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.

 

Is there a question there, or are you just venting?

 

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

 

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!

 

https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/trapped-quantum-particles.179632/post-1637638

Position and momentum of quantum particles.

 

An accelerated charge radiates energy. As it loses energy, it will fall into the nucleus. This is why we needed quantum mechanics. It solved this contradiction of classical electrodynamics.

Bob

 

Interestingly enough electrons do have some small probability of being inside the nucleus. FYI for a hydrogen atom it is:

\( \approx\;9 \times\;10^{-15} \)

for a 1s electron with l=m=0. It gets smaller rapidly for electrons in higher energy states.

Can the electron be found inside the nucleus? - Diego Assencio

 

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.

 

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.

So do you have a better theory?

Bob

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

"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

 

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.

I can assure you that the electrons do not care one whit about what you believe. Neither do I for that matter.

 

"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.

 

"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.

 

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,

 

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

 

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".

 

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

I hope this helps!
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/opensource-physics-books-and-papers.158741/post-1380169