Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is the atomic structure correct

  1. Nov 5, 2003 #1
    ive recently been reading about the string theory and
    of course learned that it is attempting to unify the forces.
    for a while now i have had an idea that its unlikely that
    matter could actually have multiple quantum forces and by
    eliminating two potentially unnessecary forces (weak and strong
    nuclear forces)leaving electromagnet force (simple plus and negative)
    and einstiens conception of gravity might make this unification
    simpler... my reasoning for this is that maybe the atom is not
    structured like the typical conception... (proton,nuetron center,
    electron cloud)... take light photons for example, it is nuetral
    until a higher energy particle collides with it then it breaks into
    two oppositely charged particles. this little fact is what provoked my
    idea.... maybe the atom is actually just positive and negatively charged particles that are not structured as typically thought however they are intertwined, (nuetrons are just the fusion of the two particles). if atoms are indeed structured by an evenly distribution of particles then this hypothisezed "nuclear force" would not be nessecary would it? this is just a little idea i had and would like if anyone reading this could input there idea and other facts or problems with this because i would like to have this idea thouroughly discussed.. maybe someone can give me some ideas..

    thx to those who respond.
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 5, 2003 #2
    You seem to be describing something roughly like Thompson's "plum pudding" model of the atom (an amorphous blob of positive charge with some negative charges strewn throughout). But we have known since Rutherford's scattering experiments that the positive charges in an atom are concentrated into a very small space in the center of the atom, not evenly distributed throughout. For that matter, we are able to isolate nuclei in the laboratory and study them. In accelerators we can study the strong and weak nuclear interactions between individual particles, too, and they do not behave like the electromagnetic force. Finally, we have extremely detailed measurements of the shape of the nucleus and of the electronic orbitals around it.

    I'm sorry to say it, but your kind of atomic model has not been tenable for about a hundred years.
  4. Nov 6, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I would add that weak and strong forces were invented precisely because there was no other way of describing certain experiments.

    For instance, if there existed only gravity and electromagnetism, why would a neutron decay into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino (which all isolated neutrons do after some minutes) since, in that case, the only two forces among electron and proton would be atractive?

    As Ambitwistor mentioned, the behavior of the strong and weak interactions has been well measured, and the model we have for them works beautifully up to the accuracy we can reach today in accellerators.

    String theory (or any other attempt at grand unification) needs to reproduce this structure (i.e., four distinct forces in this range of energies).
  5. Nov 6, 2003 #4

    well thx for the info... im still in high school and just had an idea
    and figured that you all could give me a push in some direction. do you have any info on nuclear forces that i could enllighten myself with.
  6. Nov 6, 2003 #5
    Re: thx

    Unfortunately, there is a real lack of non-technical information on the nuclear forces. I suppose your best bet is just to piece things together from whatever you can find on Google.
  7. Nov 6, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  8. Nov 6, 2003 #7
    k thx. im about to search
  9. Nov 6, 2003 #8
    one more question

    "For instance, if there existed only gravity and electromagnetism, why would a neutron decay into a proton" --arkron

    could it be possible that nuetrons and nuetrinos only decay due to high energy inercourses?
  10. Nov 6, 2003 #9
    example of previous question

    forgot to put this on my reply.... light photons break down like this?
  11. Nov 6, 2003 #10
    Re: one more question

    What does that mean?

    Neutrons decay at rest, without being accelerated to high energies or anything, and without interacting with any other high-energy particles. Neutrinos do not decay, as far as we know. (Neither do photons.)
  12. Nov 8, 2003 #11
    ok, im put to rest
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook