/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11204158]

Can someone please explain to me what force causes an electron to spin a round a nucleus indefinitely?

[Anonymous No.11204159]

>inb4 muh electronic wavefunction
>orbitolz lololol

[Anonymous No.11204161]

>>11204159
I have idea what you're trying to say.

[Anonymous No.11204165]

your conception of electrons as classical particles spinning, moving, and losing energy in the process is wrong
>>11204159
>n-nature should conform to my preconceived macroscale notions about it, o-or i'll make fun of it

[Anonymous No.11204166]

Can someone please explain what should be an extremely simple question for this board. What causes the electron to spin?

[Anonymous No.11204167]

>>11204161
>I have idea what you're trying to say.
WHAT IS THIS IDEA I'M DYING OF ANTICIPATION

[Anonymous No.11204168]

>>11204165
So what is it actually doing? Explain it to me like a child but enough so I actually understand it.

[Anonymous No.11204169]

>>11204166
> What causes the electron to spin?
Me. Next question.

[Anonymous No.11204179]

From Quora;
>What causes it? Nothing. Electrons don’t actually spin. The “spin” of an electron is a property of an electron. It is intrinsic. It’s something that it is, not something that it does. Orbitals contain electrons and electrons have spin and they continue to have spin when they are in orbitals. But their spin is unrelated to the fact that they are in orbitals.

>According to Ampere’s law, a moving charge generates a magnetic field mutually at right angles to its direction of motion. So the spin of the electron about its axis produces a magnetic field and its rotation around the nucleus also produces a magnetic field. The net magnetic field is the vector sum of these magnetic fields. Don’t quote me on this, but the rotational magnetic field determines which way the electron spins so that the intrinsic magnetic field due to intrinsic spin is always vector added to the rotational magnetic field.

So it's natural state is movement and it generates its own magnetic field from said movement which requires 0 force to produce...? This seems kind of wrong.

>>11204169
Can you guys really not explain this?

[Anonymous No.11204185]

>>11204166
you're asking questions based on a false model

[Anonymous No.11204186]

>>11204159
>>11204165
>>11204167
>>11204169
>>11204185
Ok I get it. John Moffat, Smolin and Woit are right. String theory is bullshit and our current mathematical explanations simply aren't good enough to explain this yet. Thanks /pseudo-sci/

[Anonymous No.11204187]

>>11204179
fucking electrons aren't allowed to share quantum states or some shit, that's pauli exclusion, it's why matter be hard as tits, but not all particles do pauli done them wrong. photons can be in the same place at the same time, for example. shit's electrons' wavefunction who tell all whethers something be empty space or no. fuckin region filled with electronic wavefunction feels hard to my touch, cuz two electrons ain't gettin compressed into the same space you heard, not without squeezing their wavefunction to have very high spatial variations nigga, by the exclusion principle nigga. atoms shits full of electronic wavefunctions nigga and shit's not empty space, at least not by any reasonable definition.
>what force causes an electron to spin a round a nucleus indefinitely?
not nuff energy to not do that nigga

[Anonymous No.11204188]

>>11204185
If you can't explain it simply you don't fucking understand it yourself NOW FUCKING EXPLAIN IT

[Anonymous No.11204190]

>>11204188
see >>11204187

[Anonymous No.11204191]

>>11204159
>If you can't explain it simply you don't fucking understand it yourself NOW FUCKING EXPLAIN IT
>>11204165
>>11204167
>>11204169
>>11204185
>>11204187
Literally all RETARDS. You can't even fucking explain the most simple fucking thing in physics.

[Anonymous No.11204192]

>>11204187
>>11204190
>or some shit
>or some shit
>or some shit
>or some shit
HURRR YEAH OR SOME SHIT HURR FUCK YOU

[Anonymous No.11204194]

>>11204191
nigga I told you just that right here >>11204187
read my post or get the fuck out
>>11204192
>can't handle the truth nigga

[Anonymous No.11204196]

>>11204187
this nigga knows his shit

[Anonymous No.11204203]

>>11204168
It's smeared out over space as the picture indicates >>11204165

[Anonymous No.11204204]

>>11204194

[Anonymous No.11204205]

>>11204166
We just don't know. But the fact that it generates a linear magnetic field implies it can, actually, be interpreted as literal spinning.

[Anonymous No.11204212]

>>11204205
>actually, be interpreted as literal spinning.
since when?
t. bs in physics 2014

[Anonymous No.11204213]

>>11204205

[LMC !!6bFXHDKL67m No.11204215]

The scale of the atom has Planck's constant in it, so it's quantum. The force that keeps the electrons near the nucleus is the electrostatic attraction between the electron and the nucleus. To understand why the electron doesn't fall into the nucleus formally, you can solve the Schrodinger equation, but there are seat-of-the-pants arguments that are correct to give the right order of magnitude.

Uncertainty principle: in order to confine the electron to a box of radius r around the nucleus, you have to give it a momentum of order h/r, which means that it's kinetic energy is roughly [math]{\hbar^2\over 2m r^2}[/math], while the potential energy is (negative) [math]{ke^2\over r}[/math]. The total energy is the difference of these two, and it has a minimum when the size of the box r is of the order of the Bohr radius: [math]r_B = { \hbar^2\over 2m ke^2}[/math].

Radiation frequency: The closely related original argument by Bohr is that the frequency of the radiation emitted by the atom should be of the order of the classical orbital frequency. Yet the radiation should also be in quanta. The classical orbital frequency is the reciprocal of the time to go around once, and it obeys Kepler's law [math]{1\over T}={1\over r^{1.5}}[/math], but the binding energy goes as [math]{1\over r}[/math] so that the level spacing at small r scales to eventually be bigger than the energy magnitude, and there should be a lowest energy level.

For a different power law force, if the potential energy goes to minus infinity with a power faster than [math]{1\over r^2}[/math], the particles attract so much that there is no stable bound state, they end up sitting on top of each other.

[Anonymous No.11204223]

>>11204213
That's actually surprisingly close to the speed of light. Which, to my knowledge, is around the speed electric fields can change.
What makes you think that equation is accurate in the first place?

[Anonymous No.11204225]

>>11204158
It's eminating from the nucleus.

[Anonymous No.11204265]

>>11204223
Nigger it's a full two orders of magnitude larger than the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.11204295]

>>11204265
It's ONLY two orders larger. Which is saying a lot, when you try to perform relativistic calculations without using the lorentz factor.

[Anonymous No.11204306]

>>11204159
>">inb4"
dumb newfag can't into proper greentext

[Anonymous No.11204332]

Electromagnetic force binds them around the nucleus.

[Anonymous No.11204795]

>>11204306
?

[Anonymous No.11204805]

>>11204158
The electronegativity and the protons [in an atom] attract the electron(s).

[Anonymous No.11204824]

>>11204215
ELI5?

[Anonymous No.11204829]

L..Linus Pauling invented atoms right?

[Anonymous No.11204859]

>>11204158
>Can someone please explain to me what force causes an electron to spin a round a nucleus indefinitely?

What electron? I have never seen any empirical evidence of this thing you call an "electron". Spin? Around an apparent nucleus? We would call that "magnetism", but some here conceptualize it as a "force" rather than something inherent and mutual to the existence of whatever nucleus you're talking of.

>>11204187
What the waves be made of?

[Anonymous No.11205137]

>>11204859
>What the waves be made of?
pfft... wassamatta wit'chu dawg? chiquita'chu better bleev ah-muhnuh letchu tra'gain. I can 'ardly figrout what wud'ja's sayin' nigga. Tsbest'chu reread what I done writ ferya eh sluntbucket b'fo'ya reweave yo' query, and then lay down the rumpus mandinga naw whatchu wanna know?

[Anonymous No.11205151]

>>11204859
>What the waves be made of?
I always assumed the 'waves' from quantum mechanics are just mathematical tools, its like asking what is force made of. A better question would be what are particles made of, and to the best of my knowledge they are excitations of various 'fields' which are fundamental objects that are quite real, like spacetime, we have observed it can be distorted, so it must be a real object.

[Anonymous No.11205170]

>>11204158
Because electric attraction, protons are ppsitive, elecrons negative, but electrons never merge with protons because their wave function

[Anonymous No.11205229]

>>11205151
>I always assumed the 'waves' from quantum mechanics are just mathematical tools, its like asking what is force made of.

Ooooh I see..So "force" doesn't exist either then. Why do you all care about it so much?

>A better question would be what are particles made of, and to the best of my knowledge they are excitations of various 'fields' which are fundamental objects that are quite real, like spacetime, we have observed it can be distorted, so it must be a real object.

I got an even better one.

"What is a field and what causes a field?"

>200 replies omitted

[Anonymous No.11205232]

>>11205151
this is an engineer
>>11205170
this is a brainlet
>>11204859
this is a pseud
>>11205137
this is the absolute state of /sci/
>>11204158
this is a faggot
>>11204215
this is the correct answer
>>11204159
this is b8 you fucks
>>11204205
this is an undergrad
>>11204213
this is incorrect
>>11204212
this is demoralizing
>since when?
It's literally a spinning point.

[Anonymous No.11205255]

>>11205232
Look, I too can make pointless posts.

[Anonymous No.11205282]

>>11205255
Well, that's... not funny.

[Anonymous No.11205313]

>>11205282
It also doesn't accomplish anything related to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.11205335]

>>11205313
yeah wtf. this faggot >>11205255 contributes nothing while >>11205232 at least resolves the objection in >>11204212

[Anonymous No.11205932]

>>11204166
>What causes the electron to spin?
It doesn't actually spin, but it was a good analogy for an observed property, so scientists called it "spin".

[Anonymous No.11205936]

>>11204158
The electrons enjoy the free headpats and they can only get that from their neutron and proton onii-chans.

[LMC !!6bFXHDKL67m No.11206165]

>>11204212
>>11205932
>It doesn't actually spin, but it was a good analogy for an observed property, so scientists called it "spin".
It's normal spin around an axis, but it's not good to picture the particle as extended, it's a spinning point.
There is no qualitative difference between an elementary particle spin and the angular momentum of a molecule, or even a baseball, except that it's usually smaller for a particle, and the elementary particle spin can be fundamentally half-integer, while orbital dynamics spin is always integer.
The two things are described by the exact same mathematical thing, the angular momentum states of quantum mechanics and their superpositions, and these have the same classical limit--- the spinning top--- which is the limit of large amount of angular momentum. The only difference is that the number of quanta of angular momentum an elementary particle has is usually small, and so it is not usually near the classical limit. The other difference is that you are not supposed to imagine the angular momentum as coming from constituent motion of parts.
But aside from that, it is angular momentum, exactly like a spinning top. It transfers to material objects. So if you have electrons on a wire, and you reverse their spin with a magnetic field, the wire will twist a little to get the twice the electronic angular momentum in a macroscopic motion. This is the famous Einstein deHaas experiment.
There is no difference between fundamental particle spin and top spin, except for size, and occasionally half-integer quantum number.
>but the spin doesn't come from the constituent motion of its parts!
It's a spinning point. What else would you expect from a spinning point? No parts, spinning. It's not even weird.

[Anonymous No.11207121]

>>11204158
basically, when they set up the simulation you live in, they used integers instead of floating point for the member variables for the Electron class. so it has to stay orbiting where it is, unless you give it enough energy to jump a whole integer increment

this bug will be patched in Reality Service Pack 2, due out sometime in the next trillion years, at which point the simulation will correctly model a homogenous quark soup instead of this chunky bullshit it's doing now

[Anonymous No.11207651]

>>11204158
It doesn't. An electron doesn't exist until an external force interacts with the atom causing a reaction. You can see this in process when observing a time-lapse of lightning strikes.

An electron spinning is just a convenient way to express that that there is a field which collapses into an electron.

[Anonymous No.11208139]

If you're asking why they 'orbit' around the nucleus indefinitely without losing energy, it's cause the energy of the wave captures the energy radiated away by the electron through resonance, forming quantised states of what can be thought of as stationary waves. The electron never loses any energy.

If you're talking about the intrinsic spin of the electron, idk

[Anonymous No.11208213]

>>11207121
Best answer itt

[Anonymous No.11208219]

[Anonymous No.11208226]

>>11207651
Interesting concept. Tell me more.

[Anonymous No.11208234]

>>11207121
>it's chunky soup
oh okay, that settles is
>it's chunky soup
wait a minute... WHY IS IT CHUNKY???????

[Anonymous No.11208241]

>>11207121
>it's chunky soup
oh okay, that settles it
>it's chunky soup
wait a minute... WHY IS IT CHUNKY???????

[Anonymous No.11208285]

>>11207651
>An electron doesn't exist until an external force interacts with the atom causing a reaction

/lit/ poster here, we've had a few Whitehead spamposters for a while, quite interesting idea called process philosophy that substance comes from process. interaction precedes material. could that be how quantum mechanics functions? does this BTFO string theory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead#Whitehead's_conception_of_reality

[Anonymous No.11208452]

>>11204225
you're wrong but i just wanna say i empathize with how you feel, youre not alone anon