Orbiting electron (1 Viewer)

undalay

Active Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
Ashfield
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
If a electron orbited a nuclei, why would it continuously release energy?
 

me121

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
1,407
Location
-33.917188, 151.232890
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
it wouldn't. it would only release energy if it moved to a lower shell, and then it would only be releasing while it was moving from one shell to another.
 

undalay

Active Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
Ashfield
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
According to numerous sources it would.
Jacaranda.

"Rutherford knew that if the electrons were in orbit around the nucleu,s they would be accelerating. They would be expected to be emitting emr in accordance with the theories of Maxwell and, ofcourse, the atom would be unstable"

It's saying that if the orbit was circular it would EMR.
Why is this the case?
What are these "theories of maxwell"?
 

tommykins

i am number -e^i*pi
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
回复: Re: Orbiting electron

Note that Rutherford's model had a few problems -

Rutherford’s model however, was not able to explain spectral lines of elements and that his model suggested radiation emission is a continuous spectrum. It also posed the problem that the electrons would be accelerating and the atom would be unstable.
 

undalay

Active Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
Ashfield
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
I realse his model had problems.

I am just trying to understand why his model was flawed.

His model would collapse due to the electron spiraling into the nucleus, however I dont understand why the electron loses energy.
 

tommykins

i am number -e^i*pi
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
回复: Re: Orbiting electron

undalay said:
I realse his model had problems.

I am just trying to understand why his model was flawed.

His model would collapse due to the electron spiraling into the nucleus, however I dont understand why the electron loses energy.
Shouldn't it gain energy as it's accelerating?
 

undalay

Active Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
Ashfield
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Supposedly it loses energy by releasing EMR while orbiting.

This is the point I don't understand.
 

undalay

Active Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
Ashfield
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Charity F said:
... thus they don't lose energy while orbiting? i.e. no EMR is released, because that would be a loss of energy, thus the electron would spiral gradually towards the nucleus, and go BOOM.
quote]

If no EMR is released, it could theoretically orbit forever? Why would it gradually spiral?

It would only gradually spiral if it lost energy (speed) thus gonig BOOM

but if it didnt, it never would.
 

jessi90

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
235
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
When an object undergoes acceleration it emits EMR - we are not required to know why
 

Will Shakespear

mumbo magic
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,186
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
The point is that if, keyword if electrons were little balls orbiting a nucleus, then they would radiate EMR and spiral into the nucleus.

But they aren't.

When an object undergoes acceleration it emits EMR - we are not required to know why
That's not true on both counts; only a charged object undergoing acceleration will emit EMR.

And you already know why: an accelerating charge produces a changing electric field. This produces a changing magnetic field (remember in motors & generators?), which produces a changing electric field, which... etc.

That's what electromagnetic radiation (light etc.) are, changing electric & magnetic fields propagating through space at the speed of light. That's what Maxwell's laws say; they explain how EM waves are created by a changing electric or magnetic field.

Now the point is that Rutherford's model had electrons as little charged balls orbiting around a positive nucleus.

You also already know from year 11 that an object in circular (or it could be elliptical, the circle's not important) motion is undergoing constant acceleration because it's changing direction.

So since about year 9 you've been thinking of atoms as negatively charged particles (like little balls) orbiting a positively charged nucleus.

But the fact that any accelerating charge produces EMR makes this impossible; the accelerating (orbiting) electrons should just radiate EMR, and in so doing lose energy (since the energy for the EMR has to come from somewhere) and spiral down into the nucleus.

Remember before Rutherford was the "plumb pudding" model which had the electrons embedded int he nucleus. Rutherford's experiments with the alpha particles & gold foil showed that there was in fact a large nucleus in the centre. But as soon as he proposed his new model all the other physicists would have asked "are we supposed to believe that a charged electron is constantly accelerating and not radiating EMR?". His model wasn't very good, really.

That's why Bohr had to come and make a new (though still wrong) model of the atom.
 
Last edited:

Mark576

Feel good ...
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
515
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Charity F said:
um woops sorry, didn't express myself properly. i meant that if it did release EMR, it would loose energy. but i failed to notice that it would accelerate, which would cancel each other.

sorry, my bad.

To answer your previous question:

"maxwell", aka. Max Planck, considered to be the founder of Quantum Theory. (thus being the theories of maxwell). Black body raditation, etc.

Edit: Where's Deanie? He could answer this more clearly.
Huh? Maxwell and Planck were different scientists ...
 

Will Shakespear

mumbo magic
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,186
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
James Maxell wrote down 4 equations that explain what EMR is and how it's created.

He was to electromagnetism what Newton was to mechanics. Underrated in the syllabus, but most of his equations are integrals which wouldn't mean much to you guys at this stage so you don't see them.

In terms of what the atom actually is... well, the electrons are actually waves, and when in orbit around a nucleus, the circumfrence of their orbit is an integer multiple of their wavelength, so they form a standing (i.e. essentially not moving) wave. The consequence is that they aren't just particles and you can't see the exact position of an electron as it orbits, only the probability that it's in one place or another.

The point is that knowing about Maxwell's equations and EMR immediately tells you that the "electrons orbiting as little negatively charged particles" model is impossible, since the electrons would just spiral into the nucleus and there'd be no atoms. But atoms exist!
 

xiao1985

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2003
Messages
5,704
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Will Shakespear already answered it, but just to make it clearer:

When charged speicies accelerate, they emit EMR. If electrons are "orbiting" a nuclei, it is accelerating, hence it will emit EMR. If it emit EMR, it will lose energy.
 

tommykins

i am number -e^i*pi
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
回复: Re: Orbiting electron

Never knew Shakespeare was a physicists too :p
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top