Why Aren't Electrons Pulled Into the Nucleus?

[ArnautDaniel]

For those of us who have never read Isaac Newton or the Principia and who don't know that the hypothesis of gravitation says God did it: Isaac Newton, General Scholium

Newton was having trouble with the fact that his theory involved action at a distance.

General relativity rectifies this trouble.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Newton was having trouble with the fact that his theory involved action at a distance.

Not just Newton. Everyone else with a brain.

"That gravity should be innate inherent and essential to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by and through which their action or force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, February 1693

"Meanwhile remote operation has just been revived in England by the admirable Mr. Newton, who maintains that it is the nature of bodies to be attracted and gravitate one towards another, in proportion to the mass of each one, and the rays of attraction it receives. Accordingly the famous Mr. Locke, in his answer to Bishop Stillingfleet, declares that having seen Mr. Newton's book he retracts what he himself said, following the opinion of the moderns, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, to wit, that a body cannot operate immediately upon another except by touching it upon its surface and driving it by its motion. He acknowledges that God can put properties into matter which cause it to operate from a distance. Thus the theologians of the Augsburg Confession claim that God may ordain not only that a body operate immediately on divers bodies remote from one another, but that it even exist in their neighbourhood and be received by them in a way with which distances of place and dimensions of space have nothing to do. Although this effect transcends the forces of Nature, they do not think it possible to show that it surpasses the power of the Author of Nature. For him it is easy to annul the laws that he has given or to dispense with them as seems good to him, in the same way as he was able to make iron float upon water and to stay the operation of fire upon the human body." -- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

"Thus, thinking as Newton did (i.e., that all celestial bodies are attracted to the sun and move through empty space), it is extremely improbable that the six planets would move as they do." -- Pierre L. Maupertuis, polymath, 1746

"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

"Newton attempted to explain the force of gravity on two hypotheses: the existence of a medium, or ether, and action at a distance. The first hypothesis he rejected as being physically absurd, the second as contrary to reason. Newton had, therefore, no theory of gravity." -- Melbourne G. Evans, physicist, 1958

"It was only the downfall of Newtonian theory in this century which made scientists realize that their standards of honesty had been utopian." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973

General relativity rectifies this trouble.

General Relativity is a pre-Space Age myth.

Dowdye, E.H. Jr., Time Resolved Images from the Center of the Galaxy Appear To Counter General Relativity, Astronomische Nachrichten, Volume 328, Issue 2, Pages 186-191, Feb 2007

"It is claimed that the LIGO and LISA projects will detect Einstein's gravitational waves. The existence of these waves is entirely theoretical. Over the past forty years or so no Einstein gravitational waves have been detected. How long must the search go on, at great expense to the public purse, before the astrophysical scientists admit that their search is fruitless and a waste of vast sums of public money? The fact is, from day one, the search for these elusive waves has been destined to detect nothing." -- Stephen J. Crothers, astrophysicist, August 2009

"...the basic knock against general relativity would be that it's geometry, it's not physics, and so I think this is a 300-pound gorilla that's sitting in the room with redshift written on him and nobody sees him and this is why they don't see it." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, June 2007

"Einstein’s theory of gravity is the craziest explanation of the phenomenon imaginable." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, 2001

"General relativity fails to predict a connection between electric and gravitational fields, a fact which Einstein himself found troubling." -- Paul A. LaViolette, author, 1992

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1954

"You can imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, March 1949

"The theory [General Relativity] is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, July 1935

"Theorem 20: If in any triangle the sum of the three angles is equal to two right angles, so is this the case for every other triangle." -- Nikolai I. Lobachevsky, mathematician, 1840

"Let the following be postulated: ... Postulate 5: That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles." -- Euclid, geometer, 3rd century B.C.

"Let the following be postulated: ... Postulate 2: To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line." -- Euclid, geometer, 3rd century B.C.

"Definition 23: Parallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction." -- Euclid, geometer, 3rd century B.C.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Let's see...do I care about the opinion of someone who I suspect has no grasp of any of the technical aspects of the subject in question?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Let's see...do I care about the opinion of someone who I suspect has no grasp of any of the technical aspects of the subject in question?

Do you claim to know more about the technical aspects of the subject in question than the above referenced thinkers?

I'm not surprised you have no logical or scientific counterargument.

 

[canphys]

....annnnnyways, the point is that unless you start worrying about radiation, the basic reason the electron doesn't decay into the nucleus is that the electron's "velocity" (to use classical terms; properly you can't really describe electrons in atoms that way) is at right angles to the attractive force, so the net effect is circular motion.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

For those of us who have never read Isaac Newton or the Principia and who don't know that the hypothesis of gravitation says God did it: Isaac Newton, General Scholium

Since we don't follow Newton's exact original formulation, your point is moot. Newton may have attributed various things to God, but we do not. And if nothing else, Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by Einsteinian mechanics.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Since we don't follow Newton's exact original formulation, your point is moot. Newton may have attributed various things to God, but we do not. And if nothing else, Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by Einsteinian mechanics.

Since you reject Newtonian gravitation, what do you claim gave the planets and moons their perfect orbital velocities?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Since you reject Newtonian gravitation, what do you claim gave the planets and moons their perfect orbital velocities?

Gravity. I reject Newton's own personal explanation for gravity, but any fool can see that gravity itself exists.

And I'm hesitant to call their orbital velocities 'perfect'; what's perfect about them?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I reject Newton's own personal explanation for gravity, but any fool can see that gravity itself exists.

Gravity and gravitation are two totally different concepts.

Gravity is an ancient observation.

Gravitation is a 17th century hypothesis.

And I'm hesitant to call their orbital velocities 'perfect'; what's perfect about them?

If, let's say, a moon has too much inertia it will reach escape velocity and fly off into outer space.

If a moon doesn't have enough inertia, it will fall on the planet that captured it.

So the Newtonian hypothesis of gravitation says that the reason why the moon doesn't fall on the Earth is that God gave the moon a perfect orbital velocity.

Newton gives the example of stars falling on eachother by their gravity:

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

So if not God, divine intervention, or miracle works, then what?

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Gravity and gravitation are two totally different concepts.

Gravity is an ancient observation.

Gravitation is a 17th century hypothesis.

The terms are synonymous. Gravity and gravitation both refer to the readily observable phenomenon. There are various ideas about how gravity works, from Newton's 'Goddidit' to Einstein's relativistic model, but these ideas aren't 'gravitation', they're hypotheses (or theories) of gravitation.

If, let's say, a moon has too much inertia it will reach escape velocity and fly off into outer space.

If a moon doesn't have enough inertia, it will fall on the planet that captured it.

It already has, that's how the Moon was formed in the first place. An orbit is simply a prolonged freefall.

So the Newtonian hypothesis of gravitation says that the reason why the moon doesn't fall on the Earth is that God gave the moon a perfect orbital velocity.

That may be Newton's hypothesis, but that's not the Newtonian hypothesis, which is simply a mathematical model based on Newton.

Newton gives the example of stars falling on eachother by their gravity:

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

So if not God, divine intervention, or miracle works, then what?

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

In case you haven't noticed, science has advanced somewhat since Leibniz was around. Don't forget that in those days, they thought space was littered with stars in a uniform fashion. It was only relatively recently that we understood they were bunched together into galaxies (much as Newton foreshadowed).

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The terms are synonymous.

I just demonstrated to you that they are not.

Gravity and gravitation both refer to the readily observable phenomenon.

No they do not.

Gravity is an ancient observation.

Gravitation is a 17th century hypothesis.

"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-

There are various ideas about how gravity works, from Newton's 'Goddidit' to Einstein's relativistic model, but these ideas aren't 'gravitation', they're hypotheses (or theories) of gravitation.

I agree.

It already has, that's how the Moon was formed in the first place. An orbit is simply a prolonged freefall.

That does not answer the question.

That may be Newton's hypothesis, but that's not the Newtonian hypothesis, which is simply a mathematical model based on Newton.

In case you haven't noticed, science has advanced somewhat since Leibniz was around. Don't forget that in those days, they thought space was littered with stars in a uniform fashion. It was only relatively recently that we understood they were bunched together into galaxies (much as Newton foreshadowed).

In what way does Newton foreshadow stars bunching together into galaxies?

In fact, Newton claimed precisely the opposite.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I just demonstrated to you that they are not.

You simply asserted that they're not, without backing up your claims at all. Gravitation is "the fundamental force of attraction that exists between all particles with mass in the universe. It is the weakest of the four forces, and possesses a gauge boson known as the graviton." In other words, it is just another word for gravity, which itself is defined as:

1. Resultant force on Earth's surface, of the attraction by the Earth's masses, and the centrifugal pseudo-force caused by the Earth's rotation;
2. Gravitation, universal force exercised by two bodies onto each other (In casual discussion, gravity and gravitation are often used interchangeably).

While a scientist might be more explicit, the words 'gravity' and 'gravitation' are synonymous. You can cite archaic texts which use them differently, but you'd be scraping the barrel there.

No they do not.

Gravity is an ancient observation.

Gravitation is a 17th century hypothesis.

"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-

I agree.

Really? Because a few paragraphs ago you said gravitation is a 17[sup]th[/sup] century hypothesis. Either it is, or it isn't. Which?

That does not answer the question.

You didn't ask any question. I was the one who asked a question, which you've yet to answer. You mentioned something about the Moon's orbit, but that hardly constitutes perfection, and it has nothing to do with a 'perfect orbital velocity': the Moon could take any orbit it likes, there is no privilidged distance or velocity. This is exemplified by systems having several moons (including the Earth itself).

So I ask you again: what do you mean by a 'perfect orbital velocity'?

In what way does Newton foreshadow stars bunching together into galaxies?

In fact, Newton claimed precisely the opposite.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

Exactly: lest the stars fall on each other. Though Newton had no idea about galaxies, and believed that the stars were immeasurable distant from one another, his words foreshadow the fact that we would eventually discover that the stars do fall on each other. He dismissed this as contrary to his observations, but we know that such an eventuality is not only possible, but ubiquitous of the universe.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Hey all, gravity has nothing to do with the OP.

If you want to talk about gravity, you should move it elsewhere.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

....annnnnyways, the point is that unless you start worrying about radiation, the basic reason the electron doesn't decay into the nucleus is that the electron's "velocity" (to use classical terms; properly you can't really describe electrons in atoms that way) is at right angles to the attractive force, so the net effect is circular motion.

Classically most orbits are ellipses, so the right angles thing doesn't apply most of the time.

 

[canphys]

True enough. I should have said, "the particle's velocity is never directed towards the nucleus, so the force can hold it to a curved trajectory", but the basic idea is similar and the circular case is simpler to understand. The stuff about self-interfering electrons is also a little sketchy, but I think the point here is more to help a first year student to get a vivid image of how orbits work than to rigorously derive the wavefunctions of the hydrogen atom from the Schrodinger equation or whatever.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

You simply asserted that they're not, without backing up your claims at all.

So you deny the facts that gravity is an ancient observation and that gravitation is a 17th century hypothesis. Interesting.

Why don't you think gravity existed prior to July 5th 1687?

 

[canphys]

Hush, child. This has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you deny the facts that gravity is an ancient observation and that gravitation is a 17th century hypothesis. Interesting.

Why don't you think gravity existed prior to July 5th 1687?

The OP's already warned us about derailing the thread. Ciao

 

[keith99]

Classically most orbits are ellipses, so the right angles thing doesn't apply most of the time.

Any bets on how many here can name the points where for an ellipitcal orbit the force is at a right angle to both the orbit and the motion of the orbiting body?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Any bets on how many here can name the points where for an ellipitcal orbit the force is at a right angle to both the orbit and the motion of the orbiting body?

I know I can't!