Why does electrodynamics say that the electron cannot rotate around the nucleus?

Thread Starter

Motanache

Joined Mar 2, 2015
537
Why does electrodynamics say that the electron cannot rotate around the nucleus?
Because this would continuously radiate energy.

Sure I can tell you about radiation Larmor......
That doesn't mean I'm happy with this explanation.
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
16,103
Why does electrodynamics say that the electron cannot rotate around the nucleus?
Because this would continuously radiate energy.

Sure I can tell you about radiation Larmor......
That doesn't mean I'm happy with this explanation.
The problem is that we cannot say precisely what is happening. Rotating around the nucleus is allowed but has a low probability of occurrence. My favorite analogy is the quantum mechanical tiger. The Great Hunter cannot get off a shot at the tiger because if he knows where the tiger is, he doesn't know how fast the tiger is moving and in what direction. On the other hand, if the hunter know how fast the tiger is moving and in which direction, then the tiger appears to be everywhere at the same time. This is a very tough, but fundamental nut to crack
 

Delta Prime

Joined Nov 15, 2019
994
The problem is that we cannot say precisely what is happening. Rotating around the nucleus is allowed but has a low probability of occurrence. My favorite analogy is the quantum mechanical tiger. The Great Hunter cannot get off a shot at the tiger because if he knows where the tiger is, he doesn't know how fast the tiger is moving and in what direction. On the other hand, if the hunter know how fast the tiger is moving and in which direction, then the tiger appears to be everywhere at the same time. This is a very tough, but fundamental nut to crack
Hmmm! Very interesting!
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

Motanache

Joined Mar 2, 2015
537
I don't believe the Schrödinger eq. I don't think it gives us a chance to find the electron, but that's another discussion.
 

Thread Starter

Motanache

Joined Mar 2, 2015
537
An accelerated charge radiates energy. As it loses energy, it will fall into the nucleus.
That's what I want to ask!
a decelerated electric charge emit radiation, but when accelerating, when the speed increases it does not emit radiation, I think.
 

Thread Starter

Motanache

Joined Mar 2, 2015
537
and in our case suppose an electron rotates at the fixed radius with an angular velocity fixed.we only have centrifugal and centripetal acceleration that cancel each other out

if we imagine the electron being in a turn of a coil it generates a constant magnetic field that no induces Fataday
 

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
3,308
Acceleration and “deceleration” differ only in direction. The laws of physics do not depend on direction.

Go learn some physics. This, or any other forum is not the place to learn basic science. If you come here disputing established science, we are not likely to support you.

Bob
 

Thread Starter

Motanache

Joined Mar 2, 2015
537
"So do you have a theory?" Do you think that the solutions of the equation are useful to someone?
Feynman: it is note possible to derive Schrodinger,s eq front anything web know
 

Thread Starter

Motanache

Joined Mar 2, 2015
537
"If you come here disputing established science, we are not likely to support you."
I understand. Maybe others want to discuss, to criticize concepts, I am waiting for them to discuss.

I like to think that we have the right to analyze and criticize.
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
16,103
"If you come here disputing established science, we are not likely to support you."
I understand. Maybe others want to discuss, to criticize concepts, I am waiting for them to discuss.

I like to think that we have the right to analyze and criticize.
No one here seriously questions your rights. Our willingness to engage in the conversation you want to have may be seriously limited, and you need to understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof which you have not offered.

Just to be clear your thread title contains an assertion that you assume to be true without evidence, and I don't agree that the assertion is true. I then cited what I believe is the evidence for lack of truth in your assertion. As far as I am concerned there is nothing further I wish to discuss on the matter.
 

andrewmm

Joined Feb 25, 2011
1,464
One does have to ask, does an electron rotate , or not,
thats a model , that is useful for some physics,
wave theory of an electron works better for other physics,


One other thing, @Motanache

Have you posted on this forum as another name , as these are very similar to other posts I have seen on the forum,
 

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
3,308
Quantum mechanics gives us an answer that matches observation to the limits of our measurement accuracy. If you want to come up with a better theory, make sure your theory does the same, but is also consistent with general relativity. That is the frontier of the unknown today.

Bob
 

xox

Joined Sep 8, 2017
565
The very concept of "particles" is a very limited one. We often tend to think of an electron as a discrete object. But that might not necessarily be the most useful interpretation. Particles are nothing more than a simplified model of the macroscopic emergent property of wave packets.

To get a better understanding of electron orbits, imagine instead a system of multi-frequency standing waves in multidimensional space. Viewing things in that way fortunately eliminates the "infinite energy" conundrum that arises from particulate models.

This is all somewhat analogous to how temperature is just a macroscopic concept which describes the average kinetic energy of "particle systems" in terms of the mathematics of entropy (microstates). It's just a model. Not the "thing itself".
 
Top