- #1
Carbonoid
- 4
- 0
If oppositely charged particles attract, then why do electrons orbit the nucleus and not stick to it as the nucleus is positively charged and the electrons being negatively charged?
Pesky angels, they are even unable to trace a circle rightly. Ellipses around poor Kepler's headmarcus said:the moon is prevented from falling to Earth by angels who push it sideways so as to avoid collision this was already known by Kepler
however if the angels should ever stop pushing it has been found that
the moon would fall directly onto Zaragoza
quartodeciman said:What happens when a beam of sub-relativistic electrons (NEGATIVELY-charged) is fired point blank into proton targets (electronically-stripped Hydrogen)?
There is not much discussion of this online. Most discussions of targetting nuclei are of the Rutherford experiment type, with + charged probe particles.
At extreme high momenta, like modern electron-proton collider experiments, then the electron probe evidently can disrupt the proton substructure and produce spectacular events. My guess is that these occur outside the proton proper and would involve weak interactions.
It is interesting inasmuch as it is part of the historical record. Even as the Rutherford experiment is interesting, so would negative electron scattering be interesting in the same context. It is an amplification of Carbonoid's original question about electrons not falling to the nucleus by electrical attraction. Now we would deliberately invite something to happen by deliberately shooting negative probes at the positive nucleus. Of course it is more spectacular when the electrons have higher energies and momenta. We have learned since that time to expect fireworks when the speeds are high. It took Rutherford about 10 years after his classic alpha-scatter experiment to realize that something else (a nuclear barrier) was present.ZapperZ said:I'm not sure why you would want to consider sub-relativistic electrons here. There isn't much "discussion" about this because this is uninteresting. All you get is H atom if the electron gets captured at all.
I was thinking about experiments like the following:ZapperZ said:"Outside the proton proper"? Such collision can result in a weak interaction that involved a change in one of the QUARKS inside the proton. So I would hardly call that "outside the proton proper".
quartodeciman said:ZZ,
It is interesting inasmuch as it is part of the historical record. Even as the Rutherford experiment is interesting, so would negative electron scattering be interesting in the same context. It is an amplification of Carbonoid's original question about electrons not falling to the nucleus by electrical attraction. Now we would deliberately invite something to happen by deliberately shooting negative probes at the positive nucleus. Of course it is more spectacular when the electrons have higher energies and momenta. We have learned since that time to expect fireworks when the speeds are high. It took Rutherford about 10 years after his classic alpha-scatter experiment to realize that something else (a nuclear barrier) was present.
I was thinking about experiments like the following:
Deep Inelastic Scattering of electrons from protons --->
http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node188.html
note the sentence: "A sufficiently energetic photon is able to knock a single one of these particles out of the proton, ..."
Sorry! I was talking to the original topic question.ZapperZ said:However, we were talking about electron-proton colliders
Thanks for mentioning those other phenomena in the kev range. My main point was that one doesn't seem to find electrons just tumbling down to the proton and sticking close to it.ZapperZ said:You need to be clear and narrow down just exactly what you want to discuss.
I must be unable to read and understand this account. What does "knock ... out of the proton" mean? The accompanying illustration doesn't help. I will agree that this stuff seems to take off from the immediate vicinity of the proton.ZapperZ said:A "parton" is part of the proton. It isn't "outside" the proton.
quartodeciman said:I must be unable to read and understand this account. What does "knock ... out of the proton" mean? The accompanying illustration doesn't help. I will agree that this stuff seems to take off from the immediate vicinity of the proton.
The orbiting of electrons around the nucleus is a result of the attractive force between the positive charge of the nucleus and the negative charge of the electrons. This force is known as the electrostatic force and is responsible for holding the atom together.
The electrons are constantly in motion, orbiting the nucleus in specific energy levels. These energy levels are determined by the amount of energy the electron possesses. The orbiting electrons are also held in place by the electrostatic force, preventing them from crashing into the nucleus.
The number of electrons in an atom's outermost energy level, known as the valence electrons, determines the chemical properties of an element. These valence electrons are involved in chemical bonding and determine how an element will interact with other elements.
The energy levels of electrons are determined by the energy they possess. The closer an energy level is to the nucleus, the lower its energy. Electrons are constantly moving, and can absorb or release energy to move between energy levels. This results in the characteristic emission spectra of elements.
No, electrons can only exist in specific energy levels or orbitals. These energy levels are like "shells" around the nucleus, and the electrons can only occupy these shells. The concept of an electron existing in between energy levels is not supported by current scientific theories.