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

#### sparky 1

Joined Nov 3, 2018
785
The electrons spin path is not always circular around a nucleus determined by 90% probability for position at a specific time
with respect to the quantum state so that a material can have different orbital shapes with energy levels.
The complexity of orbitals suggests that the electron can act as a wave and not just a particle.
When an electron jumps between orbitals it is accompanied by emmited or absorbed amount of electromagetic energy (hv).
According to the Maxwell theory, the frequency (ν) of classical radiation is equal to the rotation frequency (νrot) of the electron in its orbit, with harmonics at integer multiples of this frequency.

In 1830 Michael Faraday saw in his mind the concept of lines of force he said it was a property began to develop a system to map it.
That system was not perfect but it is electrodynamic, I think...imperfect concept reaching for perfect belief system that worked (sort of) for spheres but not all orbitals I think the sphere can be the most condense orbital having structure of electrostatic perpendicularly linked to electromagnetic.
There are so many other geometries that are involved but now we might need another imperfect concept at a smaller level even if people laugh Faraday invented electromagnetic induction, laws of electrolysis, and the electric motor that eventually changed everything.

Last edited:

#### Motanache

Joined Mar 2, 2015
540
"Go learn some physics"
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” Einstein
this quote means it is easy to blame shift

#### Motanache

Joined Mar 2, 2015
540
Acceleration and “deceleration” differ only in direction. The laws of physics do not depend on direction.

Bob
I can give you two examples when the decelerated electrons emit radiation - the x-ray tube and the reflex klistron.
Can you give me just one example when accelerated electrons emit radiation and use E = h * f? positive acceleration.
However, according to Faraday, it should emite wave
At the cathode ray tube o,CRT screens during the acceleration of the electron they do not emit radiation.

Last edited:

#### nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,582
I can give you two examples when the decelerated electrons emit radiation - the x-ray tube and the reflex klistron.
Can you give me just one example when accelerated electrons emit radiation and use E = h * f? positive acceleration.
However, according to Faraday, it should emite wave
At the cathode ray tube o,CRT screens during the acceleration of the electron they do not emit radiation.
As was said above there are only accelerations in physics.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-1/Acceleration
The Direction of the Acceleration Vector
Since acceleration is a vector quantity, it has a direction associated with it. The direction of the acceleration vector depends on two things:

• whether the object is speeding up or slowing down
• whether the object is moving in the + or - direction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_formula#Derivation_2:_Edward_M._Purcell_approach

So the fundamental question is this:

So we see that kinky electric fields across space are the key. The KE conversion from an electron suddenly stopping has a higher kink factor than a smooth acceleration to X level of KE.

Your reference to the Klystron brings back fond memories. Most of my industrial accelerator physics training was at the old Varian campus at Stanford.

#### Motanache

Joined Mar 2, 2015
540
The electron can be captured by the nucleus.
But not because the electron would lose energy and fall into the nucleus.

Because the nucleus "decides" that.
Well, didn't the electron have a speed in its orbit that gives it a centrifugal force that keeps it away from the nucleus?

Electron capture is one form of radioactivity.

#### Motanache

Joined Mar 2, 2015
540
" If the electron is moving in a wire we have a current. A moving electron produces a magnetic field, " from:

Does a moving electron produce a magnetic field only if it moves in a conducting force or if it moves in a vacuum does it produce a magnetic field?

If two conductors attract each other, Then two electrons moving at a constant speed next to each other in a vacuum should begin to attract each other. Correct?

#### Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
21,322
Moving charges produce fields, and they need no help from the Ether.

#### nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,582
I'm not Einstein, "Go learn some 'basic' physics" if you want to understand. It's fun.

#### Motanache

Joined Mar 2, 2015
540

#### BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
9,296
" If the electron is moving in a wire we have a current. A moving electron produces a magnetic field, " from:

Does a moving electron produce a magnetic field only if it moves in a conducting force or if it moves in a vacuum does it produce a magnetic field?

View attachment 241112If two conductors attract each other, Then two electrons moving at a constant speed next to each other in a vacuum should begin to attract each other. Correct?
There will be an attractive magnetic force that is overwhelmed by the electric repulsive force, so the net force is repulsive.

Actually, there is no such thing as a magnetic force. It is merely a correction to the electric force for moving charges due to relativity.

As a physics major, my first college course in electromagnetism started by introducing special relativity, which did not make much sense until we got to magnetism.

Bob

#### ZCochran98

Joined Jul 24, 2018
305
There will be an attractive magnetic force that is overwhelmed by the electric repulsive force, so the net force is repulsive.

Actually, there is no such thing as a magnetic force. It is merely a correction to the electric force for moving charges due to relativity.

As a physics major, my first college course in electromagnetism started by introducing special relativity, which did not make much sense until we got to magnetism.

Bob
I remember learning the field tensors and d'Alembertian for those corrections in my E&M textbook. Challenging, somewhat, but quite informative.

#### Delta Prime

Joined Nov 15, 2019
1,311

#### Deleted member 115935

Joined Dec 31, 1969
0
Why does electrodynamics say that the electron cannot rotate around the nucleus?
Because this would continuously radiate energy.

That doesn't mean I'm happy with this explanation.

so where are you on the answer to this question ?

did you ever post the source where the quote is that says
"electrodynamics say that the electron cannot rotate around the nucleus"

#### nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,582

#### Delta Prime

Joined Nov 15, 2019
1,311
I can't wait for the next Quantum Physicist triathlon.
I'm going to stand beside the bikes and yell out their speeds. They'll get so lost, they'll end back at the starting line!

#### nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,582
so where are you on the answer to this question ?

did you ever post the source where the quote is that says
"electrodynamics say that the electron cannot rotate around the nucleus"
The Bohr model of the atom is just plain wrong like the phlogiston theory of combustible bodies. Why do we still teach this model to people that won't advance to a level (beyond circuit theory) of understanding to see that Bohr is a inconsistent, erroneous idea? It's major contribution to science in its short-life was to motivate correct answers to all of the models short comings.

Last edited:

#### BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
9,296
I can't wait for the next Quantum Physicist triathlon.
I'm going to stand beside the bikes and yell out their speeds. They'll get so lost, they'll end back at the starting line!
Okay, but if you know their speeds, how did you find them to stand beside them?

Bob

#### Delta Prime

Joined Nov 15, 2019
1,311
Okay, but if you know their speeds, how did you find them to stand beside them?

Bob
By using Classical Newtonian physics.
Bravo!

#### Deleted member 115935

Joined Dec 31, 1969
0
The Bohr model of the atom is just plain wrong like the phlogiston theory of combustible bodies. Why do we still teach this model to people that won't advance to a level (beyond circuit theory) of understanding to see that Bohr is a inconstant, erroneous idea? It's major contribution to science in its short-life was to motivate correct answers to all of the models short comings.
@nsaspook

you seem to have answered some one else's question, or miss read mine.
in case you missed it

did you ever post the source where the quote is that says
"electrodynamics say that the electron cannot rotate around the nucleus"

#### nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,582
@nsaspook

you seem to have answered some one else's question, or miss read mine.
in case you missed it

did you ever post the source where the quote is that says
"electrodynamics say that the electron cannot rotate around the nucleus"
If kangaroos had no tails, they would topple over.

My post was a rant not directed at you but at teaching the Bohr model in general because it leads to implied truths like the OP asks about that are scientifically counterfactual.