Stability of the Hydrogen Atom

According to classical physics, the hydrogen atom is composed of an electron orbiting a proton and the assumption here, resulting from mathematical calculations, is that the electron would eventually plunge into the proton because the electrons orbital velocity would erode and then could not keep it in orbit.
Using classical physics though, I would like to explain why that does not happen.
The electrons revolution around the proton causes the proton to spin in the same direction as its motion and the closer the electron approaches the proton, the higher its velocity and subsequently, the higher the proton spin. This proton spin generates a magnetic field of its own and this field creates a repulsion toward the electrons magnetic field which results from its motion around the proton. These magnetic fields reach a balanced state in the ground state orbit of the electron and this repulsion keeps the electron in that state until an outside photon disturbs the electrons orbital momentum stability.
These magnetic fields are generally referred to as the ‘Bohr Magneton’. However, the electron is portrayed as having spin. In the above paragraph, I only refer to the field generated by the electron’s orbital motion. I do not believe that the electron spins but instead refer to proton spin. The Schrodinger orbitals, I believe, introduced the electron spin. The reason the electron does not spin is for the same reason that all the satellites in our solar system do not spin. The slight fluidity of these satellites prevents their spin by the gravitational distortion caused by the planet. The electron can be compared to the planetary satellites as a fluid particle and therefore, be slightly distorted to prevent intrinsic spin. Therefore, substitute proton spin for electron spin.
The only reason why classical physics failed here is that the calculations were incomplete. If the proton spin and resulting magnetic fields were taken into account, this formula would be complete and it would not fail. As long as there is no excitation, the hydrogen atom will remain in its ground state indefinitely.

Do you have the complete calculations somewhere then?

The reason for this is because an accelerating charge radiates electromagnetic energy. That is, an electron would radiate away all of its energy and spiral in to the nucleus in short order. The orbital decay is due to radiation and not to traditional orbital degradation as you find in our solar system, for example.

What I think you mean here is not "spin" (which is an intrinsic angular momentum) but rather "rotation". These are two different things. Do we know that spin exists? Absolutely. In fact, you prove it every time you press your hand against a solid object and find that you don't penetrate the object. Spins are excluded things, they cannot exist in the same "space" if their values are the same (this is the so-called "Pauli Exclusion Principle"). Your ability to pick up your coffee in the morning is proof that electrons have an intrinsic angular momentum that doesn't have to do with their rotation.

A magnetic field will not repel an electron: magnetic fields do no work. All a magnetic field can do is create a force 90 degrees to both the direction of travel and the magnetic field. As you have the electron's trajectory and the proton's magnetic field in the same orientation, your electron will actually end up accelerating faster around the nucleus, thus losing more energy and spiralling into the nucleus even more quickly.

Not the way you described them, they're not. The Bohr magneton does indeed deal with the magnetic interaction of the hydrogen atom, but it has to do with the intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of the nucleus and the electron.

I realize spin is a difficult subject to understand, but it is absolutely necessary mathematically.

Electrons have an intrinsic angular momentum of +1/2 or -1/2 the fundamental quantum of angular momentum (h_bar). This is a requirement for a stable solution of the particle in any given state. You cannot have an electron that has zero spin. Such an object would be a boson and would not have the same properties that electrons have.

Well, first of all, "spin" is a quantum mechanical property and not a macroscopic property, but even so, satellites in our solar system rotate around their axes.

That's a meaningless statement.

classical physics... :-?

thats only stupid

__________________
Do not trust your eyes

Wrong. Satellites do spin. The Moon rotates once each month and thus keeps one side towards us at all times (approximately). The inner satellites of the outer planets are likewise locked into synchronous spin. Outer satellites are able to rotate at rates independent of their revolution. For example, Saturn's moon Hyperion has an extremely irregular, chaotic rotation.

The problem of the stability of the hydrogen atom was solved long ago. The solution is called "Quantum Mechanics". Please read two textbooks on quantum mechanics and call us in the morning.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

As I understood it, the electron in the hydrogen atom is at a wavelength that makes it a standing wave in the atom. That's how it stays where it is.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

orbit .. the corkscrew motion
of the small about the larger
depicted as a circle {simplist case}
in a demenshalized view .. looking
into the cork
---------
spin ?? a referance to an axis of
semi stability {where} under constrain
constants of short time frame deminsions
stability cane an is infered
============
nothing could be further from the truth
the truth is.. in Spin dynamics
INN.stability rules.. Get A Top
now back to Centers vs Frames That Flex {or Zoom}

That was what Bohr noticed when he first developed his model. This still doesn't solve the problem of the electron radiating away its energy as it orbits the proton. One would have to assume that an electron in such an orbit behaved differently from one that was not. QM gets around this by discarding the notion that the electron has to orbit at all. The electron "orbitals" that come out of the Schroedinger and Dirac equations are actually probability density functions rather than descriptions of trajectories.

cyreks reply:
I am not an advanced mathematician but if you want to do some research on the hydrogen atom, I suggest you get a introductory physics book and study the Rydberg Constant, Balmer formula and then the Bohr formula which resulted from Rutherfords planetary idea of the hydrogen atom

[quote]
JS wrote: The orbital decay is due to radiation and not to traditional orbital degradation as you find in our solar system.

cyreks reply:
I never thought the solar system was in a state of degradation.
The Bohr formula states that the electrons radiates energy ‘only’ when they go from an outer orbit to an inner orbit. However, my idea would pertain to the ground state of the atom. It explains why the atom is stable in the ground state.

[quote]
JS wrote: What I think you mean here is not “spin” (which is an intrinsic angular momentum) but rather “rotation”.

cyreks reply:
I use spin according to its true meaning which is intrinsic angular momentum of an object on its ‘own axis’.

[quote]
JS wrote: A magnetic field will not repel and electron:

cyreks reply:

I said the protons magnetic field will create a ‘repulsion’ toward the electrons magnetic field to keep it in suspension. Both fields would have the same inclination (polarization I believe is correct here) and movement in the same direction (arrows defining movement of field lines).

[quote]
JS wrote: Satellites in our solar system rotate about their axis.

cyreks reply:
If you are talking about synchronous spin which Celestial Mechanic mentions later, this is not intrinsic spin but spin about the axial point of the planet. The satellites do not rotate about their own axis.
Some minor planets that have irregular shaped bodies because they are solid throughout, have intrinsic spin but not the larger spherical satellite bodies that have a fluid center.

To Eta C:

cyreks reply: The Bohr theory of the hydrogen atom is correct and satisfactory since I explained why the hydrogen atom is stable in the ground state.
The Bohr theory explains why the atom emits light.
This can happen after the atom absorbs a photon by bouncing to a outer orbit and then subsequently reradiating a photon when it returns to its inner orbit.
However, as one goes up to larger atoms such as the helium atom, it does not apply.

You mean atoms heavier than hydrogen won't emit light?

Darn, I've got to replace all my neon light signs.

Why doesn't it apply? The lasers I used to maintain work on the same principle using active elements much heavier than helium...such as chromium and neodymium. They do it quite well in fact. After being elevated to an "excited" state, electrons emit photons in the process of falling to the metastable state...then emit more upon falling to the ground state. (IIRC, the M, L, and K shells, respectively. Someone please correct my failing memory if I'm wrong.)

__________________
Cheers...Loreto

True, the Bohr model does explain why all atoms (just not hydrogen) emit light. Hydrogen is the usual model since it's the simplest atom (one electron, one proton). However, no physicist was satisfied with the model as a theory. Why should the electron behave differently when it's in an orbital than it would if it weren't. That is, why wouldnt' it radiate synchrotron radiation there as well. That's why QM continued to evolve. Much of the work of Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, et.al. was concerned with explaining the situation. The answer, in short, is that the electrons don't orbit. If we have a precise measurement of their energy (as in the ground state) we have no information on their position or motion (Heisenberg uncertainty). We can only describe the probabilty they will be in a certain place.

Then why are you so sure that "If the proton spin and resulting magnetic fields were taken into account, this formula would be complete and it would not fail," then?

QM tells us there's a certain probability to find electron at this distance from nucleii, but says nothing more.
electron coud be jumping from one place to another or orbiting in an erratic way or even xpanding. I've read an electron may stretch to some mimllimeters which enormous compared to it's normal size.

in short QM is incomplete.

__________________
Knowledge is Success ...............

I don't think that that first paragraph implies that QM is necessarily incomplete

False. Every object known to exist in the solar system has an intrinsic spin, as you have defined it. Every object known to exist in the solar system rotates about it's own axis, in the reference frame of the local standard of rest. This obviously includes all moons and satellites. Also note that I should exclude a few artificial devices, human made, and built to be at least partially de-spun.

What's wrong with the theory we already have, which explains why all atoms are stable in the ground state?

Indeed, it is.

But, as T.T. points out, we have a better model for why this is the case. What do you have against Quantum Mechanics anyway?

You should do some research into "spin". I know it's confusing for the layman, but there really is a difference between the traditional "spin" that you see in, say, a gyroscope and the spin associated with an electron.

This I do not follow. Are you aware of the Zeeman Effect, michael? Perhaps you're thinking of something along those lines?

As Tim T point out, this ain't true.

No, you didn't. There isn't a balance as you claim. It just doesn't work that way.

Among other things. It also explains the characteristic sizes of atoms and also what the allowed energy levels are.

It applies for 'hydrogen-like' ions, interestingly enough. All you do is multiply your nuclear charge by "Z", the atomic number of the element.

J.S. Princeton wrote:

Nice pun (whether intended or not.)



(edited to add citation)

Everything is spinning literally? No objects are buzzing along out there in a straight line and not rotating? Even temporarily like some intergalactic asteroid? I'm confused.

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/