Why doesn't the Electron crash into the proton in an H atom?

[feynmann]

Why doesn’t the Electron crash into the proton??
We know in an H atom the e- is attracted to the + charge of the proton.
And it wants to get down to the "0 level" orbit.
But what makes that level zero – or why does e- stop going down?
Is there another force that counteracts the force of charge trying to pull them together?

Note: the intent of this thread is potential descriptions of why the electron does not crash into a proton. NOT how QM defines it or that QM can claim that no one can describe it. But how people do try to describe it. So explaining why an idea doesn't work should also be described in Non-QM terms. Everybody already knows that uncertainty and the math of QM does work, we do not need to be reminded.

 

[cam875]

please see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=283713

 

[feynmann]

please see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=283713

It's irrelevant

 

[malawi_glenn]

Yes QM explains this very well, why do you want another answer/explanation?

 

[feynmann]

Yes QM explains this very well, why do you want another answer/explanation?

I think what QM tells us is to "shut up and calculate", but does not really "explain" it
If you know the answer, why don't you spell it out for us?

 

[malawi_glenn]

then you are perhaps more interested in the philosiphical viewpoint?

Quantum is the best way (well quantum electrodynamics is) to describe the hydrogen atom and its observables.

What explanation are you looking for? (or are there several other

It is like answering the question why does the stone fall to the ground if I realse it from a height? "The law of gravity tells that there is a force acting on the body and make it accelerate down til it hits the ground"

Quantum mechanics tells you that you a lot of things, that the potential of the proton (hydrogen nucleus) and the electron is an operator and one should find the eigenvalues and eigenstates to that operator.

Quantum mechanics is not just "shut up and calculate", what that quote is saying (R. Feynman ironically) is that one should leave the intutive (Newtonian, macroscopic) way to look at physics and instead stay to the formalism and axioms of QM and see what u get.

"What is REALLY" going on, and why, is a philosophical question.

You are demanding that quantum phenomenon should be explained in NON QM terms, is that a plausible demand you think?

 

[Dmitry67]

Most aspects Newton mechanics is obvious for our brain because it is pre-wired in our muscles: we know how to jump, how to catch objects, we understand spacial/time relationships.

but QM is not pre-installed in our brain.

In order to understand 4,10,11,26-dimensional spaces, non-euclidean geometries and QM you need to have more imagination.

Anyway, what do you mean by "really explain"?

 

[jtbell]

From the Physics Forums FAQ in the General Physics forum:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=862093&postcount=2

I'll also point out that in a sense, electrons do "crash into the nucleus" because the wave functions for most orbitals are non-zero at the origin (the nucleus). In some isotopes, this causes the nucleus to decay into another one via a process called (surprise!) electron capture.

 

[malawi_glenn]

well yes, but i think he was after why the electron don't fall deeper into the potential well of the proton than 13.6 eV. :)

 

[feynmann]

then you are perhaps more interested in the philosiphical viewpoint?

Quantum is the best way (well quantum electrodynamics is) to describe the hydrogen atom and its observables.

What explanation are you looking for? (or are there several other

It is like answering the question why does the stone fall to the ground if I realse it from a height? "The law of gravity tells that there is a force acting on the body and make it accelerate down til it hits the ground"

Quantum mechanics tells you that you a lot of things, that the potential of the proton (hydrogen nucleus) and the electron is an operator and one should find the eigenvalues and eigenstates to that operator.

Quantum mechanics is not just "shut up and calculate", what that quote is saying (R. Feynman ironically) is that one should leave the intutive (Newtonian, macroscopic) way to look at physics and instead stay to the formalism and axioms of QM and see what u get.

"What is REALLY" going on, and why, is a philosophical question.

You are demanding that quantum phenomenon should be explained in NON QM terms, is that a plausible demand you think?

Yes, at least Feynman think it's plausible demand. He gave his answer in his famous Lecture on Physics volume 3, page 5 of chapter 2, hope you have a copy

I like Feynman's idea that if you can not explain something to a layman so that he can understand it, you don't understand it yourself.

 

[granpa]

you do realize that the electron doesn't actually 'orbit' the nucleus. right?

 

[malawi_glenn]

it is a difference in explaining things in layman terms and "non-QM" terms. Maybe you like the idea since you are not a physicsits yourself? ;-)

Anyway, it is philosophical problem since our daily life language is developed over thousands of years to describe daily life phenomenon. It will be like a blind man demanding someone who can see to describe colors.

And well, feynmans answer is basically telling you one way to see it. But he uses QM terms, he invokes the uncertainty principle.

And if this is the correct way of answering the question why the electron is not bounded harder to the proton, I would doubt. The uncertainty principle is used often in layman explanations, but one does not really uses that principle at all when deriving binding energies etc. So by just be given an answer that can be understood, does not mean that the answer is correct.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, at least Feynman think it's plausible demand. He gave his answer in his famous Lecture on Physics volume 3, page 5 of chapter 2, hope you have a copy

I like Feynman's idea that if you can not explain something to a layman so that he can understand it, you don't understand it yourself.

Why don't you try it yourself? Try explaining, say, classical E&M for a bunch of layman and see if you can get them not only to "understand" it, but understand it in the SAME way.

I've been involved in public outreach for the work that I do for many years. No matter how hard one tries, a person can only "understand" something based on the level of knowledge that he/she already has. And since everyone has different knowledge and experiences, this means that practically everyone understands things differently, even if given the SAME set of information! Try it if you don't believe me.

So don't give me this tired argument that if one can't explain it to a layman, one hasn't understood it. You have no clue on what you are saying, besides the fact that you haven't defined what is meant by "understand". If you pay that much attention to Feynman and you accept his words as "gospel", then his "shut up and calculate" should have sufficed and you shouldn't be asking any anymore. How come that part didn't take?

If this thread degenerates into philosophical issues, it will be moved to that forum where you'll get very little legitimate physics. Is this what you wish?

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

ZapperZ, I agree. Often this is used in a way very close to, "I am not going to put any effort into understanding this, and if I still don't understand it, it's your fault!"

"Feynmann", quantum mechanics was invented to explain exactly the question you are asking. Asking for a non-QM answer is like saying "explain why a sliding object eventually stops without using friction."

 

[edguy99]

To ask the question more specifically, consider an electon and proton relatively at rest (both with kinetic energy of less then .1 evolts) and approx. 1 angstom apart. Where is the electron after a few attoseconds?

 

[ZapperZ]

To ask the question more specifically, consider an electon and proton relatively at rest (both with kinetic energy of less then .1 evolts) and approx. 1 angstom apart. Where is the electron after a few attoseconds?

I have no idea, because you might as well come up with other implausible scenario.

Why is this implausible? Because how does one get two things (a proton and an electron) to be at precisely not only a particular location, but also to be AT REST as the initial conditions. By simply knowing that, you've already altered any kind of situation that you want to simulate, especially for an atom, i.e. this will probably not become an electron being captured by a proton to become a hydrogen atom.

Zz.

 

[edguy99]

I have no idea, because you might as well come up with other implausible scenario.

Why is this implausible? Because how does one get two things (a proton and an electron) to be at precisely not only a particular location, but also to be AT REST as the initial conditions. By simply knowing that, you've already altered any kind of situation that you want to simulate, especially for an atom, i.e. this will probably not become an electron being captured by a proton to become a hydrogen atom.

Zz.

The problem is specified not with an AT REST electron, but a slow electron and "approximate" locations not exact locations. All I am trying to do here, is see how accurate the electron can be tracked and/or simulated and the 2 compared. Clearly there are times when people track electrons in a traditional sense. How far can that envelope be pushed both in simulations and in real life?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I wouldn't say "implasuible". I would say "impossible".

Placing an electron within a window of 0.1 A and with an energy less than 0.1 eV violates Heisenberg uncertainty. You can't ask QM how a state evolves if that state isn't possible to begin with.

 

[ZapperZ]

The problem is specified not with an AT REST electron, but a slow electron and "approximate" locations not exact locations. All I am trying to do here, is see how accurate the electron can be tracked and/or simulated and the 2 compared. Clearly there are times when people track electrons in a traditional sense. How far can that envelope be pushed both in simulations and in real life?

This is what you originally wrote:

We can "track" single electrons. That's what we do in cloud chambers and other particle detectors. What we can't do is place those two at the location that you want under the conditions that you want.

If you want to solve this classically without regards to reality, then knock yourself out. That's a simple problem in classical E&M. But to do that quantum mechanically under such condition, I don't see that happening.

Zz.

 

[granpa]

the electron can't be placed at that position but what about the electron cloud?

 

[edguy99]

I wouldn't say "implasuible". I would say "impossible".

Placing an electron within a window of 0.1 A and with an energy less than 0.1 eV violates Heisenberg uncertainty. You can't ask QM how a state evolves if that state isn't possible to begin with.

Thank you for your insight. Whats your feeling on a window of 0.5 A if the energy is less then 0.1 eV?

 

[edguy99]

This is what you originally wrote:

We can "track" single electrons. That's what we do in cloud chambers and other particle detectors. What we can't do is place those two at the location that you want under the conditions that you want.

If you want to solve this classically without regards to reality, then knock yourself out. That's a simple problem in classical E&M. But to do that quantum mechanically under such condition, I don't see that happening.

Zz.

I assume you understand the silly solution I get in classical E&M tracking a slow moving electron 1 Angstrom away from a proton for a few attoseconds (it gains enormous amounts of energy - way over 13.6ev, and shots out somewhere and ends up very far away, clearly not what happens in hydrogen gas).

I would like to say, if you assume that the electron does not continue to gain energy once inside the first orbital radius (I use 53 picometers), you get a nice oscillating electron with a period of 340 attoseconds that never goes more then 1 angstrom away from the proton. If, in addition, you shot off 10.2evolts worth of energy, you end up with an electron with less then 3.4evolts worth of kinetic energy completely trapped inside the orbital.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Whats your feeling on a window of 0.5 A if the energy is less then 0.1 eV?

It's not about "feelings". It's about calculations. Heisenberg uncertainty makes a very specific prediction: $\Delta x \Delta p \geq \hbar/2$. 0.5 A and 0.1 eV also violates this.

If you want to know if any other pair of $\Delta x$ and $\Delta p$ work, you can calculate them yourself. Note that a lower bound on E corresponds to a lower bound on p.

You shouldn't be too surprised that $\Delta x$ of order an Angstrom works out to $\Delta E$ of order 10 eV.

 

[ZapperZ]

I assume you understand the silly solution I get in classical E&M tracking a slow moving electron 1 Angstrom away from a proton for a few attoseconds (it gains enormous amounts of energy - way over 13.6ev, and shots out somewhere and ends up very far away, clearly not what happens in hydrogen gas).

I would like to say, if you assume that the electron does not continue to gain energy once inside the first orbital radius (I use 53 picometers), you get a nice oscillating electron with a period of 340 attoseconds that never goes more then 1 angstrom away from the proton. If, in addition, you shot off 10.2evolts worth of energy, you end up with an electron with less then 3.4evolts worth of kinetic energy completely trapped inside the orbital.

... and all of this is meaningful in what way? What useful information do you get out of this that has any resemblance to reality?

For your information, I could come up with a gazillion toy-model that would blow you away. Want to see my toy-model that initiates a vacuum breakdown? It is as useful as yours.

Zz.

 

[nuby]

Couple questions..

1). It is the coulombs force that keeps the electron near the proton, but is there is an equal "outward" force(?) from nucleous that makes the (ground state) electron cloud want to stay within a certain range, and be sphere shaped (on average).

2.) Would it make sense to explain an electron proton relationship as like a "gaseous planet", where the gas is the electron, and the most dense area in the center is the proton, and the outer most dense area(s) within the atmosphere is where the electron is supposed to be?

 

[ZapperZ]

Couple questions..

1). It is the coulombs force that keeps the electron near the proton, but is there is an equal "outward" force(?) from nucleous that makes the (ground state) electron cloud want to stay within a certain range, and be sphere shaped (on average).

This has the hydrogen Schrodinger equation in the second panel.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hydsch.html

The first term that includes the square bracket is the "kinetic energy" term. The second term is the coulombic potential. Now, do you see ANY "outward force" at all in here?

So why do you need one?

Zz.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Couple questions..

1). It is the coulombs force that keeps the electron near the proton, but is there is an equal "outward" force(?) from nucleous that makes the (ground state) electron cloud want to stay within a certain range, and be sphere shaped (on average).

You must stop thinking about the atom as a classical system, there is not thing as forces keeping the electron "a certain distance" away from the proton. Look at the wave functions for the states! Look at the ground state, there is no such thing as distance from the nucleus, it can be located inside the nucleus (hence process electron capture)

2.) Would it make sense to explain an electron proton relationship as like a "gaseous planet", where the gas is the electron, and the most dense area in the center is the proton, and the outer most dense area(s) within the atmosphere is where the electron is supposed to be?

No, not really, since you are referring to two different kinds of distributions. In a gaseous body, the density of particles decrease as radius increases, but in atoms the PROBABILITY distrubution to find a particle at certain radial distances decrases.

 

[nuby]

No, not really, since you are referring to two different kinds of distributions. In a gaseous body, the density of particles decrease as radius increases, but in atoms the PROBABILITY distrubution to find a particle at certain radial distances decrases.

Just a thought, maybe some variation of that would make more sense to people.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Couple questions..

1). It is the coulombs force that keeps the electron near the proton, but is there is an equal "outward" force(?) from nucleous that makes the (ground state) electron cloud want to stay within a certain range, and be sphere shaped (on average).

2.) Would it make sense to explain an electron proton relationship as like a "gaseous planet", where the gas is the electron, and the most dense area in the center is the proton, and the outer most dense area(s) within the atmosphere is where the electron is supposed to be?

I don't understand why you don't want to apply QM to the system, instead relying on new forces and a model of the electron that is clearly in conflict with measurements.

What's wrong with QM?

 

[granpa]

maybe its more a question of how to interpret quantum mechanics.

 

[ZapperZ]

maybe its more a question of how to interpret quantum mechanics.

One certainly can't "interpret" QM by wanting to add to it what it doesn't have, like an "extra force". That's not an interpretation. That's a mistake.

I've written elsewhere on why QM is SO difficult. Maybe people should start reading that first before wanting to "interpret" it. One can't try to interpret something based on ignorance. That's a recipe not only for disaster, but for crackpottery.

Zz.

 

[edguy99]

It's not about "feelings". It's about calculations. Heisenberg uncertainty makes a very specific prediction: $\Delta x \Delta p \geq \hbar/2$. 0.5 A and 0.1 eV also violates this.

If you want to know if any other pair of $\Delta x$ and $\Delta p$ work, you can calculate them yourself. Note that a lower bound on E corresponds to a lower bound on p.

You shouldn't be too surprised that $\Delta x$ of order an Angstrom works out to $\Delta E$ of order 10 eV.

I am surprised by that. A hydrogen molecule is certainly less then one angstrom and there seem to be a pretty good chance that there is an electron somewhere in there with less they 10ev of energy. Is the hydrogen molecule in and of itself a violation of the uncertainty principle?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I am surprised by that. A hydrogen molecule is certainly less then one angstrom and there seem to be a pretty good chance that there is an electron somewhere in there with less they 10ev of energy. Is the hydrogen molecule in and of itself a violation of the uncertainty principle?

Seem...

...pretty good chance...

...somewhere in there...

I don't know what else to say but "do the calculations". This is a quantitative science. Write down a well-defined, quantitative question, do the QM calculation, and look at the answer.

 

[edguy99]

... and all of this is meaningful in what way? What useful information do you get out of this that has any resemblance to reality?

For your information, I could come up with a gazillion toy-model that would blow you away. Want to see my toy-model that initiates a vacuum breakdown? It is as useful as yours.

Zz.

To me it is meaningful in a goal to model or simulate processes such as hydration and polymerization where you must track things over time. The model of electrons stuck inside a shell by an amount equal to their ionization energy, together with the normal coulomb force pushing protons apart, leads to the most common forms of hydrogen that are easy to draw and conceptualize (is there a spell checker in this application?).

 

[malawi_glenn]

How does a molecule have a size? I thouught molecules were quantum objects as well... i.e.they don't have definite size.