jcc currently has 49 active infraction points (and has just returned from a ban). Under our warnings and bans policy, published in the Site Feedback subforum, if jcc gets any more warning points before 20 May he will be immediately banned for at least 1 day (and possibly longer, depending on how many points are allocated). On 20 May, some of his current points will start to expire (3 months from date of issue). Bear in mind that when the forum shifted to the new software, in effect everybody got their slate wiped clean. So, it is taking some time for problem posters to move themselves into ban territory. In short, the issues we're experiencing now should sort themselves out over time. Moreover, we now have a policy in place that can get people excluded from the Science sections. Once again, because this is a new policy, it may not have much visible effect for a while, until people start to build up the necessary number of official warnings.
And where did you get the information you have? What book, what link? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Whether reputable books, or reputable links, we all have at one time or another, have taken them on board. For you to deny that is to obviously lie and make little baby Jesus cry. Just to remind you again, you have no science, you have no hypothesis, you blabber your anti science crap over this and other forums to get a raise out of people. You certainly have an agenda....Is it a religious agenda? Are you seething with anger because science has pushed your need for some magic deity into near oblivion? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
James I don't have any stance on banning, and I don't envy the staff that duty of policing. I did just scroll back through the thread and found no Math and what little Physics there is, is contained in only few posts, yours included. My point was the THREAD does not belong where it is.., and that seems clear no matter which of the last three pages you look at. Some situations are far more difficult, but this one does not seem all that hard to make out.
jcc There is no point in being overly aggressive it gets no where , same with those who oppose , jcc Can we not have a calm rational discussion on this thread about the OP ?
Because of the way the probabilities work: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The table represents the probability of finding the electron in that cell. The nucleus is at the cell in the middle. Of all the cells, that is the cell that has the highest probability of containing the electron. The blue graph - the cross section, shows that the probability follows the proportionality of /frac{1}{2^r} where r is arbitrary units of radius. The red graph shows that if we examine the radial probability - the probability of finding the electron at a particular distance from the nucleus then we find there is a 'sweet spot' because of the how the way the probability decays interacts with the increasing number of places the electron could be at that distance. In this case there is a 50% chance of the electron being found in the range 1 < r < 3 compared to the 6.6% chance of finding the electron in the same cell as the nucleus. On the off chance that the electron does find itself close enough to the nucleus to interact with it, it does so via the weak force resulting in electron capture radioactive decay events. The catch here is that as the electron approaches the nucleus it trades potential energy for kinetic energy and conservation of angular momentum applies. They do, under sufficiently high pressure. It requires a minimum of between 0.88 and 1.28 solar masses worth of material to do so, and when they do we call them neutron stars. Because they're not ping-pong balls and they have spaces in them where electrons could be, but are not.
let's just look at a hydrogen atom. 1 proton and 1 electron, why positive charge not attracted to negative charge? what force keeps they apart? is any insulator between them? if not why there is no discharge?
Because of the way the probabilities work? all probabilities are favor for electron and proton stick together, because 10^39 g attraction force between them.
Here we have proof that this poster is either trolling or is solid concrete from the neck up. This has been explained at least twice now, once by me and once by James, with no acknowledgement or follow up, and now we see exactly the same bloody stupid question asked for a third time.
They do attract each other. The complicated (and more correct) explanation has to do with quantum physics. Trippy wrote an expanation above, and previously both I and exchemist commented on that. But forget quantum physics. Even if you treat the atom classically, so that your model is an electron orbiting a proton, they still wouldn't collide. Why? Because the electron is in circular motion around the proton. It has a constast force trying to pull it towards the proton, but its orbital speed makes it go around rather than falling into the nucleus. A similar question would be: if the Earth and the Moon attract one another gravitationally, what force keeps them apart? Why don't they crash into each other? The answer is the same: the Moon's orbital speed stops it from hitting the Earth. But it is actually accelerating towards the Earth at all times; gravity provides the centripetal force. A discharge requires a charged medium for current to flow from place to place. Between the proton and the electron in a hydrogen atom, there is no medium - just empty space. Do you understand now?
