|
Atoms
Link |
by
 
on 2006-06-24 17:19:21 |
If the nucleus of an atom has a positive charge (from the mix of protons and neutrons) and the orbiting electrons have a negative charge, why don't the electrons fall and join the nucleus from their attraction? 
|
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by i_want_to_flirt_with_drunk_sango
on 2006-06-24 20:14:51
|
| I also have a quick question, I was once told by a teacher (who was smart and cool like many teachers but was ALWAYS passing off his theories as practically fact because his science word was gospel) that if you were to collide an electron and another electron from an atom of the same element that had a reverse orbit direction, the atoms would release 100% of the atom's energy (unlike the small percentage from an atomic bomb) and the "explosion" would be enough to destroy the moon. Obviously this is his theory, but can anyone prove if he was just in the right or just speculating? |
|
Re: Atoms
|
|
For the first question The short answer would be its similar to the way planets orbit a star, The long answer is that quantum mechanics don’t work like classical mechanics; the electrons get lock into specific rings around the nucleolus that depends on the number of electrons and the energy level of the atom and we have no idea why this is For the second I don’t think that would do anything, the only known way to release 100% energy from matter is to combine it with anti-matter, like collide a electron and a positron, but this wouldn’t destroy much as a electron is very light and the energy released is E=MC^2 Even a kilogram of matter and anti-matter would only release about 43 megatons (my math may be wrong) |
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by i_want_to_flirt_with_drunk_sango
on 2006-06-24 22:03:15 (edited 2006-06-24 22:03:55)
|
| I think the "reverse electron" was his way of desribing a positron to us, and he was talking about anti-matter in that case, so I guess you do get 100% of the energy. Wonder if it's possible to harness safely? |
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by
on 2006-06-24 22:22:16 |
|
Q1 A bound electron (one that is "part" of an atom) IS an electron which has "fallen" into the nucleus. It exists not in a point in space, but as a probability density. Quantum physics addresses the fact that any particle's position and velocity cannot both be known. When humans observe electrons, we find that they do not disappear into one precise point (that of the center of the nucleus), but that they wiggle about. For further explanation of this strange stuff, go here. Q2 If you try to collide two electrons together, they will bounce off one another. By this interaction, you will get the same kinetic energy out that you put into throwing them towards eachother. One big problem with this wacky idea: electrons DO NOT ORBIT! Electrons, and all particles, exist as a probability best described by a wave (at the level you are talking about). 
|
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by
on 2006-06-24 23:38:10 |
|
it would be possible to build an antimatter power plant, the problem is finding antimatter. obviously, there are no terrestrial supplies of antimatter (otherwise they would go boom!). as far as we know, there is not an abundance of antimatter in our solar system, either. oh well :P
|
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by
on 2006-08-17 03:52:17 |
|
do atoms disintegrate? if this is possible, then teleportation is possible? sorry for that dumb question. ;p |
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by
on 2006-08-17 20:55:22 |
|
define: disintegrate If you mean do they decay overtime then sure. It's called radioactive decay. Atoms actualy do disintegrate based on the form of decay and the specific element until they reach a stable state. For teleporstation I assume you're thinking along the lines of Star Trek, to which I say no. Teleportation was developed by Gene Roddenberry for budget constraints (he couldn't afford to show ships landing). While the theory seems sound, you would have to produce sufficent energy to convert every atom in an object into energy. Assuming you had this sort of power you would then need to collect this energy without losing any, contain it, send it without any degredation in signal. That's only sending the signal. The idea of having this energy amazingly reform itself back into the exact same molecules in the exact same places without some sort of reciving unit is a leap of faith at best. That unit, hypotheticaly, would need a reciving system that would only recive the exact signal that you sent and not any background "noise," again contain that energy, then convert that energy back into matter; upon which you would need to precisly calculate the energy needed for each atom, form the exact atoms in the exact locations, and do it realitivly rapidly. I'd prefer to work on more realistic problems, like how to produce a practical form of cold fusion that can be replicated fairly easily. No question is stupid...well not that one anyway. |
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by FiShStIcK-------CaNaDa
on 2006-08-18 19:00:18
|
|
en............................... electrons are energy, isn't it? and....they orbit around the nucleus because of gravity,isn't it? and....can anti-matters release negative energy?(what the hell?!) OMG~~!don't hit me, I'm only in grade 8~~!><  |
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by
on 2006-08-18 19:21:57 (edited 2006-08-18 19:41:07)
|
|
@fishstick *whacks you with frypan* XD kidding now to answer your questions... 1. Electrons are fundamental subatomic particles that carries a negative electric charge. They also make up atoms along with atomic nuclei(protons and neutrons) 2. Electrons orbit around the nucleus(composed of protons and neutrons) in an electric configuration(the arrangement of electrons in an atom, molecule or other body). The variations in electric field generated by differing numbers of electrons and their configurations in atoms determine the chemical properties of the elements. [don't know if i answered this one right XD sry if i didn't *sweatdrop*] 3. Antimatter is matter that is composed of the antiparticles of those that constitute normal matter [am i right? *confused*]. If a particle and its antiparticle come into contact with each other, the two annihilate which means that they may both be converted into other particles. [releases kinetic energy, not negative energy i think] @ Fishstick Don't know if i answered these questions right....took gr.12 physics last year so i kinda forgot about most of the stuff XD....but i hope it helped somewhat lolz. but if i made any mistakes, please forgive me ^_^;;; well good luck with your studies! ^_^ 
  |
|
Re: Atoms
|
|
About what's said in the post above... 2. Electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom are under the effect of both gravitational and eletromagnetic forces; the eletromagnetic, however, is much stronger than the gravitational in the atom scale. 3. When matter and anti-matter meet, they don't get converted into another particle... They simply annihilate each other and get totally transformed into energy (where the energy released is e=mc²).
"From East Middle School, Suzumiya Haruhi.
I'm have no interest in ordinary humans. If there are any aliens, time travelers, sliders or espers here, then come join me."
|
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by FiShStIcK-------CaNaDa
on 2006-08-19 10:55:53 (edited 2006-08-19 11:01:16)
|
|
en...that's interesting....I thought electrons are made of energy, and if we tried to emit energy(alpha particles?) to an atom, the electrons would not be fallen apart(like when you hit an apple with a stick) but rather drift away from the nucleus or the beam(energy beam?!). and the last part I'm not sure...the reason why the electrons are drifting away from the beam is because they repell the opposite charge, alpha particles, in this case, are positively charged....bu wait!! what if we use beta particles?! will the electrons drift away from the beam or XXXX?! en...read these stuff in some book last summer...by the way...what are alpha & beta particles anyway? God I am stupid~~!>< to the person who's above the person above me(-_-): thanks even though you didn't quite answere my question, but I really appreciate(en...bad spelling) that...learn something new today^-^ to the person who's below the person who's above the person above me(-_-bb): you sure know your stuffs~~!^-^ hope to see you around more often ^-^(en...bad grammar...again) |
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by MiCHiYo μ
on 2006-08-24 04:29:43 (edited 2006-08-24 04:30:25)
|
|
@FiShStIcK-------CaNaDa dear, here's a tip: try moving your mouse to the avatar of the user... then look at the status bar at the bottom of your browser... yup! that one! you see the last few thingies that says name=blah blah blah blah? yeah... that's the name of the person the mouse is pointing at. so that you won't be confusing a whole lotta people who reads your posts, try typing their name in or addressing them properly, owkie? ^_^ i really haven't gotten much to reply about the whole atoms thing because they have been answered. heehee! by the way, those were K and fallen angel (aka miss frypan). >_< -michiyo- 
 beware. the QueeN oF SiGGieS is here. kill that mr. scrolly or your siggy goes BAI BAI. it's solidarity month! let's be united! +[-- GeNDouNiaNS: i am half-back! visit my blog by clicking on the siggie banner! updated: 12.07.07 --]+
~*..:: i'm never going to give up... if i do, then it wasn't worth trying. ::..*~
|
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by yukito-san
on 2006-08-31 08:05:43
|
|
Alpha particles are essentually fast moving Helium nuclei or in other words 2 protons and 2 neutrons bound together. Beta particles are fast moving electrons or positrons (the antimatter equivalant of an electron) which are emitted when either a proton or neutron in the nucleus decays. The final form of radiation which you didn't describe is a Gamma ray which is simply a high energy photon (electromagnetic ray). Now were an atom were to absorb energy like I think you are describing, electrons simply move to higher orbitals to store the potential energy. This basically means they move further away from the nucleus but still continue to orbit it. Since electrons however are aways seeking the lowest energy configuration in an atom, soon after moving to a higher orbital, they move to a lower orbital and in turn emit another photon with a frequency depending on how far it moves and the orbitals it moves from and to. If you are still not sure what photons are, they are simply electromagetic radiation. Anything from light to infared to UV to microwaves to X-rays are forms of electromagnetic radiation and their classification is determined by their frequency. As far as energy beams are concerned, electron beams do exist and are used regularly in science. For example, an electron beam microscope shoots electrons through a sample in order to visualize things which are too small to see with a light microscope. I don't think however that they can ever be utilized for weapons purposes as you might be impling since the equipment to create an electron beam is quite large. Hope this helps to answers some of your questions. |
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by
on 2006-08-31 18:55:22 |
| Technically a weponized form of electron beams is quite possible, even with our current technology. It was pioneered in the early 1930's by Nikola Tesla (the guy who invnted AC or alternating current). Basically an electron "beam" would be a higly foucused arc of electricity, what are electrons really other than energy. While Tesla only really produced a coil that would strike any object that entered within the currents maximum arcing distance it holds the basic priciples needed for such a weapon. An example of such a device could be mounted in a standard hardpoint on a plane, upon building up a suffiecent charge an arc or "directed beam" of electrons(electricity) would meet with a specific target a set distance away. Such a weapon could be used by low-flying aircraft to compleatly purge an area simply by flying over. It's by no means an effective stratigy yet as we do not have suffienct power-plants to provide demands for such an emmision, but we can creat very lethal ammounts of eletricty with things as simple as bicycles. |
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by
on 2006-08-31 19:47:27 (edited 2006-08-31 19:56:00)
|
|
it would be hard to aim a beam of electrons in the air because the air molecules interfere greatly with the momentum of the beam. otherwise, lightning would strike in one strait line, rather than branch into many directions. electron beams work well in, say, a TV tube where the vacuum does not interfere with the direction of the beam. beams of photons cut through air much better (lasers). however, it would be cool, dare i say bad-ass, to be able to rain down lightning from the sky on your enemies! The problem is, how do you prevent yourself from being shocked in the process? EDIT: put another way, you are talking about a spark, something we all know very well. the ability for a spark to jump is inversely proportional to some exponent of the distance, i.e., they don't like to jump long distances. you could, however, throw the electrons at near-light speeds! then they would fly for a little while, but eventually come to a stop due to the air (as i said before). its hard to fit a (modern day) particle accelerator on a plane. :P
|
|
Re: Atoms
Link |
by
on 2006-09-01 19:38:02 |
| To prevent yourself from being shocked is quite simple, it's the reason why most planes and cars don't recive damage if they get struck by lightning. It's because they have a metal outersurface that allows for the eletrcity to pass over rather than through the object. It may be very possible that the energy created by the afforementioned weapon could arc back onto the source-plane, in the likely event of this happening the exsistance of a full conductive surface with grounding back in the weapon would mean that the electricity would basically use the surface as a giant capacitor. The charge would build up until either of two things occured; suffiecient time would pass and the charge would dissapte or the charge would be released onto another object (i.e. ground, tree, tank, ect.) If the charge were to penatrate the outer layers of the plane it is higly unlikely due to the lack of grounding, all the charge(volts) in world will barely hurt you if there's no current(amps) to it. A low amp charge does little damage to anything, while even a low voltage high amp charge can kill you very quickly. |
|
Re: Atoms
|
|
Wait, so if the main problem with electron guns is air, then in space it could be useful, right? Let's attach one to the international space station and zap some aliens! But I guess D-Ninja is right... A car is pretty close to a Faraday Cage, so a lightning is very likely to not harm anyone inside the car (though I can't say the same about the car's inner circuits). Anyway, I was supposed to know a lot more about eletrodynamics since a got a test on the 14th... But I rather waste my time watchnig anime than studying physics.
"From East Middle School, Suzumiya Haruhi.
I'm have no interest in ordinary humans. If there are any aliens, time travelers, sliders or espers here, then come join me."
|