| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Jan 2008 02:48:54 PM |
| Object: |
Electrons |
Hi,
I read a few books on particle physics, but I'm otherwise uneducated
in this area. A question: I believed that electrons weren't controlled
by classical physics, and so could be every place in their orbit at
once. However, the scientists that were investigating an atom's make-
up fired alpha particles through them, and only a few were altered
from their course.Hence, they postulated that most of the atom is
space. How can both statements be true?
Thanks,
Jarry1
.
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrons |
15 Jan 2008 06:15:51 PM |
|
|
<gamesonline10@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6aa86cf5-83a0-44da-9077-0989da23a50d@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
I read a few books on particle physics, but I'm otherwise uneducated
in this area. A question: I believed that electrons weren't controlled
by classical physics, and so could be every place in their orbit at
once. However, the scientists that were investigating an atom's make-
up fired alpha particles through them, and only a few were altered
from their course.Hence, they postulated that most of the atom is
space. How can both statements be true?
Thanks,
Jarry1
Before the Alpha particle experiment, it was known that atoms contained
positive and negative components. How they were arranged in the atom wasn't
clear, but one option was that the negatively charged electrons were
embedded in the positively charged nuclus (similar to how raisins are
embedded in a plum pudding). Rutherfords experiment was intended to explore
the internal distribution of positive and negative components in the atom.
However, the fact that some alpha particles were deflected by up to 180
degrees, showed that the positively charged nucleus was very strongly
concentrated at the centre of the atom.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrons |
15 Jan 2008 03:02:58 PM |
|
|
<gamesonline10@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6aa86cf5-83a0-44da-9077-0989da23a50d@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| Hi,
| I read a few books on particle physics, but I'm otherwise uneducated
| in this area. A question: I believed that electrons weren't controlled
| by classical physics,
Good grief!
Oh well, there is accounting for religion. Believe whatever you like,
you are otherwise uneducated in this area.
*plonk*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrons |
15 Jan 2008 08:52:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Hi,
I read a few books on particle physics, but I'm otherwise uneducated
in this area. A question: I believed that electrons weren't controlled
by classical physics, and so could be every place in their orbit at
once. However, the scientists that were investigating an atom's make-
up fired alpha particles through them, and only a few were altered
from their course.Hence, they postulated that most of the atom is
space. How can both statements be true?
Thanks,
Jarry1
http://pdg.lbl.gov/index.html
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/listings/contents_listings.html
http://particleadventure.org/frameless/chart_cutouts/particle_chart.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrons |
15 Jan 2008 03:49:30 PM |
|
|
On 15 jan, 15:48, wrote:
Hi,
I read a few books on particle physics, but I'm otherwise uneducated
in this area. A question: I believed that electrons weren't controlled
by classical physics,
classical physics is just an attempt at describing physical reality,
just like any other theory. So, it doesn't control anything.
and so could be every place in their orbit at once.
Not as simple as that. The QM method simply cannot localize
it with precision as it moves. It offers only the possible statistical
spread, but even then, it doesn't take into account the limiting
factors of c as limit velocity and the inertia of the particle.
However, the scientists that were investigating an atom's make-
up fired alpha particles through them, and only a few were altered
from their course.Hence, they postulated that most of the atom is
space. How can both statements be true?
Simple. The vacuum observed is experimentally observed
reality while the possible statistical spread is a mathematical
concept.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrons |
18 Jan 2008 05:21:07 AM |
|
|
On Jan 15, 11:49=A0pm, wrote:
On 15 jan, 15:48, wrote:
Hi,
I read a few books on particle physics, but I'm otherwise uneducated
in this area. A question: I believed that electrons weren't controlled
by classical physics,
classical physics is just an attempt at describing physical reality,
just like any other theory. So, it doesn't control anything.
and so could be every place in their orbit at once.
Not as simple as that. The QM method simply cannot localize
it with precision as it moves. It offers only the possible statistical
spread, but even then, it doesn't take into account the limiting
factors of c as limit velocity and the inertia of the particle.
However, the scientists that were investigating an atom's make-
up fired alpha particles through them, and only a few were altered
from their course.Hence, they postulated that most of the atom is
space. How can both statements be true?
Simple. The vacuum observed is experimentally observed
reality while the possible statistical spread is a mathematical
concept.
Andr=E9 Michaud
----------------
Andre
have you heared about the professor of statistics
that drawnded in a pool of avrage deapth of water
of 10 inches ??? (:-)
(there were there some places 10 meter deap ) (:-)
try to believe me that the existing statistical
knowlwdge is much worse and harm full than the above !!
becuse peole do not know
how much they still dont know
and walk around smugg and chest drumming
(actually cheating!!)
QM is only a very partial crippled knowlwdge including the great
Feynman
for instance reality is ways more complicated than
say Feynmans diagrams !!
or any other qm **modeling** formula
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrons |
16 Jan 2008 07:31:16 AM |
|
|
On Jan 15, 2:48=A0pm, wrote:
Hi,
I read a few books on particle physics, but I'm otherwise uneducated
in this area. A question: I believed that electrons weren't controlled
by classical physics, and so could be every place in their orbit at
once. However, the scientists that were investigating an atom's make-
up fired alpha particles through them, and only a few were altered
from their course.Hence, they postulated that most of the atom is
space. How can both statements be true?
Thanks,
Jarry1
I highly recommend that you read two short, accessible books by
Feynman: The Character of Physical Law, and QED: The Strange Theory of
Light and Matter. Despite the daunting titles, they are written for a
popular audience and easily digestible.
The trick is understanding how it isn't ONE or the OTHER. Put more
concretely, even if one accepts provisionally that the electron
behaves as though it's everywhere in space in some sense, we know from
macroscopic observations that we can follow an electron's path:
http://www.scifair.org/images/ParticleTracksWEB.jpg
Feynman does a pretty good job of explaining how, even though the
electron really does act as though it's all over space, most of the
contributions due to the other paths in space largely (not completely)
cancel each other out except for the classically expected path in most
cases. There are spectacular instances where this isn't the case --
the two-slit experiment for example, or the hydrogen atom for another.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrons |
15 Jan 2008 04:34:51 PM |
|
|
On Jan 15, 3:48 pm, wrote:
Hi,
I read a few books on particle physics, but I'm otherwise uneducated
in this area. A question: I believed that electrons weren't controlled
by classical physics, and so could be every place in their orbit at
once. However, the scientists that were investigating an atom's make-
up fired alpha particles through them, and only a few were altered
from their course.Hence, they postulated that most of the atom is
space. How can both statements be true?
I think first you need to understand Rutherford's results
before deciding that it contradicts the modern description.
Rutherford found that the POSITIVE charges (not the
electrons) were confined to a very small fraction of the
atom. The positive charges are what caused large
deviations in the path of the alpha particles.
In the modern description of the atom, we still agree
that the protons are confined to a nucleus which is
a very small fraction of the atom.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrons |
16 Jan 2008 02:00:34 AM |
|
|
On Jan 16, 12:34=A0am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:48 pm, wrote:
Hi,
I read a few books on particle physics, but I'm otherwise uneducated
in this area. A question: I believed that electrons weren't controlled
by classical physics, and so could be every place in their orbit at
once. However, the scientists that were investigating an atom's make-
up fired alpha particles through them, and only a few were altered
from their course.Hence, they postulated that most of the atom is
space. How can both statements be true?
I think first you need to understand Rutherford's results
before deciding that it contradicts the modern description.
Rutherford found that the POSITIVE charges (not the
electrons) were confined to a very small fraction of the
atom. The positive charges are what caused large
deviations in the path of the alpha particles.
In the modern description of the atom, we still agree
that the protons are confined to a nucleus which is
a very small fraction of the atom.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - Randy
--------------------
the positive and negative charges of the Atom
are not only confined to a small fraction of the Atom
it is a great deal because they are
DIRECTED to specific directions
ie sort of beams
it means that there are dirctions in which they
are not active (or meaningfully acting)
a methapore of a sort of a vibrating string
attatched directly to the nuc
would be a better methaphore
(and that is why the electron is 'faling into the nuc
it does not fall --- becuase it already fell (:-))
and that is why thenumber of electrons ina heavy Atom
is not the number of Protons in it
now in order of doing all of that
*the electron cannot be a 'point particle ' !!!
(it must be composed of many smaller sub entities!!!
orbiting in sub orbits in it and
probably those i(inner ) sub orbiting - gives trhe electron
its wave like properties !! ??)
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrons |
16 Jan 2008 08:29:46 AM |
|
|
On Jan 16, 3:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 12:34 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:48 pm, wrote:
Hi,
I read a few books on particle physics, but I'm otherwise uneducated
in this area. A question: I believed that electrons weren't controlled
by classical physics, and so could be every place in their orbit at
once. However, the scientists that were investigating an atom's make-
up fired alpha particles through them, and only a few were altered
from their course.Hence, they postulated that most of the atom is
space. How can both statements be true?
I think first you need to understand Rutherford's results
before deciding that it contradicts the modern description.
Rutherford found that the POSITIVE charges (not the
electrons) were confined to a very small fraction of the
atom. The positive charges are what caused large
deviations in the path of the alpha particles.
In the modern description of the atom, we still agree
that the protons are confined to a nucleus which is
a very small fraction of the atom.
- Randy
--------------------
the positive and negative charges of the Atom
are not only confined to a small fraction of the Atom
it is a great deal because they are
The negative charges are not confined to the nucleus.
What we mean by the "size of the atom" is the
"size of the electron cloud". It wouldn't make sense
to say that the electron cloud is a small fraction
of itself.
But then nobody has ever accused you of making
sense.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrons |
18 Jan 2008 05:25:17 AM |
|
|
On Jan 16, 4:29=A0pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 3:00 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 12:34 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:48 pm, wrote:
Hi,
I read a few books on particle physics, but I'm otherwise uneducated=
in this area. A question: I believed that electrons weren't controll=
ed
by classical physics, and so could be every place in their orbit at
once. However, the scientists that were investigating an atom's make=
-
up fired alpha particles through them, and only a few were altered
from their course.Hence, they postulated that most of the atom is
space. How can both statements be true?
I think first you need to understand Rutherford's results
before deciding that it contradicts the modern description.
Rutherford found that the POSITIVE charges (not the
electrons) were confined to a very small fraction of the
atom. The positive charges are what caused large
deviations in the path of the alpha particles.
In the modern description of the atom, we still agree
that the protons are confined to a nucleus which is
a very small fraction of the atom.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - Randy
--------------------
the positive and negative charges of the Atom
are not only confined to a small fraction of the Atom
it is a great deal because they are
The negative charges are not confined to the nucleus.
What we mean by the "size of the atom" is the
"size of the electron cloud". It wouldn't make sense
to say that the electron cloud is a small fraction
of itself.
But then nobody has ever accused you of making
sense.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - Randy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
you can speak only for your fucken primitive sense
of energy without mass
a photon with a frequancy of
one cycle per 100 billion years etc etc
so blockhead idot better speak for youself
Y.P
-------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrons |
15 Jan 2008 02:58:05 PM |
|
|
Sorry about the repeat (don't know what happened there), please use
the other thread, unless there's a way I can delete this one?
Sorry,
Jarry1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Helmut Wabnig hwabnig@ .- --- -. DOT .- t" |
|
| Title: Re: Electrons |
15 Jan 2008 03:50:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:58:05 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
Sorry about the repeat (don't know what happened there), please use
the other thread, unless there's a way I can delete this one?
Sorry,
Jarry1
send a CANCEL message
w.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
