I've no idea, but I like the question.

no

Magnets probably.

I think the answer is they don't and eventually the universe will cease to exist as it cools to nothing.

Theoretically they dont last forever, its just the timescale involved is so huge we cannot measure it

It's at times like this you need a RealMan. Or a GrahamS. ... did the trick for me!

I thought entropy would kick in eventually and it'll all fall apart?

the moon has not stoped spining on its axis, it's period is just 28 days. The slowing dose dose excist and it's matter gitting each other so the planets are loosing momentum. Momentum is unimportant at a molecular level.

Electrons don't wizz around the nucluis the yare held at diffrent enegy levels. Each energy level has a capacity for the number of electrons, when that capcity is full the next electron end up in the next electron level. these levels are discreat. Its all held together with weak and stong intomolecure (sp?) forces.

Why would the electrons ever slow down? There's no friction acting against them to slow them down...

The electrons aren't "orbiting" as such - that's just what they tell you to stop you asking awkward questions. Schroedinger's equation is your friend here, combined with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and your favoured interpretation of the meaning of a wave function.

Hope that make things clear, no doubt a research physicist will be along shortly to help out.

The electrons in an atom are not subject to the same macro-scale physics that bodies such as planets are. You start to get into Quantum Mechanics when you get to sub-atom small.

The electrons have no defined speed of rotation, though it is proportional to the temperature. An atom at absolute zero would have stationary electrons.

If you believe in Heat Death of the Universe [1], then yes, eventually the electrons would stop moving as would everything.

EDIT - Forgot to say, you can't measure the velocity of the electrons without interfering with them Schrödinger's cat and all that.

[1] - [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe[/url]

The electons do not orbit the nucleus in perfect circles, they are ovals. the electrons are attracted to the protons and get pulled towards the centre but they can only follow a set path, so get a slingshot around.

As I understand it, an atom is made up of a nucleus of neutrons and protons, with a load of electrons orbiting it.

It's not really. That is a classical view of the atom, which would indeed suggest the electrons would spiral into the middle. Hence quantum physics.

Because there's no drag on them?

They do infact gain and lsoe energy, based on the pic you posted there the inner 2 electrons orbit at one 'energy level' and the outer 4 at the next (which can contain 8 in that overly simplistic GCSE level model).

If you add energy to the atom it has to be done in discreet packets, just enough to lift an electron to the next level. When the electron falls back down it emits energy as an electromagnetic wave, depending on how much energy (energy proportional to frequency) depends on whether thats visible light, UV or infra red.

For example a bit of iron when warmer than the surroundings emits infra red ratiation, warm it up a bit and it emits red then white light (more energy), get it seriously hot and it'll emit UV, microwaves, X-rays etc.

If you remove the energy from an atom the electrons stop spining and fall to their lowest energy level (2,4 as shown in the picture) at absolute zero (-273.15degC) all eletrons have lost all their energy. Obsiously no all their energy as they still exist and have mass, but they're not moving.

The giggling of the attom and electrons get their enegery from the heat enegy that exists every wher e that T>0 Kelvin.

the moon has not stopped spining on its axis, it's period is just 28 days.

EDIT - Forgot to say, you can't measure the velocity of the electrons without interfering with them Schrödinger's cat and all that.

Come now, who's been interfering with Schrödinger's cat?

The electons do not orbit the nucleus in perfect circles, they are ovals. the electrons are attracted to the protons and get pulled towards the centre but they can only follow a set path, so get a slingshot around.

Partialy true

S-orbitals are speheres and contain 2 electrons (if full)

d-oritals are made of 6 figures of 8 with the intersections at the nucleus, which is why electrons can't be a solid prticle as the have to pass through the nucleus to complete one orbit.

On the other hand thats just bolloks as they're actualy waves that ocupy a space for a percentage of the time, they're everyhwere at once but most of the time in the shape of the orbital (thats very badly explained).

Surely it's based in the fact that all physical matter exerts some form of gravitational force on something else. It's the crux of things being stuck together and not a big soup of evenly dense everything.

Matter is dense energy, therefore with inter-influential components there will be continuing effects. However, nothing is eternal. Carbon-dating theory elaborates on this and uses the fact that stuff just decays due to resistance, environment, abrasion etc to date objects.

Things will continue to bump into, eat, destroy, absorb, disseminate and stick to other things. I think each of these processes may rejuvenate the bonds (in the way that we make cells) kind of like a matter service.

The above may be complete piffle but it's what I think may be going on, pending further information.

EDIT: in the time it's taken me to write this down, some convincing points have been made 😀

Well the space in which an electron maybe be found at each energy level e.g. s, p and d is determined by the wave function and is measured as a percentage. Can never be accurate due to quantum mechanical effects and in fact it could in theory not even be there at all.

S level orbitals contain up to 2 electrons in a sphere

p orbitals contain up to 6 electrons are 3 * 2 pairs along the x , y and z axis

d orbitals have up to 10 electrons in 5 *2 pairs in a range of Stange shaped orbitals. The d orbitals are actually split into 2 separate energy levels and this is why most transition metals can form nice coloured compounds

And then we have quarks and gluons... 🙂

You are thinking classical Newtonian mechanics when you really need to think about Quantum mechanics.

It looks a bit more like this

http://www.micromountain.com/sci_diagrams/at_struct/at_struct_pages/canimorbshells.htm

The orbitals are probability density functions based on solutions for Schroedinger equation. They are also not defined particles but also waves (wave particle duality because they are so small).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but it's been 6 years since I did any Quantum mechanics and even then I struggled to get my head round it.

Edit - I also only did Chemistry Quantum which didn't really go much deeper than protons, electrons and neutrons as most things can be explained at that point for checmistry purposes.

Yes the rule with QM is that if you think you understand QM then you really dont

Zip ties hold them together.

redthunder - Member
Zip ties hold them together.

..and filling our heads with grass helps us understand it all 😉

If you're lucky, you'll live 80 years. Why bother your head about stuff that exists on a completely different timescale? That's how I get by!

😀

That diagram is completely wrong......

.......everyone know electrons are orange, not green 🙄

What if the sun is a nucleus and all the planets are electrons and we are all part of an atom?

hilldodger - Member
That diagram is completely wrong......

.......everyone know electrons are orange, not green

Duh! Electrons are blue, the same colour as electricity.

[i]the same colour as electricity. [/i]

but electricity comes out of the brown wire?

Well funny as its sounds quarks are actaully coloured

[i]sounds quarks are actaully coloured [/i]

yep.

[img] [/img]

although the contents are always the same colour.

Anyway, the whole 'orbiting particles' thing is just what the 'liars to children' preach in the 'high church of science' isn't it 😆

If you left that carbon atom in a box, then came back in a million years, those electrons would still be whizzing around just as you left them.

They're very frugal.

If you left that carbon atom in a box, then came back in a million years, those electrons would still be whizzing around just as you left them.

Since the electrons have a probability space to exist in that space can be outside the box. Hence they could "tunnel" through it 😉

AFAIK, "The electrons aren't "orbiting" as such". But I think they tell you this to stop you wondering why they don't fall into the nucleus (because it's massive and opposite charge).

Or possibly they use the word "orbit" because in Newtonian mechanics, an orbit/altitude corresponds the kinetic energy of the object, higher orbits having higher energy. While in sub-atomic physics it corresponds to the quantum electrodynamic energy [I'm on seriously shaky ground here - help!] of the electron.

It's more like a vibration at a specific frequency in an infinite flat plane, if I remember that bit of Stephen H's "A Short History..." correctly?

AFAIK, "The electrons aren't "orbiting" as such". But I think they tell you this to stop you wondering why they don't fall into the nucleus (because it's massive and opposite charge).

That's not the problem, the attractive force towards the centre is exactly what allows things to orbit. The problem is classically the electrons should emit electromagnetic radiation as they are accelerated round the orbit, and hence lose energy and spiral into the nucleus. They are still called orbitals as a hangover of the classical picture.

So what are the individual parts of quark?. And therefore what are they made up of ?. This must go on for infinity or it wouldn't exist. They have got to be made up of something or we'll disappear in a puff of logic.

"Sits in woodland glade meditating on a surf board"

*Skims through*

Yeah, what everyone else said, mostly.

When you start getting to this level of quantum physics everything starts getting a bit fuzzy. You look at pictures of electrons and think, oh right, it's a tiny little ball. Well, it isn't. It's an enigma wrapped in a lie.

Normal physics is so much more fun. Planes on conveyor belts, spinning bicycle wheels, helicopters in fish tanks, etc. etc.

where is the higgs boson in all of this?

where is the higgs boson in all of this?

In the church, debating with a priest whether he should be allowed in or not.

how can he be [b]in[/b] the church debating whether he should be allowed [b]in[/b] or not?

If you mean in a socially acceptable way, then the same as I could walk into the girls changing room and debate whether I should really be allowed in there or not. If you mean in a physical, can a higgs boson actually be in any 3 dimensional object, where the dimensions are height, width, and depth, then I'm not really sure how.

oh so it wasn't a 'quantum mechanics joke' then?

" It's an enigma wrapped in a lie."

I like that

[img] [/img]

They have got to be made up of something or we'll disappear in a puff of logic

And what is this 'something' of which you speak?

Try pushing two magnets together with the same poles facing. Sure feels like there's 'something' squishy in the way, doesn't it?

[img] [/img]

Yup they last forever, still have a set on my commute bike

As I understand it, an atom is made up of a nucleus of neutrons and protons, with a load of electrons orbiting it.

Well this understanding is what, maybe more than a hundred years out of date?

As others have said, quantum mechanics changed our view of what a particle is, although the big problem is that there is no agreement within this discipline as to how to explain the results of quantum experiments.

There are still paradoxes within QM to be resolved, but what I still see in much writing is this need to believe in particles, however small or fundamental. We need to think in terms of whole systems, and maybe we also need to let go of our need for thinking of time and space as fundamental aspects of reality too.

All IMHO of course 😀

It's a great question, but then so many aspects of our cosmos are still a mystery to us, it's great to explore these things huh?

That diagram is completely wrong......

.......everyone know electrons are orange, not green

And don't forget, every 1 in a billion times someone stabs a knife into some butter, the blade goes between the nucleus and proton of an atom and the butter spontaneously combusts.

If people went around sticking knives into fissionable material with the same regularity they do with butter, the earth would have turned into a star by now. That's what all stars are, planets where people stabbed thorium-232 just once too often.

We need to think in terms of whole systems, and maybe we also need to let go of our need for thinking of time and space as fundamental aspects of reality too

You're not a scientist, are you?

These 'whole systems' are so complex that they could never be understood fully. We know how a brain cell works, but the human mind? Forget it.

If I remember according to Dr Cox in his last series current thinking in some circles is that at a totally unimaginable point in the future the final proton will decay and that's yer lot, all gone no where. Just ceased to be.

You're not a scientist, are you?

I guess I am not a scientist in the same way that James Lovelock, Basil Hiley and David Bohm were not scientists then 🙂

My old physics essay would answer this if I can find it...

Nothing last forever.

Beware of quantum ducks......

Quark Quark

If I remember according to Dr Cox in his last series current thinking in some circles is that at a totally unimaginable point in the future the final proton will decay and that's yer lot, all gone no where. Just ceased to be.

True, I saw the same thing in that episode of Futurama where the professor builds a time machine that only goes forward, where billions and trillions of years into the future, the last proton decays. So it must be true.

molgrips - Member

....We know how a brain cell works....

actually we don't 🙄
we have a fair understanding how some components of some cells found is some brains function on a biochemical and electrochemical level,
we have less understanding of how these components interact in any physiologically significant environment,
we have almost no understanding of how these interactions maintain a functional biological unit we label 'a brain cell'

As Simon said, reductionist science has has it's day and made it's contribution, but we need to start thinking integrally (or holistically if you like) or our (theoretical) scientific advances are just going to consist of making up new names &/or numbers for 'things we don't understand' or to 'make the equations work'

As for the planetry model of atomic structure, please don't tell me that is [i]still[/i] being taught at anything higher than junior school level 🙄

at a totally unimaginable point in the future

I just imagined it. Does that make me some kind of genius? Where do I go do collect the cheque?

I guess I am not a scientist in the same way that James Lovelock, Basil Hiley and David Bohm were not scientists then

I don't think they were starting from the same point as we all are 🙂

Not saying you are wrong, but your post was rather glib.

As Simon said, reductionist science has has it's day and made it's contribution, but we need to start thinking integrally (or holistically if you like) or our (theoretical) scientific advances are just going to

Had its day?

Saying we need A instead of B is rather simplistic, don't you think? What area are you talking about?

E=mc^2

but is c constant?

molgrips - Member

Had its day?

Saying we need A instead of B is rather simplistic, don't you think? What area are you talking about?

Yes, had it's day 🙂
Reductionist techniques have taught 'us' a lot about our world, it's place in the universe and the creatures that inhabit it etc.
But, and IMO it's a BIG but, it is now proving to be a barrier to advancement (in Life Sciences) as, on an operational front it discourages cross disciplinary exchanges and encourages a "big fish, small pond" way of thinking in which research groups are increasingly encouraged to become 'centres of expertise' rather than collaborators in larger projects.
On the scientific front, it is becoming ever more apparent that (again in Life Sciences) that the 'mini-machine' view of life is just not applicable to anything other than the most elementary of systems, and often only when these systems are investigated out of context.
There is a need to increase contextual scientific studies rather than divide the existing field of knowledge into ever decreasing areas of study if any useful new information is to be found, so 'turn the telescope around' if you like.
Life exists in context not detail, systems are important not components, environments/niches matter not species and so on...
And yes, I am being simplistic because primarily that's the way to start discussions, secondly it's a mixed audience and finally this is stw remember and the thread will descend into name calling/point scoring soon enough and I don't want to get drawn in too deeeeeep or I'll get distressed and Elfish 😉

Oh postscript, I meant 'as well as' rather than 'instead of' which is why I said "need to [i]start[/i] thinking..."

I'm taking my son for a tour around CERN for his birthday. He is a geek. I am thick. Can anyone suggest a kind of 'stick in the spokes' type thing I can do to their big particle machine thingy?

Can anyone suggest a kind of 'stick in the spokes' type thing I can do to their big particle machine thingy?

Sprinkle the place with holy water and watch those suckers buuuurrrrrrn 😈