My tested theory is that there are no atoms. Here me out. If the electrons are spinning so fast around the nucleus, how come they never run into each other and blow up? If they transfer to the next object before they hit, what about when they jump into each other?
That's some deep shit right there...

This theory proves that there either there are no atoms, or that the model of an atom is all wrong.

Comments? Suggestions? No flames please.

The charges repel each other.
Duh.
Even if your theory were right that would only prove the non existance of electrons.
Even if they hit each other nothing would happen, they would simply repel and bounce off each other.
When they jump to another atom, it is because that atom is + and wants to be nutral so it catches a - charge (an electron) with its + charge and becomes nutral.
That help?

Electrons all have a negitive charge. So naturaly they repel each other whenever they get close.

I beleive the formula for magnitism is (and don't quote me on this):

gauss force 1 + gauss force 2
------------------------------
distance�

so if the distance between electrons is halved, the force repeling them from each other is octupled (multiplied by 8).

Now you might ask, if that keeps electrons apart, why doesn't the nucleus fly apart being composed of several (or even dozens) of positively charged protons.

Protons stay together because of an extremly strong force called nuclear force. This force has a much larger exponent in it's equation (no, I don't know what it is). This larger exponent dictates that once protons (and neutrons) are that close together they have to stick, overriding magnitisim, like magnitisim overrides gravity. But if protons are much farther apart than the Plank distance (about the width of an atom's nucleus) the force is too weak to pull the protons together.

Getting the protons to overcome the magnetic repulsion and come close enough for nuclear force to take over is the primary goal of fusion energy research right now.

a planck length is 10^-35m that's hella small. the Strong Force spans about 3fm aka 3*10^-15 m for a single nucleon.

for two protons within 3fm the strong force pimps slaps coulomb repulsion. outside of that coulomb wins because of the sharp drop off of the strong force. pp the force is a bout 40MeV for nn it's a little bigger because there is no coulomb force.

another neeto fact is that under normal conditions nucleons can't get closer together than than .4fm which is like a kabillion-zillion planck lengths. and the smallest nuclear radius (H) is about 1.2fm also a kabillionzillion planck lengths.

PEACE IN THE MIDDLE OF MY PANTS.

TreyDay you theory is well.... crap! go accuatly learn some chemistry or something before you post something this stupid. a post like that makes you sound like as if u have a big ego. i mean cmon, there's millions of people better than you at this subject, and yet none of those millions and millions had even for a brief moment thought about your lil "theory"? that you're so special and ur gifted? i very much doubt it

A person doesn't even have to be versed in atomic theory to show that your wrong.

Case in point: Atomic weaponry. 340,000 dead Japaneese can't be wrong.

So, how come to objects can touch each other if the electrons repel each other? If I put two negative magnets together, they repel and don't touch. So, the theory actually proves that there are no charges.

Two thing never touch, they just get very close.

CTR

Even when atoms touch on a molecular level they don't realy touch. Molecules are formed when the outer layer of electrons from two or more atoms merge to surround both atoms in a complicated orbit.

The fact that most objects don't stick to you when you touch them shows that not even this level of closeness happens between most objects. Most sticky substances have molecules that reacts slightly, or have molecules that get 'tangled' up. Superglue works well because it chemicaly reacts with most objects.

To be honest, adhesive chemistry isn't realy my field, though I know enough to stand behind what I said.

If you want more in-depth information, take a chemistry class.

Does anybody know why the electons dont crash into the nucleus although they attract each other? The force of attraction might equal the centripetal force of the electron. This seems a good explanation but electrons can jump from shell to shell, where the force of attraction is stronger or weaker. It may still be true because an electon jumping to a shell further away looses some energy in the form of light. If this energy equals the difference in the kinetic energy of the electron in one shell to the other, then this answers my question. But I'm really not shure!
Does anybody know the reason?

sorry, I confused some things:
The electron looses energy in the form of light when it jumps from the OUTER to the INNER shell. My question is why it doesn't jump further back to the nucleus if it is in the first shell? The hydrogen ATOM is an osscilator and should emmit energy even in the first shell. So why is the first shell so special?

The thing is their is a low level shell made of sub-atomic particles. Thats why protons don't jump like electrons do, and electrons are reletivly far away from the nucleus. Hence when you split an atom, you rip the shell and release protons and more.

At the first level they have no energy to give, look at it this way, just as you cant step inbetween the rungs of a ladder electrons cant be inbetween to orbitals; it kinda off but take it for what it is.

When an atom is spit it doenst realse free protons and nuetrons, it spits into two nucliei. U235 splits into Barium and Kyripton(sp).

CTR

THX to you all!
The difference in energy between the sells is defined by:
deltaE = h x v (v = frequency of light that was emitted, h = smallest unit of energy that can be give off(planck's constant)).

These well-defined orbitals exist because they represent different energy levels. There can't be anything between them because energy -as we have seen- can only be emitted in certain 'packets' with is actually a transfer of quantums of the appropriate field of force.
Because they have a specific size (or energy or whatever they are measured in), the energy can only be a whole-number multiple of them and not anything between it.
As I said, if the electron jumps back into the first shell, energy is released as light. This energy can also only be a multiple of h - a single packet.

So you say that in the first level the energy is smaller than 'h'(or there is probably no energy at all, see footnote) and therefore it can't be emitted, so the electron doesn't crash into the proton.
Thx for the explanation!

Footnote:
I only mentioned that energy can't be EMITTED in packets smaller than h but actually I think energy can't even exist smaller than it due to the fixed sized quantums that make it up.

My last question:
Does anybody know why the electrons of eg. a heated metal jump back into the inner level after a very short, random time in the outer level(This is the reason why things glow because light is given off when the electrons jump back!)?

the point is Treyday's thoery is wrong, case closed!

You must not confuse thermal energy (energy of movement, often molecular vibration) with the energy of the atome as dictated by the electron's position. Though to be fair it is a blury line, as the two types of energy tend to go back and forth. In metals, when there is enough thermal energy some of it is absorbed by the electron which jump to an outer level, when they lose that energy it often emits that energy as light. Which levels the electrons jump from determines the color of the light. That is why metals glow different colors at different temperatures.

if atoms never touch each other then that means i can crush a can by just moving my hand close to it and not touching it.

pretty neat

If by close you mean a tiny fraction of the width of an atom, yes.

so in the first level energy < h?

the main problem with this argument is that a lot of people are thinking in newtonian physics. the entire reason quantum physiscs was invented is because subatomic particles don't obey regular macroscopic physics. Why don't electrons collide? maybe because no two electrons occupy the same energy level. maybe because of wave particle duality, electrons are so small and travel so fast that they have wave character, like a particle of light. do photons collide? i'm not going to overeach my knowledge by giving a definate answer. but if you want to make up new scientific theories you're probably going to need at least another twelve years of school before anyone takes you seriously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TreyDay:
So, how come to objects can touch each other if the electrons repel each other? If I put two negative magnets together, they repel and don't touch. So, the theory actually proves that there are no charges.

---

most objects do have a charge of some sort but this charge may be very minute so small that there would be no real way to determin the elctromagnetic force as for a magent they have a much stronger magnetic field and and repel each other with alot more force thne a regular object would

I know that this is another topic but could anybody answer my question why the electron doesn't crash into the protone? Why does the electrone remain in the first level? Is it
because the electron doesn't have any energy in the firs level, so it can't emmit any energy?
I know that Newton's laws don't really apply to quantum phys.
eg. You don't know where the electron actually is, you just have a probabilty curve etc.

Electrons all want to run off in their own directions. The attractive force between the protons and electrons establishes the orbit around the nucleus, the attractive force isn't strong enough to crash the electrons into the nucleus and hit the protons.

Anyway,

quote:

---

My tested theory is that there are no atoms

---

A good answer or you maybe:
We know atoms exist because we can see them with electromicroscopes.
However, the existance of electrons, neutrons and such are only a theory, but as it fits verry well with explaining most experiments it is generally accepted.
Also what you may find interesting is that recently serious thought is being given to the strong possibility of underlying functions of the above 'components'.

Doesn't a moving charge emit radiation though?