed, tested and verified by many which is what makes it credible. Visionaries on the other hand cannot so they are strictly limited to speculation and even that it questionable when they try to use excuses like denouncing the rigors of math.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you also know that Borhs model only works for the hydrogen atom? it can be derived from a more complete and complicated approach.

 

What do you mean vibrating at 'one angstrom' frequency? one angstrom is a measure of length not Hertz. You also so that the EM is incredibly weak and its out of the visual range so we cant detect it, well firstly we can detect EM from very long wavelength - radio, all the up to very short wavelengths - Gamma rays. Its also incorrect to say something is to weak for us to detect because a good CCD can detect single photons, the smallest possible emission.

 

In the 'grounhd state' of the HA, the electron revolves around the proton at a radius of one half angstrom. So the electron would be generating a sign wave of one angstrom. This is a 'continuous sign wave' that we cannot detect unless you use an instrument with a generater that creates a variable frequency in the range of the target frequency we wish to detect.

This way, you create a 'beat' to detect this target wave.

The electron is surrounded by the electric field so this field will be vibrating with the electrons orbital movements at the frequency the electron generates. Rotational frequency.

 

We see and detect 'pulsed' light (photons), not the standing waves that are continuous as I have mentioned above.

 

Regarding the Bohr model, well, the universe is composed of 80% hydrogen that the primary stars contain. So that is all I am concerned with as far as cosmology is concerned.

Sure, the helium has slight changes in it spectrum but you have to consider that it has matter differences

This does not have much influence regarding the universe.

 

Mike C

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thats silly, it doesnt make much difference so lets just ignore it.. the fact is it would make a difference and so it should be considered otherwise its not a model of the universe.

 

Back to the one angstrom sine wave, if it produces a standing wave we should still be able to detect it. Standing waves appear to not be moving but are actually the superposition of multiple waves moving in opposite directions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...