To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Why Doesn't The Electron Fall Into The Nucleus?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

Nick
Protons are positively electric; electrons negative. This is an attractive situation. Where do the shells come from that keep electrons from falling into the protons under attraction?

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
reasonmclucus
QUOTE (Nick+Jul 29 2007, 04:09 AM)
Protons are positively electric; electrons negative. This is an attractive situation. Where do the shells come from that keep electrons from falling into the protons under attraction?

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --

An explanation that would seem to make sense would be that the repulsion of the electrons from each other holds them in place away from the nucleus. If the electrons move around the nucleus as was initially believed they might move together rather than independently. Static electrons could form a field which would obscure the location of individual electrons and give the impression the electrons were moving. Static electrons could more easily be shared by different atoms.



Nick
QUOTE (reasonmclucus+Jul 29 2007, 05:18 AM)
An explanation that would seem to make sense would be that the repulsion of the electrons from each other holds them in place away from the nucleus. If the electrons move around the nucleus as was initially believed they might move together rather than independently. Static electrons could form a field which would obscure the location of individual electrons and give the impression the electrons were moving. Static electrons could more easily be shared by different atoms.

How could the repulsion between electrons effect the other attraction of the electrons and the protons?

That just doesn't make any sense. biggrin.gif

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --

fleem
Here's a somewhat simplified explanation.

Although we don't exactly know why (there are some educated guesses), when an object moves it has a sort-of wave-like behavior.

An electron orbiting a nucleus is a standing wave. A good example of a standing wave is a vibrating guitar string. It will only vibrate when the wavelength is a whole fraction of the length of the string. Since the electron repeatedly follows the same path around a nucleus, its wave energy must be in phase--otherwise there would not be energy in the wave, and the electron wouldn't exist in such an out-of-phase orbit. It isn't necessary that the electron follow a circular orbit. All that matters is that the path length is a whole multiple of the electron's wavelength--just like the guitar string.

Most atoms do not allow any orbital paths of the electron through the nucleus simply because of the way the wave of the electron can fit around the nucleus, so the electron is never there at the nucleus. There are, however, a few nuclei that do allow a finite probability of the electron at the nucleus. In these atoms electron capture (electron crashing into the nucleus) is possible. In such unstable atoms, when the electron enters the nucleus it typically merges with a proton, producing a neutron and lots of energy. Also, this change in the nucleus and the extra energy will most likely make the nucleus unstable, so there'll be radiation and fission.

On a side note, Pons & Fleischman were hoping for something called muon-catalyzed fusion (remember the cold fusion alert a couple decades ago that turned out to be false?). Muons are just like electrons, and you can make an atom with muons orbiting it instead of electrons, but muons are much more massive than electrons. So their wavelengths are a lot shorter, so their orbits are tighter around the nucleus. Pons & Fleischman thought maybe such atoms with muons were allowing fusion to occur in their hydrogen-soaked palladium. Unfortunately that wasn't the case in their setup, so our search for cold fusion continues.

reasonmclucus
QUOTE (Nick+Jul 29 2007, 05:32 AM)
How could the repulsion between electrons effect the other attraction of the electrons and the protons?

That just doesn't make any sense. biggrin.gif

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --

If electrons are in the same "orbit" moving toward the nucleus would result in them moving closer toward each other. An attractive force between electrons and the nucleus would affect all electrons equally meaning all would move to the nucleus if any did. How close to the nucleus they would move would depend upon their energy level. The greater the energy level of the electrons the greater the repulsive force between them and the farther from the nucleus they would have to stay.

There is also the possibility that the presence of neutrons in the nucleus limits the attractive force of the protons toward the electrons.

Nick
I am sorry but I just don't buy it. tongue.gif

Mitch
yor_on
fleem. if what you say are correct " It isn't necessary that the electron follow a circular orbit. All that matters is that the path length is a whole multiple of the electron's wavelength--just like the guitar string. " Then it makes me wonder if our idea of a Atom is as good as it is thought to be. In our description we have this 'round' object with different, also round :) 'probability' Orbits of electrons. But now it seems that the electron don't have to follow any circular orbit, also i saw somewhere else that it doesn't necessary need to change 'orbital' due to increased energy, it may just change spin somewhat and energy level. With so many unknown? How can one say that one has a model? One doesn't, one may have a hypothesis, but there are no true model. Off course one have 'bindings' experimentally proved off how the Atom and Electron behaves but as for any 1, 2, 3D (and up :) model that captures it, uh uh.
kjw
QUOTE
Nick Posted: Yesterday at 2:09 PM Where do the shells come from that keep electrons from falling into the protons under attraction?

there are no shells involved.

The uncertainty principle comes into play twice here: it determines the range of the strong nuclear force, and it determines the size of the smallest possible space an electron can be restricted to.

http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/1...o-nucleus.shtml

Zephir
QUOTE (Nick+Jul 29 2007, 07:09 AM)
Protons are positively electric; electrons negative. This is an attractive situation. Where do the shells come from that keep electrons from falling into the protons under attraction?

The answer can be addressed by many ways. Here is some, which follows from AWT: the rotating electron makes the vacuum foam near protons so dense by shaking, it will become flowing on the surface of the resulting dense blob of vacuum like bubble at the water droplet surface.

The another answer can follow from the description of electron orbital like the mercury droplet separating the electron from photon by surface tension. The breakthrough of the surface membrane by electron would require the temporal formation of strongly negatively curved surface with negative, repulsing potential, which is not possible.

By another words, this absence of electron fall into atom nuclei can be explained as a sort of buoyancy or surface tension phenomena. We can even invent the explanation based on the laws of optics of electron wave spreading and total reflection phenomena and many others, but all these explanation will remain inertia and Newtonian mechanics based.

It should be noted, inside the neutron stars the electron can be pushed into proton under formation of neutron due the strong repulsive force of another electrons. The same phenomena will occur, if you place the electron and proton into dense vacuum near the black hole. The density of vacuum will compensate the density of field near the particles by such way, these particles will condense nearly seamlessly into neutron or even heavier particle. From the same reason the resulting neutron will decompose easily into neutrino and gamma radiation, though.
Nick
QUOTE (kjw+Jul 29 2007, 09:11 PM)
there are no shells involved.

The uncertainty principle comes into play twice here: it determines the range of the strong nuclear force, and it determines the size of the smallest possible space an electron can be restricted to.

http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/1...o-nucleus.shtml

NO SHELLS?

WHO SAYS SO?

Mitch Raemsch
kjw
QUOTE
Nick Posted on Today at 2:37 PM NO SHELLS? WHO SAYS SO?

you ask a question, you get an answer but you do not read the answer.

you do not need to use the idea of shells to answer your question, the answer has to do with the uncertainty principle.


Nick
The UP doesn't do what you say it does. SHELLS ARE REAL.

Mitch Raemsch
kjw
QUOTE
Nick Posted on Today at 2:48 PM The UP doesn't do what you say it does

prove where it is wrong
Nick
QUOTE (kjw+Jul 30 2007, 04:54 AM)
prove where it is wrong

THe UP can't hold an electron at a distance. The Protons attract them.

The UP doesn't explain how the electron doesn't fall into the nucleus.

Shells are real.

Mitch Raemsch
kjw
QUOTE
Nick Posted on Today at 3:40 PM The UP doesn't explain how the electron doesn't fall into the nucleus.

yes it does. another important feature of the uncertainty principle is not that it imposes a limit on observation, the uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of nature.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Nick Posted on Today at 3:40 PM The UP doesn't explain how the electron doesn't fall into the nucleus.

yes it does. another important feature of the uncertainty principle is not that it imposes a limit on observation, the uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of nature.

Nick Posted on Today at 3:40 PM Shells are real.

maybe they are, but in light of the uncertainty principle, are their use required to understand why electrons do not fall into the nucleus ?



Nick
QUOTE (kjw+Jul 30 2007, 07:24 AM)
yes it does. another important feature of the uncertainty principle is not that it imposes a limit on observation, the uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of nature.


maybe they are, but in light of the uncertainty principle, are their use required to understand why electrons do not fall into the nucleus ?

Why don't the electrons get close?
kjw
if you follow the simple number crunching in the link i provided the uncertainty principle, forbids the electron from being restricted to a space as small as an atomic nucleus. the only conceivable way an electron could be closer to the nucleus would be if the speed of light could be exceeded.

did you read the link ?
Nick
It can't get close to the nucleus because it is so large? What does that mean?
Nick
What is it about a proton that comes together with an electron that forms an atomic shell? How is it held at a distance against the electric attraction?

Mitch Raemsch

pnelson419
QUOTE (Nick+Jul 29 2007, 04:09 AM)
Protons are positively electric; electrons negative. This is an attractive situation. Where do the shells come from that keep electrons from falling into the protons under attraction?

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --

Here is an idea so please only take it as just that. What if time is an opposing force to gravity slightly weaker but still a force. This force combined with motion could explain why matter acts the way it does, even at the atomic level to oppose the attraction of opposite charges where gravity would have only a very small effect
Nick
TIME is TIME. It is not a force.
pnelson419
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 1 2007, 01:21 AM)
TIME is TIME. It is not a force.

Then how come time is effected by the force of gravity if time is not a force.
Nick
Acceleration slows time.
pnelson419
then what is time and why can any force effect it at all
rethinker
QUOTE (Nick+Jul 29 2007, 04:09 AM)
Protons are positively electric; electrons negative. This is an attractive situation. Where do the shells come from that keep electrons from falling into the protons under attraction?

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --

Nick
Could be that it is as simple as centrifugal force.

An equilibrium of positive and neg may set up this continued spin.

Also it is possible that we think the path is circular, where it may be close to a hexagon or other pattern that follows magnetic energy. Weight and magnetism could have cause and effect. blink.gif

sort of like this
path of electron
Nick
QUOTE (pnelson419+Aug 1 2007, 01:42 AM)
then what is time and why can any force effect it at all

What if time is aetherial motion capable of interacting with other motions?
pnelson419
If you can't answer the question I understand

i didnt read your last reply before making this post so this is my edit and I will read your posted reponse
I thought you were trying to avoid the question
Nick
I believe time is a dynamic thing. That is what I can say about it. Aetherial motion.*

pnelson419
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 1 2007, 01:53 AM)
What if time is aetherial motion capable of interacting with other motions?

it seems to me that would make it a force
Zephir
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 1 2007, 04:53 AM)
What if time is aetherial motion capable of interacting with other motions?

Such definition of time is not applicable to the double/multiple time arrows concept.
pnelson419
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 1 2007, 07:06 AM)
Such definition of time is not applicable to the double/multiple time arrows concept.

Excuse my ignorance, but could some explain this concept.

pnelson419
I understand that time is two points on a line one you can call the beginning and the other the end. But in this universe it must be what keeps those points separated.

If it is doing something it must be a force.
visual
Nick, why doesn't the Moon fall on Earth, or the Earth fall in the Sun?
Obviously an attraction force between two objects doesn't mean they'll collide.
For a planet in orbit around a star to actually collide with the star, it has to somehow lose energy.

It's roughly the same for electrons.
In an outdated classical model of the atom, electrons orbit the nucleus much like the gravitational examples above. A problem in that model was that when electrons are accelerating (such as due to the attractive force from the nucleus which is supposed to keep the electron in orbit), they radiate energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. So the electrons should've lost energy and quickly fallen to the nucleus... but that doesn't happen - electrons in atoms don't constantly radiate energy like accelerating electrons usually do.
A more recent model has the electrons not as orbiting particles, but as standing waves around the nucleus.

The exact model you'd use is irrelevant though - the important thing is, since the electrons aren't radiating their energy away, they can remain on the same energy level and there is no reason to expect them to collide with the nucleus.
pnelson419
It seems to me time is a spring force
KKris
Hey! guys as I always mention it is not the gravitational force that keeps the earth moving around the sun. Earth is pushed by the repulsive force of the Sun and the outer circle of 27 stars that generally form the zodiacal signs. Earth escapes their push by moving away resulting in the revolution around the sun. I don't think that the earth can fall into the sun.

When talking about the electrons' mysteries, I've one more thing to add to your doubts. If like poles repel each other how is that electrons come together and form chemical bonds, not electrons and protons but only electrons join together forming different bonds, how's that??? blink.gif
pnelson419
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 1 2007, 01:40 AM)
Acceleration slows time.

the statement "Acceleration slows time" seems to me a contradiction in the terms slow and time. I think a more applicable statement would be that time can be compressed by acceleration.
Zephir
QUOTE (pnelson419+Aug 1 2007, 12:26 PM)
... but could some explain this concept...

From astronomical observation of magnetars and/or PVLAS experiments it's well known, under high energy density the vacuum becomes birefringent like calcite crystal, so the refractive index and speed of light depends on the polarization vector of light. By AWT this is why, because the vacuum is composed from foam, which gets dense, when shaken like common soap foam. In dense foam the bubbles are smaller and the surface gradients of their membranes are separating each other.

user posted image user posted image user posted image

By AWT the energy spreads along surface gradients of vacuum foam and the time is formed by the normal direction of surface gradients. Therefore the separation of surface gradients in foam leads to the separation of time arrows. Each space-time event can have a two different consequences and it will manifest itself in two different places of spacetime. The birefringence of vacuum is therefore the example of Lorentz symmetry breaking and practical realization of multiverse.
Nick
QUOTE (pnelson419+Aug 1 2007, 09:49 AM)
I understand that time is two points on a line one you can call the beginning and the other the end. But in this universe it must be what keeps those points separated.

If it is doing something it must be a force.

Its a time-light factor.
Nick
QUOTE (pnelson419+Aug 1 2007, 11:35 AM)
the statement "Acceleration slows time" seems to me a contradiction in the terms slow and time. I think a more applicable statement would be that time can be compressed by acceleration.

What is the difference between compressed and slowed?

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
Nick
If you compressed time it would be just the reverse. Events would be closer together. Compressed time is fast time.

Acceleration contracts the metric in space but not in time. The transverse doppler effect or the slowing of the clock is not a contraction but a time expansion in the sense that events get futher and further away as measured in time.
jr. Einstien
idk
*vanadesse
QUOTE (pnelson419+Aug 1 2007, 06:35 AM)
the statement "Acceleration slows time" seems to me a contradiction in the terms slow and time. I think a more applicable statement would be that time can be compressed by acceleration.

By moving faster you don't "compress" or "slow" time, you just move slower through it. This is called time dilation because the person moving through space experiences time as being "dilated" or more spread out than for someone who is stationary.
Nick
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Aug 4 2007, 03:49 AM)
By moving faster you don't "compress" or "slow" time, you just move slower through it. This is called time dilation because the person moving through space experiences time as being "dilated" or more spread out than for someone who is stationary.

It is not dilated it is expanded.

MItch
*vanadesse
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 3 2007, 10:59 PM)
It is not dilated it is expanded.

di·late [dī láyt, di láyt, d lŕyt]
(past di·lat·ed, past participle di·lat·ed, present participle di·lat·ing, 3rd person present singular di·lates)
verb
1. vti expand or make expand: to become or cause something to become wider or larger
Nick
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Aug 4 2007, 04:06 AM)
di·late [dī láyt, di láyt, d lŕyt]
(past di·lat·ed, past participle di·lat·ed, present participle di·lat·ing, 3rd person present singular di·lates)
verb
1. vti expand or make expand: to become or cause something to become wider or larger

RIGHT. MY MISTAKE. I DON'T KNOW WHY I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS A SHRINK? SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT MY PUPILS! laugh.gif


MITCH RAEMSCH
Guest_Mark
I'm entering this fray at my own peril. unsure.gif

I understand the theory that the electron acts like a wave when it is orbitting a nucleus (the old wave/particle duality thing) and I understand how the wavelength will dictate, in essence, a length of circumverance of the orbit (which is why electrons will fall into discrete orbits or shells around the nucleus). This explains why the electron can't fall into the nucleus because the wavelength would have to go to zero in order to allow the electron to fall into the nucleus (where the length of circumferance of the orbit also falls to zero).

But what doesn't make any sense is that when you add quantum energy to an electron it moves to a higher shell which has a longer length of circumferance. The problem there is that a higher quantum energy of the electron means a higher frequency which means a shorter wavelength, not a longer one. Why then when quantum energy is added to an electron it moves out to a higher shell and not closer to the nucleus?

Sorry, that sounds like it is drifting off the original thread of "Why Doesn't The Electron Fall Into The Nucleus?". Welllll, it sort of stays on topic because it is challenging the wavelenght theory of why electrons stay in their orbits.
Nick
QUOTE (Guest_Mark+Aug 5 2007, 04:27 AM)
I'm entering this fray at my own peril. unsure.gif

I understand the theory that the electron acts like a wave when it is orbitting a nucleus (the old wave/particle duality thing) and I understand how the wavelength will dictate, in essence, a length of circumverance of the orbit (which is why electrons will fall into discrete orbits or shells around the nucleus).  This explains why the electron can't fall into the nucleus because the wavelength would have to go to zero in order to allow the electron to fall into the nucleus (where the length of circumferance of the orbit also falls to zero).

But what doesn't make any sense is that when you add quantum energy to an electron it moves to a higher shell which has a longer length of circumferance.  The problem there is that a higher quantum energy of the electron means a higher frequency which means a shorter wavelength, not a longer one.  Why then when quantum energy is added to an electron it moves out to a higher shell and not closer to the nucleus?

Sorry, that sounds like it is drifting off the original thread of "Why Doesn't The Electron Fall Into The Nucleus?".  Welllll, it sort of stays on topic because it is challenging the wavelenght theory of why electrons stay in their orbits.

The real question is: Why does the electron wave know to stay in the shells alone? Noting that the electron's wave must be extended by many wavelengths not just ONE in order to fit the entire orbit.
Guest_Mark
Is it many wavelengths?

The outer diameter of an atom is one Angstrom which means that its circumference (and therefore the fundamental wavelength) would be 3.1415926... Angstroms. When electrons are excited (moved up to higher shells) and then collapse back down to the lower shells they shed their energy in the form of photons. But the energy of these photons is in the visible light range (the spectral lines that we see and use to identify elements) and their wavelengths are 4,000 to 7,000 Angstroms (or have I got this inverted somehow going from wavelength to frequency to energy and back).

Actually, I never could rationalize the correlation between energy levels of valence shells and the visible spectra that we see (I would think that the resulting spectra would lie outside of the visible spectrum altogether).
Nick
Yes. The shells only accomadate multiples of wavelengths and nothing in between.

So where does the electron shells originate?

I say it has to be a proton electron combination. BUT WHAT IS THAT?
samcox
The electron shell does fall into the nucleus 2.8 trillion times per Earth second.

We remotely cross-read the universe of information and complexity in extreme gravitational time dilation, so embedded information seems to freeze and be stable.

Aside from that, the matter/antimatter oscillations themselves are eternal within the QM /SRT/GR structure, so embedded information IS stable, really stable.

Otherwise, positively charged protons in such close proximity to negatively charged electrons would create a very stable, very dead and non-observed neutron universe.
Zephir
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 5 2007, 07:31 AM)
the electron's wave must be extended by many wavelengths not just ONE in order to fit the entire orbit

The electron is dancing around atom in vacuum foam, thus making such foam more dense, like the soap foam shaken inside of vessel. The density wave (so called the deBroglie wave) is undulating in the space around atom like the standing wave packet. The higher frequency of deBroglie wave, the higher is the density of vacuum and vice-versa. The lowest energy, for which the whole deBroglie wave is forming only the single wave corresponds the energy of fundamental quantum state of electron at the 0 K temperature. It means, the electron can obtain higher frequencies for higher temperatures without problem.
Ivars
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 6 2007, 01:07 PM)
The electron is dancing around atom in vacuum foam, thus making such foam more dense, like the soap foam shaken inside of vessel. The density wave (so called the deBroglie wave) is undulating in the space around atom like the standing wave packet. The higher frequency of deBroglie wave, the higher is the density of vacuum and vice-versa.

The electron is comfortably sitting inside closed path= helical space pipe -space has been deformed by interaction between proton and electron in such way that electron is maintaining its shape even if it is rotating - the acceleration is the same. In ground state, electron turns once around its axis while orbiting proton once. The helical deformation of the pipe creates and is de broglie wave of electron in hydrogen atom.

Whole this construction is precessing around proton so we see an electron cloud- which is actually pipe with electron rotating around proton.
Zephir
QUOTE (Ivars+Aug 6 2007, 04:16 PM)
...the electron is comfortably sitting inside closed path= helical space pipe...

The electrons aren't sitting "in the tube", they're moving freely around atoms. It can be proven by nuclear processes, involving the electron trapping by loosely bound neutrons in borromean halo atom nuclei, like the 6He and 11Li. The rather common inverse beta decay involves the less or more reversible L,Kcapture of electrons by protons inside of atom nuclei, for example:

74Be + e- → 73Li

You should learn some nuclear physics at first before spreading of your naive ideas, don't you think?
Latrosicarius
QUOTE (KKris+Aug 1 2007, 11:20 AM)
Hey! guys as I always mention it is not the gravitational force that keeps the earth moving around the sun. Earth is pushed by the repulsive force of the Sun and the outer circle of 27 stars that generally form the zodiacal signs. Earth escapes their push by moving away resulting in the revolution around the sun. I don't think that the earth can fall into the sun.

Please explain the mechanism by which the sun and 27 stars repel the earth. Why do we not see such a phenomena at work on earth?

Please explain why no other stars push the earth.

Please explain why the stars do not push the other planets in our solar system closer to the sun.

Please explain why our nearest neighboring star, Proxima Centauri, doesn't push the earth much harder than the other 27 stars, which are farther away.

If there is a repulsion between stars and earth, then there logically much be an attraction between stars and other stars. Please explain why stars are not drawn together.
LearmSceince
QUOTE (fleem+Jul 29 2007, 05:38 AM)
Most atoms do not allow any orbital paths of the electron through the nucleus simply because of the way the wave of the electron can fit around the nucleus, so the electron is never there at the nucleus. There are, however, a few nuclei

Actually, all atoms do. Any s-type orbital covers the entire nucleus.

In general, the electrons don't go around like the asteroid belt. They are spherical, with spherical waves giving nodes/antinodes in space.
LearmSceince
QUOTE (Guest_Mark+Aug 5 2007, 04:27 AM)
But what doesn't make any sense is that when you add quantum energy to an electron it moves to a higher shell which has a longer length of circumferance [sic]. The problem there is that a higher quantum energy of the electron means a higher frequency which means a shorter wavelength, not a longer one. Why then when quantum energy is added to an electron it moves out to a higher shell and not closer to the nucleus?


It repeats its path after making multiple repetitions of a whole wave. Just like a string will show "nodes" in the middle as you get higher multiples of the fundamental frequency: more whole waves fit in the interval.

But, note that the electron isn't going around in a circle on a 1-d path. It fills a sphere, and the nodes are those of spherical harmonics like sound in a ringing bell.

The primary quantum number, the main shell number, is how many nodes there are in the wave.

The same number appears in such a way in the function that higher numbers make the function fall off more slowly, so the sphere (measured where the strength is reduced to some small value) gets larger.
Nick
THROUGFH THE NUCLEUS?

HOW COULD WE HAVE POSSIBLY OBSERVED THIS AND WHAT DO THEY DO THERE? HOW CAN THEY GET THROUGH?

I HAVE TO ASK.
LearmSceince
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 6 2007, 07:15 PM)
THROUGFH THE NUCLEUS?

HOW COULD WE HAVE POSSIBLY OBSERVED THIS AND WHAT DO THEY DO THERE? HOW CAN THEY GET THROUGH?

I HAVE TO ASK.

Quit SHOUTING, and I'll answer that.
Nick
Sorry I am used to posting in caps. smile.gif
samcox
Enjoyed Learnscience's comments. All this is scale related. Very tiny changes in scale result in very different particulating conditions at sub-microscopic scales near the Planck Realm. These differences are similar everywhere in the universe and result in similar kinds of particles (information) in certain proportions being formed according to certain patterns (complexity). At Fermi right now they are trying to discover the mechanism by which the quantum universe is organized in such a way as to be able to retain information...studying how information and complexity originates will come later, but understanding the scale mechanism vs varying energy density aggregates at different coordinates is a start.

It is not a great analogy, but in the atmosphere of the earth, above a certain level there is no particuation at all. Lower we find ice crystals, then snow, then rain, and the surface of the Earth dissipates the whole mechanism and by the water cycle, rejuvenates the process...the process is cyclic.

Reduce the scale to the Planck Realm and speed it up by 2.8 trillion times per Earth second and bingo! We discover information stored in the space time lattice- if we are observing from a certain specific set of coordinates and in a very specific manner. We can play around with a CD all we want, but if we want to see the information stored in it, we must "play it"...observe the information in a very specific way and according to a precise process...
LearmSceince
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 6 2007, 07:39 PM)
Sorry I am used to posting in caps. smile.gif

An electron can exist in the same place as a proton, no problem. Atoms bounce off each other because the electron clouds don't want to overlap. But different kinds of things can overlap without any problem. Identical fermions cannot overlap (electrons are fermions). Even two electrons can exist in exactly the same place, because they may have opposite spin.

The portion of the electron's wave function that overlaps the protons and neutrons has no effect at all on most kinds of atoms.

Some kinds of nuclei can undergo "reverse beta" decay and combine with an electron, because changing one one proton into a neutron gives a more favorable configuration. This can only proceed if an electron is around to capture, so the amount of overlaps can control the decay rate. But that is very rare. On a stable nucleus, there is no effect whatsoever.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.