current theory presented as fact isn't all that far off since chances are it will stay on that level for quite a long time. i also really dont care about having the 100% fact about this because i simply have no real need to know since it doesn't effect my life anymore than the current theory does.

then why do u even post in the science forum at all?

wait, what? an electron is a particle with a defined charge and weight which can be measured. the ones 'produced' in radioactive decay come from degrading neutrons but they are the same as 'regular' electrons. the mass and charge are split over the proton, electron and antineutrino. other than that I couldn't really make sense of your post...

wrong. the experemental electron (the product of Radioactivity) is the one that can be measured and has a measured mass (weight is irrelevant, not sure why you would use that word). Charge doesn't exist in physics theres only clockwise and counterclockwise spin. you should know that.
And netrons and protons are not proven to exist becuase scientists know nothing of what makes up the "nucleus" (which is actually the entirety of the atom) of an atom. the only reason that they came to the conclusion of protons and neutrons is by crashing atoms together and seeing what "particles" (and i use that word looslely) are produced by the collisions. the truth is that they DONT know what an atom is actually made out. Only what is produced After the fact, and you cannot logically infer beyond that point

As for "regular electrons" i have no idea what you are talking about unless you are referring to the theoretical particles called electrons by quantom quakary which have never been proven to exist and you simply assume they are the same?


I'm not suprised that you couldn't understand my post becuase logic is in short supply when it comes to atomic physics lol

This post was edited by elitepie on Aug 21 2010 03:19pm

actually, you're right. they've never been proven to exist in that no one's ever seen one. it's just that this model has been proven empirically correct time and time again, and unless you can come up with a better one that's why it's going to be accepted as 'the truth'.

e: weight is mass in earth's gravity and particles do have charge, measurable by running them through an electric field. semantics.

This post was edited by Gurby on Aug 21 2010 03:22pm

I don't have a better one, but there are better more logical models out there.
Personally i believe that the rotation of a toroid or torus like object could explain the building blocks of atoms.

And what would u define a field to be? what is this concept of a "electric field" that you treat as a physical object
thats almost as retarded as saying energy exists, even though energy is merely a concept used to describe motion or action that we don't understand, a short cut answer to why things happen.

look, they can actually visualize electrons now!


Snapshot of an electron orbital
Mark Peplow

New technique could watch electrons' movements during chemical reactions.

Chemistry is all about how electrons move around. Every reaction shifts fuzzy, quantum clouds of electrons from one place to another. So a technique unveiled today, which takes pictures of these clouds, could revolutionize our understanding of the molecules that surround us.

"This development marks a new epoch in our understanding of chemistry," says Jonathan Underwood, a physicist at the Open University, Milton Keynes, UK. "This technique is a major breakthrough, because, for the first time, it allows physicists to record a three-dimensional image of the orbitals of electrons in molecules."

Molecules form when atoms team up, glued together by electrons that smear themselves into orbitals, which define the area where each electron is most likely to be found. When these molecules react, the electrons shift their allegiances between different atoms and change the shape of the molecular orbitals. This reshaping underpins all chemistry.

"The ability to observe a molecular orbital really caught a lot of people by surprise," says David Villeneuve, a physicist from the National Research Council of Canada's Steacie Institute for Molecular Sciences in Ottawa. Villeneuve was part of the Canadian and Japanese collaboration that invented the method, described in this week's Nature. "An approximate take on quantum mechanics tells you that you can't directly observe an orbital, yet we have," he says.

Chemistry camera

The imaging technique uses extremely short laser pulses to briefly ionize an electron away from a molecule of nitrogen, which is simply two nitrogen atoms stuck together. As they spring back, the electrons emit light that can interfere with the laser pulse in different ways depending on the electron's position and where the laser pulse hit the molecule.

Measuring this interference for thousands of ionizations allowed the scientists to reconstruct the shape of the outermost electron orbital in nitrogen. It produces a blurred image, says Villeneuve, like a swarm of flies snapped in a long-exposure picture.

The electron is pulled out of position by the laser pulse's oscillating electric field. This field cycles from high to low and back again every two femtoseconds (2x10-15 seconds), which is fast enough to catch electrons moving around during chemical reactions as well. "This technique could enable you to see how electrons rearrange as atoms approach each other," says Villeneuve.

Snapping bonds

Although the scientists have only looked at a simple, linear nitrogen molecule so far, Underwood has just started working with the team on a project to image the electrons around more complex molecules. Early results suggest that this will be possible, he says.

The technique could eventually help chemists to improve existing chemical reactions, design new catalysts or even understand how biological processes work. Protein folding, for example, relies on subtle interactions between atoms and electrons that many scientists are now trying to simulate with computers. The way a protein folds often determines how it acts in our bodies; in the case of new-variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, incorrectly folded proteins can be lethal. The chemical camera could help to refine models to help us understand better why proteins fold in particular ways, suggests Villeneuve.

"In the near future, it should be possible to watch directly how the bonds of molecules change during chemical reactions," says Henrik Stapelfeldt, a physicist at the University of Aarhus, Langelandsgade, Denmark, "but this is already a spectacular achievement."

References

1. Itatani, J. et al. Nature 432, 867 - 871 (2004).


also, an electric field is the combination of force vectors exerted on a charged particle. I hope you're not denying the existence of magnets or anything cause then I'm going to BLOW YOUR MIND: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UMcq3HLm7w

e: once again, they're all abstract models for empirical evidence, not 'physical objects'. find a better one and let me know.

This post was edited by Gurby on Aug 21 2010 03:43pm

Thats completely random, but just reading through it, i could tell its one of those "wow headlines" and when I actually read what they are doing I realized that the title is a complete lie.
they aren't constructing pictures of electrons, they are measuring interference and CLAIMING that they can measure where this "electron" was, which still doesnt prove the existance of the electron, simply that there is an interaction between atoms as chemestry has proven.

really good enertainment though.

SINCE THE WORLD IS RUN BY PROBABIBLITY I THINK ILL GO DOWN TO MY LOCAL PALM READER AND GET MY PROBABLE FUTURE ACCORDING TO QUANTOM READ TO MEE

why post something in the science forum that can't be answered in the science forum?

i post because i find science interesting not to pretend like im smarter than real scientist and im right and they are wrong. this thread was pointless other than a omfg look at this thing that was a dead end because of scientific limitations. you feel the need to hypothesize go for it but if you we're capable of solving it yourself you would be somewhere else other than jsp.

ya if i knew the real answer i would be the most famous person alive, and it CAN BE answered, it just requires people to think freely and objectively about it. A rattional answer is at hand. I predict within 100 years the Bohr model of the atom will be completely rejected, and people will look back at relativity, quantom, and the flat earth and have a good laugh