Now on ScienceBlogs: Q: How do you sex a Smilodon? (A: Very carefully)

Seed Media Group

Built on Facts

An exploration of physics and the quest to understand our world.

Profile

profile.jpg Matt Springer is a graduate student of physics at Texas A&M university. He is also an occasional writer and tinkerer, and he is probably too curious for his own good.

Search

Feeds/Networks

http://www.wikio.com

Donate

Help Matt not starve! Use this link to amazon.com when you order from Amazon, and a fraction of the purchase price will be sent to me at zero cost to you. Much obliged, and thanks for your patronage.


Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Physics/Math Blogs

My Other-Than-Science Reading (variable, very incomplete)

« More Sailing | Main | The Final Countdown »

The Downward Spiral

Posted on: August 7, 2008 10:00 AM, by Matt Springer

In 1909, Ernest Rutherford (actually his grad students) shot subatomic particles at gold atoms to try to probe the insides of those atoms. To his surprise, he found that instead of being one continuous glob, atoms actually had most of their mass concentrated in a small nucleus at the center of the atom. This quickly developed into the idea that the atom was like a tiny solar system: massive heavy thing at the center, orbited by electrons. Like this, except replace the planets with electrons and erase all that messy stuff like asteroids and the Kupier belt.

solar.png

Now the parts of an atom are far too light to be held together by gravity, but the electrical attraction of the negative electrons to the positive nucleus works just as well.

The model is wrong. Atoms aren't actually like that. Now it's not a useless model. It's closer than older models, and even today it's not bad as a rough schematic way of thinking about atoms (especially in the context of intro chemistry). But it's wrong. One reason is that if it were true, we would all die instantly. No kidding. Here's why.

Yesterday we talked about how accelerating charges radiate energy. As you know, acceleration need not involve a change in speed, it can also involve a change in direction. Anything orbiting in a circle is doing that all the time. Let me write down two expressions: one for the force exerted by the nucleus on the electron, one for the force required to make the electron move in a circle. They have to be equal, and to keep things simple let's do the hydrogen atom where the nucleus and the electron have the same charge.

5.png

You can solve that for v, and then plug the result into the equation for kinetic energy, K = 1/2 mv2 in order to find the kinetic energy of that orbiting electron. I get:

6.png

I can also plug the velocity back into the acceleration equation above and find the actual value for the acceleration:

7.png

Holy zark that's a pretty huge acceleration. While electrons falling under the comparitively sedate force of earth's gravity might not radiate much, an electron with that much acceleration might radiate quite a bit. Plug into the Larmor formula to find out how much:

8.png

But we just saw above that the electron only has something like 2.18 x 10-18 J of energy in the first place. All the energy would be radiated away in a fraction of a nanosecond, and the electron will spiral down into the nucleus. Every atom in the universe would almost instantly collapse into a neutral glob of electron/proton/neutron soup.

It's a fact that such a thing does not happen. Therefore something is wrong with our theory of the atom. It turns out that in fact electrons do not orbit like little planets. Instead, they exhibit wave-like behavior. Each possible configuration of the wave must satisfy particular properties of the Schrodinger equation, and it turns out that there's one particular minimum energy that the electron simply can't get below. It will radiate (in a quantum mechanical fashion) until it's reached that energy and then it will simply stay put.

Cool, huh?

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/78336

Comments

1

So are electrons actually moving around their wacky orbitals, or kind of smeared out across the orbitals, according to the probability density?

Posted by: Alex M | August 7, 2008 10:43 AM

2

At the level of the orbitals, the particle description of electrons breaks down completely. Describing them as smeared out is much better. The probability density pretty much is the electron.

Posted by: Matt Springer | August 7, 2008 11:00 AM

3

But what about hydrinos ?

Posted by: _Arthur | August 7, 2008 11:08 AM

4

A muon can replace an orbital electron. Being 206.77 times heavier it has 1/206.77 the orbital radius. In heavy elements its lowest energy orbit is inside the nucleus, density 2x10^14 g/cm^3. The common perception of stuff and its mutual interaction is a subset of reality - leptons ignore the strong force.

Posted by: Uncle Al | August 7, 2008 11:12 AM

5

That is one cool finding.

Posted by: IBY | August 7, 2008 12:07 PM

6

Just learned the Larmor formula in E&M II this past Spring. They start telling you your Freshman year all about accelerating charges radiating energy and the problem it poses for the planetary model of the atom, but you don't actually get to derive the formula for another 2 or 3 years. Talk about building suspense!

Posted by: DG | August 7, 2008 12:24 PM

7

Excellent read. Thank you for blogging. I am just getting into math and physics, I have not had any advanced courses yet but your postings are making them seem even more appealing. I can't wait.

Posted by: WithoutSol | August 7, 2008 1:16 PM

8

Love the blog. I did my PhD in physics (nuclear magnetic resonance) but am now postdoc-ing in a chemistry department, so this blog is a great way for me to stay in touch with physics. Keep it up!

Posted by: Luke O'Dell | August 7, 2008 2:51 PM

9

Excellent post, and excellent blog. I am very glad to see you here on SB. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: DataJack | August 7, 2008 6:08 PM

Post a Comment

(Email address is entirely optional, but a consistent email - fake is fine - helps the system identify repeat commenters as not spam.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM