GENIUS FORUMS

1) They say a moving electron must produce electromagnetic radiation(photons)

Why?

Is there even such thing as a 'still' electron?

And is it even the motion that is causing the radiation? Is so, how?

2) They say a moving electron must produce radiation, in doing so, it would lose energy and spiral into the nucleus.

Why does 'having energy' keep an electron from crashing into a nucleus?

Cory,

It’s been awhile since I thought about this subject, so my thinking could be a little rusty.

I’ve always thought of an atom as a sort polarized flux of activity, with a relatively positive center, and a negative outer. However, is it the actual EM radiation that is emitted from the electron that gives it its negative property? and if so, then it would be this loss of energy that would keep it repelled away from the center.

Also there are other factors to consider as well such as the strong nuclear force, which acts as a sort of gravity acting on the electrons. I believe that the nucleus is quite massive compared to the electrons orbiting around it, and this causes the orbits with the most electrons to spin closet to the nucleus, while the orbits with just a few spin further away.

Ryan, you are very confused.

Dhodges, care to enlighten me with your perspective?

Maybe start here?

Dhodges, you're own unique criticism is what I was hoping for...

Ryan R wrote: Is it the actual EM radiation that is emitted from the electron that gives it its negative property?

Why do you think that?

If so, then it would be this loss of energy that would keep it repelled away from the center.

But the problem I am interested (but too preoccupied with other things) to find time to solve is: 'why a loss of energy causes an electron to crash into the nucleus'.

Here is an excerpt from a book:

Bohr realized there was something wrong with Rutherford’s atomic model based on the discovery of the nucleus, the model which depicted the atom as a miniature solar system. According to the model, electrons moved around the nucleus like planets around the sun. But a moving electron was impossible because according to the law of electricity a moving electron(charge) must produce electromagnetic radiation, light. All atoms and therefore all things would glow in the dark. Since Bohr could clearly see that not all things glow in the dark, he detected a problem. Also, since a moving electron must produce radiation, in doing so, it would lose energy and spiral into the nucleus. There should thus be no such thing as an atom, only a nucleus. Rutherford’s model which represented the atom’s structure simultaneously denied the possibility of that very structure.

Cory wrote:

Why do you think that?

that excerpt raises some interesting questions regarding the fundamentals of atomic structure, but many of my statements were assuming that there is truth to some of the information pertaining to the structure of the atom.

I was basically trying to figure out why a electron is negative compared to the protons and neutrons that are enclosed in the nucleus? Do protons and neutrons emit EM radiation as well, or only electrons?

Assuming some of the fundamentals are true, I understand why an atom as a whole is positive or negative, which has to do with how many electrons it has in its outer orbit. I believe that if the outer orbit is full then the atom is positively charged, and if there are electrons missing it is negatively charged because it can react with other atoms giving up its electrons.

But I’m still unclear as to why an electron remains in its orbits without crashing into the nucleus, and why the electrons themselves are negative, while the nucleus, which contains the protons and neutrons are positive.

EM radiation could be the missing link, or perhaps I’m mentally inept on this one.