It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 41
55
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433


What you are suggesting though is not what is observed. What you are saying is similar to saying that by increasing the intensity of a light, you can knock off electrons from an Atom. This is NOT what is observed.


and what is intensity if not the number of waves over time.

I was previously talking about the energy interaction with electron, what about the material the electron is coming from ?
different materials different electron energy and different electron amount.
You sure the material itself plays no role ? sure you does, so think of the EM interaction inside this material.
(Have anyone ever get electrons by photoelectric effect out of a superconductor with no electron supply ??)

For the EM field to kick out an electron is not just the right amount energy in the right time required. What about the electron wave surrounding the nucleus and its configuration ? They not allays perfect for energy transfer.
Depends on material and not how much light is shining on it.

I hope you don't think electrons move in a perfect spherical motion if surrounded be other atoms, other wise the probability for the right configuration would rise with intensity of the light, which it's not, Material properties are responsible for electron number not intensity of light, but it's frequency.

Like I said, shorter wave length, shorter packet, more change in time unit, more energy.




posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433


What you are suggesting though is not what is observed. What you are saying is similar to saying that by increasing the intensity of a light, you can knock off electrons from an Atom. This is NOT what is observed.


and what is intensity if not the number of waves over time.

I was previously talking about the energy interaction with electron, what about the material the electron is coming from ?
different materials different electron energy and different electron amount.
You sure the material itself plays no role ? sure you does, so think of the EM interaction inside this material.
(Have anyone ever get electrons by photoelectric effect out of a superconductor with no electron supply ??)

For the EM field to kick out an electron is not just the right amount energy in the right time required. What about the electron wave surrounding the nucleus and its configuration ? They not allays perfect for energy transfer.
Depends on material and not how much light is shining on it.

I hope you don't think electrons move in a perfect spherical motion if surrounded be other atoms, other wise the probability for the right configuration would rise with intensity of the light, which it's not, Material properties are responsible for electron number not intensity of light, but it's frequency.

Like I said, shorter wave length, shorter packet, more change in time unit, more energy.


Wow in this whole thing you only got one thing right thats amazing really because it sounds good if someone hasnt a clue about science and grew up in a village in africa. Well at least you know that electrons dont orbit in circles but it has nothing to do with the atoms around them so correction you got half a thing right.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr



your confusing the creation of an electromagnetic field with the photoelectric process there not the same


and you are saying it because what?.... somebody told you ?
so you are denying electrons as negative charge carrier witch interact with EM field ??
And electron proton iteration is not charge based ?


No electrons are not knocked from there orbit because of there charge theres no way lightcould have this effect but id be real interested on seeing you make that link.


and this because of what ? velocity difference between calculated electron velocity and the propagation velocity in

EM field ?


You do realize this statement makes zero sense right? Look you are obviously not understanding science in the least or we wouldnt get statements like this why on earth would you think how fast an em field is relevant since they all propagate at the same speed depending on the medium of course.


And you make a point you have no idea what I'm talking about !



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


Well at least you know that electrons dont orbit in circles but it has nothing to do with the atoms around them so correction you got half a thing right.


so you denying that atoms in matter interact exchanging energy all the time ?
So there must be no chemical bounds then, or are electrons responsible for that ?
They need some freedom to do that, right ?
Like free electrons in a conductor...

Is there any photoelectric effect on insulators ? Where most of the electrons are in pair bounds and stable, not conducting ?

EDIT insulator not dialectical so I corrected it
edit on 30-4-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

First make up your mind which area of science your going to attempt to butcher your all over the place. The reasons chemical bonds occur is energy.Atoms bond with other atoms to fill their outer shells because it requires less energy to exist in this bonded state. Atoms always seek to exist in the lowest energy state possible.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: KrzYma

First make up your mind which area of science your going to attempt to butcher your all over the place. The reasons chemical bonds occur is energy.Atoms bond with other atoms to fill their outer shells because it requires less energy to exist in this bonded state. Atoms always seek to exist in the lowest energy state possible.


didn't I just said that ?

I think you don't understand what meant saying


So there must be no chemical bounds then, or are electrons responsible for that ?


this " or are electr... " means they responsible for the bounds between atoms, no need to tell me that again



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: KrzYma
Shorter wave has more energy per unit time but one complete oscillation, one package or quanta of any frequency has to have always the same amount energy.
If that was true, how do you explain the photoelectric effect? According to your claim, any frequency photon should have enough energy to eject an electron if we wait long enough, but that's not what we observe.


It's actually subtle but technically the photolectric effect does not exactly show the quantization of the electromagnetic field itself, but it does show quantization of the electron + electromagnetic field system. The conclusive demonstration of quantum nature of light took many more years later experimentally, true quantum optics experiments in very very dark conditions where single photon numbers could be counted and proper QM correlations checked.

It so happened that Einstein's intuition about quantization of EM field was also correct and logical given quantization of everything else so that people were practically using something close enough to the correct physics from the get go of QM to explain photoelectric and Compton effects.
edit on 30-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
I could ask you the same, what are you doing here different than repeating mainstream science ?
Few hundred Years ago you would have argued with me the Earth is flat, right ?


Ironically, a few hundred years ago it would be the crackpots arguing that the Earth is flat because that what is logical and what it feels like and the 'mainstream scientists' arguing the contrary.

You see, it was known to all educated people since the time of the Greeks (that we know for sure about, and probably earlier) that the Earth was spherical, because of the properties of the shadow during a lunar eclipse.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr

Is there any photoelectric effect on insulators ? Where most of the electrons are in pair bounds and stable, not conducting ?


Yes.

chemwiki.ucdavis.edu...



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: KrzYma
Shorter wave has more energy per unit time but one complete oscillation, one package or quanta of any frequency has to have always the same amount energy.
If that was true, how do you explain the photoelectric effect? According to your claim, any frequency photon should have enough energy to eject an electron if we wait long enough, but that's not what we observe.


It's actually subtle but technically the photolectric effect does not exactly show the quantization of the electromagnetic field itself, but it does show quantization of the electron + electromagnetic field system. The conclusive demonstration of quantum nature of light took many more years later experimentally, true quantum optics experiments in very very dark conditions where single photon numbers could be counted.

It so happened that Einstein's intuition about quantization of EM field was also correct and logical given quantization of everything else so that people were practically using something close enough to the correct physics from the get go of QM to explain photoelectric and Compton effects.


Your splitting hairs but i decided not to comment as to further confuse people but you know what i mean.

edit on 4/30/14 by dragonridr because: removed comment



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

edit on 30-4-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

there is no photon as energy packet containing waves energy at a single point.
there is no mass in play, mass is something that moves in EM field, electric charge difference does not move, it propagates !
It is an additive field and if someone could look at it in quanta size he would see a potential difference is space.

this electric field is interacting with other mass charges.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Can someone of you explain in few understandable words why exactly electron does not collapses into the proton ?
They both have the same amount but opposite field strength

after this force, why protons stick in together in the nuclei and electrons like to couple in pares around it ?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
Can someone of you explain in few understandable words why exactly electron does not collapses into the proton ?
They both have the same amount but opposite field strength

after this force, why protons stick in together in the nuclei and electrons like to couple in pares around it ?


ill make this incredibly brief heres the reason.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I think the PEP is not exactly the correct explanation for an electron vs proton because the electron and proton are not identical fermions. It is an explanation for why when you add more electrons to atoms the electrons aren't all in the lowest orbital which is the lowest energy state, where you'd otherwise expect things to pile up.

For a basic electron & protons I think the answer is that in effect the electron effectively has a deBroglie wavelength and the uncertainty principle still applies, so that if it were confined in space to have a very concentrated probability density ('where the nucleus is') then it would necessarily have a very wide momentum distribution and so immediately have a high probability of shooting out and no longer sticking around. (***) If you work out the balance between that and the electrostatic attraction you get the wavefunctions which are solutions of the Schroedinger equation in a central electrostatic potential, known in chemistry as 'orbitals'.

(***) actually think about a classical analogue: a charged electron and proton attracting one another. You ask "why doesn't the electron collapse into the proton?" Well, it would----but then, without dissipation, it would still have all its kinetic energy and keep on going straight through and then going out the other side. You'd need some kind of friction---in this case radiation damping---to get it to stop. Well, with QM the rules for emitting radiation at that level are different and so you do get this "friction" from radiation damping, but only when electrons drop from higher quantized energy levels to lower ones and emit a photon (or two), but there's nowhere to go once you've hit bottom orbital.

edit on 30-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel



actually think about a classical analogue: a charged electron and proton attracting one another. You ask "why doesn't the electron collapse into the proton?" Well, it would----but then, without dissipation, it would still have all its kinetic energy and keep on going straight through and then going out the other side. You'd need some kind of friction---in this case radiation damping---to get it to stop. Well, with QM the rules for emitting radiation at that level are different and so you do get this "friction" from radiation damping, but only when electrons drop from higher quantized energy levels to lower ones and emit a photon (or two), but there's nowhere to go once you've hit bottom orbital.


Yes, cool, that is totally logic, I agree.
I was just thinking of it in a bit different way. Like charge per unit space.
If I look at the difference in measured size between electron and proton, and both have the same point charge,
is protons surface density not quite weaker as of electron's, that is like 10.000 times or so ?
The time they got closer together electrons charge over space unit becomes equal protons charge over space unit and the attraction stops. Beyond that point it even repels.

the same for the strong force. It repels until the two surface densities are so close together they has just charge of 1 + 1 and don't repel any more because of the surrounding charge density that is higher and "repelling" them together.
edit on 30-4-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: dragonridr

I think the PEP is not exactly the correct explanation for an electron vs proton because the electron and proton are not identical fermions. It is an explanation for why when you add more electrons to atoms the electrons aren't all in the lowest orbital which is the lowest energy state, where you'd otherwise expect things to pile up.

For a basic electron & protons I think the answer is that in effect the electron effectively has a deBroglie wavelength and the uncertainty principle still applies, so that if it were confined in space to have a very concentrated probability density ('where the nucleus is') then it would necessarily have a very wide momentum distribution and so immediately have a high probability of shooting out and no longer sticking around. (***) If you work out the balance between that and the electrostatic attraction you get the wavefunctions which are solutions of the Schroedinger equation in a central electrostatic potential, known in chemistry as 'orbitals'.

(***) actually think about a classical analogue: a charged electron and proton attracting one another. You ask "why doesn't the electron collapse into the proton?" Well, it would----but then, without dissipation, it would still have all its kinetic energy and keep on going straight through and then going out the other side. You'd need some kind of friction---in this case radiation damping---to get it to stop. Well, with QM the rules for emitting radiation at that level are different and so you do get this "friction" from radiation damping, but only when electrons drop from higher quantized energy levels to lower ones and emit a photon (or two), but there's nowhere to go once you've hit bottom orbital.


Wrong your trying to use the heisenberg uncertainty principle to explain the stability of matter. I told you why the pauli exclusion principle.I usually dont do this because i dont like to get people lost in science i think it should be fun but i want you to understand your way unprepared for playing in the deep end. Look im done trying to make things simple so let me tell you what science says would happen according to you.

First there you would have difficulty you would have to have the law 1r/r(squared) be zero. For the force between two charges to be zero distance becomes infinite.This means opisit charges would rush towards each other bond and once together no force in the universe could separate them. This means the matter in the universe would tend to shrink into nothing or diminish indefinitely in size. From the look of this you got this from a physics major who needs to learn alot more ive seen this argument before.

Without the pauli exclusion principle matter not just the atoms but matter itself would collapse into a compressed high density phase. The assembly of just any two microscopic objects would create an atomic blast. Now whoever gave you that answer please tell them thats not how matter waves work and wave particle duality has nothing to do with an atoms stability.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


First there you would have difficulty you would have to have the law 1r/r(squared) be zero. For the force between two charges to be zero distance becomes infinite.This means opisit charges would rush towards each other bond and once together no force in the universe could separate them.


yes but, if you speak about a distance between charged particles, where are the points that build ends of a line between them ? at the centre, right ? Those particles especially protons are quite big in Planck's world ?
I say surface charge density and not the total charge of a particle.
One r in your equation has different value then the other r

edit on 30-4-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

So in a non atom example, but purely proton and electron. If you place them near enough one another, what will happen?

Could it be in the atom example where the electron in lowest orbital/energy state around the nucleus does not fully attract to the proton be because of the particles angular moment, and how the nucleus' angular momentum and the electron angular momentum create 'patterns in those local EM fields' and those patterns are what bump up against each other and create the 'path of least resistance, and lacks of paths of least resistance', the prior being for the electron to stay in its orbit, the later being not to be urged to crash into the nucleus?



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: mbkennel

So in a non atom example, but purely proton and electron. If you place them near enough one another, what will happen?

Could it be in the atom example where the electron in lowest orbital/energy state around the nucleus does not fully attract to the proton be because of the particles angular moment, and how the nucleus' angular momentum and the electron angular momentum create 'patterns in those local EM fields' and those patterns are what bump up against each other and create the 'path of least resistance, and lacks of paths of least resistance', the prior being for the electron to stay in its orbit, the later being not to be urged to crash into the nucleus?


electrons do not have angular momentum, it can be calculated but electron is not a single point charge.
It is more like bubble of centre mass, a cloud in EM field.




top topics



 
55
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join