Atom

[WildHorse]

In another thread you guys on here seem so smart that I feel safe asking some dumb questions. My excuse is it's been a long time since I had physics classes, and I'm far too busy with business to read much on it now.

(a) nucleus

cartoon 1

Most atoms are illustrated with multiple +?s, but are those in reality merged into a single + charge?

Say if 3 +?s are shown does that mean there?s one + charge of strength (weight) 3?

If the proton(s) are merged into a single charge, wouldn't it imply that neutrons are of some incredibly different character than proton(s)? Something radically more different than simply N balls differing from + balls only in the type of charge.

While the + may merge into one aggregate charge, chargeless Neutrons might really be discrete objects, because how could they merge if no charge?

(b) lines of force between electrons & protons

cartoon 2

Please temporarily conceive electrons as fast particles.

The lines of force between each electron in the shell(s), and the + charge(s) in the nucleus, must be getting dragged around the atom as the electron(s) move, right?

In atoms with multiple electrons, at different times wouldn't the constant movement of multiple lines of this force momentarily cancel each other when they interfere (nulls) and amplify (add their individual strengths together) when they align?

That must cause the nucleus to spin or jitter turbulently in place about as fast as the electron(s) are moving. Within the nucleus what does that "friction" give off? In a human-sized machine the jitter would make heat.

Can you imagine that whatever results from that chaotic turbulence of the nucleus will be harvested as useful energy (some far future day)?

 

[Paperdoc]

It's been a long time for me, too. But it certainly appears that the protons exist in the nucleus as separate entities. Well, at least, when changes in the nucleus happen, they always add or expel pieces of sizes that are integer multiples of one proton and often one or more neutrons (two of each together is an alpha particle, aka a Helium nucleus). No great surprises there, though - all such changes are quantized - that is, the mass or energy is in discretely defined packages, not just random amounts. I'm not sure you can prove from that the existence in the nucleus of discrete protons, though.

On the other hand, we're pretty sure that the electrons in the various shells are discrete. In fact, they all occur in pairs in which each has at least one quantum number different from all other electrons in the atom - there are four types of quantum number to define the state of an electron. I'm not at all sure whether a similar set of quantum numbers define protons, and whether all an atom's protons differ in some way, just like electrons. Oops! exception: half the elements have one unpaired electron in their outer shells, so that one does not have a partner in a pair.

I don't understand neutrons. I recall the odd coincidence, though, that their properties are somewhat like a permanent joining of an electron and a proton. They have zero charge, and their mass is just slightly larger than the sum of the masses of an electron and a proton, or maybe the extra mass is just the energy the binds them together. In fact, as I understand it, there are a huge number of particles and energy entities that are involved in the structure of protons and neutrons - those two are not the smallest units of matter in our world. Here's hoping someone who does understand more will contribute here.

Although the nucleus is spinning because it has a certain energy content, it does not experience "friction", nor does it release heat or any other energy in that manner. It can release energy in quantized steps. But those are in the form of energetic particles (like a proton or an alpha particle) or a gamma ray. Such energy releases almost always also involve a change to one or more particles in the nucleus so that the atom is transmuted into a new atom with a different proton (and maybe neutron) count. It appears the energy released is not just that of a jostling nucleus, but rather some of the energy involved in the very structure of the individual particles in the nucleus.

 

[silverpig]

Protons do definitely exist in the nucleus as separate entities. However, for the purposes of atomic physics, the nucleus can be viewed as a single point with a single charge and single mass. The nucleus is extremely tiny when compared to the size of the rest of the atom. Neutrons are also separate entities.

 

[WildHorse]

Paperdoc

Fascinating. Thank you for putting so much work into your reply.

Originally posted by: silverpig
Protons do definitely exist in the nucleus as separate entities.<cut>

Do you say that because it seems so to you, or do you know that based upon something?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: scott
Paperdoc

Fascinating. Thank you for putting so much work into your reply.

Originally posted by: silverpig
Protons do definitely exist in the nucleus as separate entities.<cut>

Do you say that because it seems so to you, or do you know that based upon something?

I know it based on something. Look up quantum chromodynamics. It's much too complicated to really get into, but the nucleus and all the reactions in it work when you consider them to be separate. Further, there's no reason for them to amalgamate.

 

[Modelworks]

A very good documentary on the atom is this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/d...es/features/atom.shtml


I caught the first two episodes but somehow missed the last.
I remember it was very easy to understand and the guy did a great job of explaining things.

Its out there in torrent form if you can't find it anywhere else.
Well worth the download.

 

[WildHorse]

silverpig

Well I've never heard the term "chromodynamics" before your post. I'll browse into that sometime soon. Thank you.

Originally posted by: silverpig
there's no reason for them to amalgamate.

Intuitively the reverse seems true. If protons are separate objects, then considering them as particles it seems like they'd repel each other, requiring a tremendously strong force to prevent them from flying apart, just due to simple magnetism. Such force wouldn't be necessary if they merged, so it'd be simpler, more economical of the universe to merge them.

Considering the protons as "waves" of electrical charge, it seems like incorporeal "waves" would merge into one larger charge, like faster waves in the ocean shorebreak sometimes overtake slower waves and both merge into one bigger wave moments before breaking.

Either as particles or as waves, it seems to the ignorant layman that they would merge.


Modelworks

I'll watch that video this weekend. Thanks.

 

[Born2bwire]

But protons and electrons are fermions, they interact with each other in a manner unlike bosons, an example of which is the photon. Photons can occupy the same states where as fermions must occupy separate states. Even as a "wave" the protons will interact with each other and thus they do not merge like classical waves. Photons can merge like a classical wave because they can occupy the same state, the two waves can essentially superimpose over each other (the final wavefunction can simply be the product of the individual wavefunctions of the two particles). But fermions cannot superimpose in this manner, instead they will become entangled.

The essential point is that a particle behaves like a wave, but it does not spread itself out as a wave. When we measure an electron in a quantum mechanical system, the position is going to be a definite point in space.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: scott
silverpig

Well I've never heard the term "chromodynamics" before your post. I'll browse into that sometime soon. Thank you.

Originally posted by: silverpig
there's no reason for them to amalgamate.

Intuitively the reverse seems true. If protons are separate objects, then considering them as particles it seems like they'd repel each other, requiring a tremendously strong force to prevent them from flying apart, just due to simple magnetism. Such force wouldn't be necessary if they merged, so it'd be simpler, more economical of the universe to merge them.

Considering the protons as "waves" of electrical charge, it seems like incorporeal "waves" would merge into one larger charge, like faster waves in the ocean shorebreak sometimes overtake slower waves and both merge into one bigger wave moments before breaking.

Either as particles or as waves, it seems to the ignorant layman that they would merge.


Modelworks

I'll watch that video this weekend. Thanks.

The answer lies there

Quantum chromodynamics describes the nuclear strong force which binds together particles with colour charge (hence CHROMO-dynamics) using gluons.

Born2bwire also has another important tidbit of information in that neutrons and protons are fermions - spin 1/2 particles. Fermions have an antisymmetric wavefunction and when you consider two of them with the same quantum numbers, their wavefunctions repel. With bosons the opposite is true. This effect is known as an "exchange force".

 

[firewolfsm]

We know that because of things like alpha particles and nuclear fission. Protons and neutrons within a nucleus can separate and exit the system of the atom.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: scott
silverpig

Well I've never heard the term "chromodynamics" before your post. I'll browse into that sometime soon. Thank you.

Originally posted by: silverpig
there's no reason for them to amalgamate.

Intuitively the reverse seems true. If protons are separate objects, then considering them as particles it seems like they'd repel each other, requiring a tremendously strong force to prevent them from flying apart, just due to simple magnetism. Such force wouldn't be necessary if they merged, so it'd be simpler, more economical of the universe to merge them.

Considering the protons as "waves" of electrical charge, it seems like incorporeal "waves" would merge into one larger charge, like faster waves in the ocean shorebreak sometimes overtake slower waves and both merge into one bigger wave moments before breaking.

Either as particles or as waves, it seems to the ignorant layman that they would merge.


Modelworks

I'll watch that video this weekend. Thanks.

and thus... one of the 4 basic interactions... Strong Nuclear force.