Why don't the protons repel each other? Don't like

>>8435543
0/10

bad bait

>>8435543

>being this new to physics

just in case you're serious

google: strong nuclear force

>trolled hard

>>8435557

Not op, but that answer doesn't really make science less of a meme. You just took something that apparently doesn't make sense and gave it a label.

>>8435557
just in case you're serious

it doesn't have to make sense, it's experimentally verified. you can choose to accept or reject it, no one will care.


>trolled again

>>8435563

>it doesn't have to make sense

The whole point of science is trying to make sense.

>>8435565
right, i should have said 'makes common-sense', which i think is what he was getting at

a lot of scientific ideas defy common sense but nonetheless stand the test of scientific rigour

>>8435565

No, the whole point of science is to sound like smug assholes

>>8435565
For loose definitions of sense, yes.

>>8435572
shit, /sci/ has just been exposed

back to /b/ everyone

>>8435543
whoever made that pic is triggering the fuck out of me
everybody knows that PROTONS ARE RED
HOLY FUCK WHAT IS THIS SHIT

File: Coulomb%20Barrier.gif (7KB, 400x247px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 400x247px

>>8435543

>>8435571

I don't mind an idea defying common sense, but nobody has even tried to explain this phenomenon in this thread so far. Giving it a name isn't the same thing as explaining it.

>>8435582
i think by saying "google: strong nuclear force" he was just giving him a starting point

if OP wanted a better answer he can start a thread that's less obviously bait

>>8435587

I'm going to watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf-dunmIvg8

It's probably not the best source for this topic though.

>>8435558
The same could be said for electromagnetic forces and gravity. You just took one fundamental phenomenon (electromagnetic force) and ignored another fundamental phenomenon (strong nuclear force) and then asked why things don't make sense.

Why do like charges repel each other when protons are attracted to each other?

>>8435594

The idea of a strong force was literally invented to serve as the answer for the same question op's asking.

>>8435600
The idea of gravity was invented to explain why things fall down. So what?

>>8435600
And they called the particle gluon (literally "glue on") because that the best they could come up with on the spot

If this doesn't convince you that all of science is a hoax i don't know what does

>>8435600
>Apple falls from tree
>Instead of explaining why scientists just make up magic called "gravity" which doesn't explain shit

>>8435604

>So what?

I don't know yet, still watching this:

>>8435593

Michio Kaku is a meme, but at least he's trying to explain the idea.

>>8435605
Wow, science explaining physical phenomena. I'm shocked.

>>8435617

>explaining

I don't think you know what that word means.

>>8435607
why does the apple fall from the tree?
because gravity

why does gravity exist?
because of GR

why does GR exist?
....

there will always be another unknown. the point of science isn't to know everything it's to build models that explain things

your bait comment ignores the utility of building a universal theory of gravitation that allows for an understanding of motion at all levels.

newton didn't say "the apple fell because of gravity" he said "this universal law of gravitation i built explains why the apple fell and also why everything else moves"

>10/10 bait because i responded

>>8435578

Yay more gay porn

>>8435543
>Why don't the protons repel each other?

Protons do repel one another.

>Don't like charges push each other apart?

They do


>Science is literally a meme
you're bait is really bad

0/10

>>8435637
>>Don't like charges push each other apart?

>They do

Then why is the nucleus stable? Shouldn't all the protons push each other apart? Are you going to throw some glue-on bullshit at me?

>>8435618
Then what does it mean to you?

>>8435643
Why do they repel each other? And don't give me some "because they're all positive" bullshit.

>>8435619
What's gr

>>8435653
Why do protons exist? Don't give me any 'standard model' bullshit

>>8435666
Why does the universe exist? Don't give me some "big bang" bullshit.

>>8435643
It is called the Strong Nuclear force. Im not going to explain it to you as there is plenty of material which has been created over centuries covering the topic at many different levels.

And to truly understand the strong nuclear force at the level you seem to want will take many years of study, there is no simple popsci answer which can be given in a single paragraph.

>>8435673
>over centuries

>>8435607
If you fall from a tree you will feel gravity.

>>8435679
citation?

>>8435678
woops i meant decades

kek

>>8435543
They do

>>8435543
This is a great question that is not explained well in a lot of courses. People who are patronizing you for asking this are dicks.

Basically, the stuff that holds the pieces of the proton together extends a bit beyond the boundary of the proton and holds it against other protons. The protons still repel each other but this glue is stronger than that repelling and keeps them together.

What's a proton?

>>8435705
Two ups and a down

>>8435710
What's an up? What's a down?

>>8435713
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

File: 1477167898868s.jpg (3KB, 125x119px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x119px

>>8435543
This low quality bait is nothing to me

File: feeling.png (106KB, 922x882px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 922x882px

>>8435600
>>8435604

>200,000 BC
>Earth starts shaking
>Ask scientist-shaman why the Earth did that
>He tells me it's called "wiggle-ook"
>Ask him how giving it the name wiggle-ook explains why the Earth shook
>tfw scientist-shaman responds by picking me to be bludgeoned to death with ceremonial murder rocks for the next harvest sacrifice

>>8435738
that still makes as much sense as "modern" "science"

>>8435746

thatsthejoke.jpg

>>8435738
If the shaman can give a quantitative description of "wiggle-ook", make predictions about it, and perform experiments that accurately replicate these predictions, then "wiggle-ook" is a perfectly reasonable scientific theory.

>>8435753
but the shaman was under pressure from his supervisor to publish quickly, so he fudged some of the results and now his incorrect 'woogle-ook' theory was accepted to a respected journal. since no one performs secondary studies anymore 'wiggle-ook' is now accepted as undisputed fact across all tribes.

poor wojack was killed because he would have exposed the shaman's fraud

>>8435572
>No, the whole point of science is to sound like smug assholes

nope, that's just the philosophy department.

Everythings just a fucking meme isnt it. You cannot have a discussion on /sci/ without somebody saying that your lifes work is a bloody shitting fucking meme

Electrons are not particles there is no such thing as negative charge.

File: Gravitationsmetrik4.png (51KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 400x400px

Why doesn't the electron fly into the proton if unlike charges attract?

THEY LITERALLY CAN'T ANSWER BASIC SHIT LIKE THIS

>>8435892

You'll eventually start to filter out the words meme and brainlet without even thinking about it.

>>8437287
Not him but bump
Never got a straight fucking answer on this from chem professors in undergrad

File: strong_nuclear_residue_force.gif (190KB, 800x900px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 800x900px

To OP, this takes time to understand you'd need to take a class with more information about the standard model of particle physics.

Gluons and quarks both carry "color" which equivalent to electric charge etc.

Three (eventually 6) charges were discovered for quarks so they were labeled like colors but they aren't actually colors, this is only because all baryon's need to contain one of each charge at all times this rule is never broken. Mesons can carry only two charges but they must be the "same" charge which was eventually discovered to be an "anti-charge" or "anti-color"

The strong force is like electromagnetism but instead of positive and negative, things are red, green, blue and the "anti" of those three.
Long story short, you'll need to read more to understand this, but here's a gif illustrating how a neutron and proton bond together.

The "STRONG" force is, in fact, stronger than electro-magnetism (hence the name) so it is powerful enough to withhold the protons repelling each other so long as there are neutrons to help the connection.

In some cases the strong force doesn't have the range and the atom will actually fall apart because the positive repellment will overpower the strong force, this is rare.

>>8437404
(yellow represents "anti-green" here by the way)

>>8435600
>The idea of a strong force was literally invented
it was discovered you mongoloid retard. physics isn't always intuitive like on fucking bill nye. this isn't popsci magazine nigger this is reality

>>8437287
>>8437395
what are neutrons

>>8435558
No one else gives a fuck. If it works it works. Untill we create a microscope that has xinfinity you shouldn't be concerned.

>>8435659
Great retardation

>>8435666
They exist because i want them to exist.
Look behind you
Nothimg personel kid

>>8437404
This is wrong. You lack fundamental understanding of qcd

>>8437287
First off, just because I 100% bet you don't know this, but:

#1 Electrons don't orbit around the proton.
#2 Electrons don't have a color, shape, size, or set point of existence, they are drawn that way for visualization.
#3 Electrons are "superimposed" (look it up) around the nucleus according to a mathematical formula. The electron "IS" in essence just a formula and it's energy and momentum are related directly, neither can be zero. It can't be at rest in such a way, it must be only somewhat attracted to the proton in terms of the pauli exclusion principle.

#4 What you asked isn't a fucking basic question either, I bet you'll never even understand it no matter how much you read. Most people here know it but they don't want to baby you so they wouldn't say it.

Science is about thinking, you can't just say "oh it should fly into the proton if unlike charges attract, fuck science, science is so wrong" and call it a day think for yourself anon.

>>8437429
What's your answer then? (And more importantly what is wrong in the answer I gave?)

>>8437395
>chem professors
kek

For real though, short answer is quantum mechanics. The model of the hydrogen atom shown in the previous post is a classical model that we have known forever to be inaccurate. Nowadays, we know that at the quantum level (i.e. around 10^-10 m, more or less) physics no longer behaves classically like how macroscopic objects do. We no longer have precise descriptions of things but rather probabilities and distributions to explain even simple things like position and energy at the level of the hydrogen atom. QM predicts that electrons orbiting the nucleus occupy discrete energy states that can be transitioned if the electron is excited enough. So the electron is essentially forced to stay in orbits outside the nucleus pertaining to these energy levels. We call these bound states. This doesn't bar the electron from having a possibility of being found in the nucleus but the chance of that happening is essentially negligible.

>>8437434
Ok the answer is that yoi are fucking stupid as fuck. My fucking god how can someone be this stupid. I will spell it for you kill yourself

>>8437439
You don't even know the answer and that is your 3-year-old response when prompted to answer it youself... are you black by the way?

>>8437446
I know the answer but you are not worth it. Im nlt black but your future/current wife will be/is blacked

>>8437404
Thats preatty neat. From where did you learn all that? Could you give some recomendation for quantum mechanic books

>>8437453
you don't know the answer and you're just really mean for some reason... maybe you failed college?

That's usually why people come to /sci/. That's what the board is. After all.

>>8437455
I learned it from college lectures. The books sucked so don't bother. I suggest watching or reading lecture notes on the topic, any university that's not shit might have some publications available that are good for introductions.

>>8437457
Thats some nice projection. If you are a failiure that doesnt mean everyone on sci is. Meybe you shluld timestamp your boipussy so i can cum on that

because point-charges aren't magnetic bars

>>8437461
But they are. Do you understand physics. Why dont you go back to sucking cock

>>8437460
ugh you're still making 8th grade insults... if this is really how you chose to waste 5 minutes of your life then it just proves me right. You could have at least posted an answer by now instead of 5 posts with no content other than some stupid sexual threats.

>>8437467
Ok j will post an answer. First collor is not conserved in reactions. There have been reacent papers that show this. Second there are more then 6 charges in elementary particles. If you are interested for more inf post and i will provide source

>>8437455
>>8437458
Piggybacking, the first two chapters of Introduction to Elementary Particles by Griffiths provides a pretty understandable outline of QCD and the fundamental particles (and their histories). You can probably find a PDF online if you're interested.

>>8437482
There are books like Introduction to QD and QCD by N. Black or fundamentals of elementary particles by G.C.Uckeberg

>>8435670
I don't think that there is a why, it is just because it can. And don't bring "everything must have a meaning pussy bullshit"

>>8437501
Universe has a meaning. Its meaning is for us to be tested if we are goin to hell or heven. Thats why there are no aliens and the earth is flat

>>8437287
Because if it were to fall to the nucleus an electron would gain negative infinite PE similar to how it was gain infinite PE if it were to travel away from the nuclei.

ie: hypothetically what if an e crashes into a proton? What then? It won't have the energy to sit there and make a neutron, no itd fuck off back to the Bohr radius

>>8437436
"bcuz quantum physics" is not a satisfactory answer

>>8437537
>if an e crashes into a proton
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=if+an+e+crashes+into+a+proton&t=lm&ia=web

>>8435543
Strong nuclear force is the strongest fundamental force in the universe, its the cause of nuclear explosions.

>>8435578
I laughed far too hard at this

>>8435558

Well, gave it a label, measured it, identified the theory behind it, and used it to make working technology (Read: Nuclear reactors and bombs).

>>8438279
Because the Schrodinger wave function of the hydrogen atom only allows discrete energy levels. Or, if you prefer, photons each have a discrete amount of energy.

If the electron in a hydrogen atom were to radiate energy, said energy would be below the minimum energy of a photon and/or put the electron at an impossible level of energy between two discrete energy levels. The wave function wouldn't exist.

Therefore, even though the electron is an accelerating charge, it cannot radiate electromagnetic energy, and you can imagine that the force of electricity provides a centripetal acceleration moving it around the nucleus. Of course, it's not just like centripetal acceleration because wavefunctions but you can look that up yourself.

>>8435543
It's a force similar to gravity and electromagnetism. We know it exists, but we don't know why. However, it is theorized that the Strong force is due to the quantum exchange of fundamental force bosons.

>>8435543
The physics majors have arrived already
>Inb4 this becomes chemistry vs physics thread.

What is Avogadros number and why do chemists use it as a starting point for measuring mass in moles?

Why is pH based on the acidity/alkaline nature of hydrogen atoms concentration in water?

Why is the ideal gas laws gas constant equal to 8.314?

I'm not trying to make a point here I literally don't fucking know, from highschool they don't teach shit about the theoretical aspects of chemistry. Higher level physical chemistry touches on this shit more, stuff missed like free radicals in quantum mechanical electron configurations but they expect ya'll to follow like sheep at highschool and 100 level chem.

>>8435580
Do any of you niggers know what element this atom belongs to or is it a hypothetical figure? Shit looks old as fuck, bohr scale model is a cunt at expressing the wave nature of electrons.

>>8437423
KEK

Jesus.
The Bible even says so.

>What is Avogadros number and why do chemists use it as a starting point for measuring mass in moles?
An arbitrary number that happens to give results in a nice ballpark.

>Why is pH based on the acidity/alkaline nature of hydrogen atoms concentration in water?
It isn't.

>Why is the ideal gas laws gas constant equal to 8.314?
Na*kb

>>8435673
>has been created
now the phrasing here is a bit jarring.

>>8435679
>>8435681
>DIDN'T PROVIDE A CITATION PSEUDO SCIENCE BULLSHIT CONFIRMED AND GRAVITY IS DISPROVEN. CHECKMATE ATHEISTS.

>>8435892
I see you must be a Halophile.

>>8440091
Isn't the reciprocal of Avogadro's number the weight of the Atomic Mass Unit in grams? 1.66e-24?

Isn't pH the log or natural log of the ammount of H+ ions in solution?

I have no idea why the ideal gas constant is 8.314.

t. babby physicist

>>8440083
Avogadro's number is how you convert from "number of atoms" to "mass in regular units" and vice versa. (Approximately, it's the number of hydrogen-1 atoms it takes to make a gram, and since every element's mass is basically just a multiple of hydrogen's mass, this makes it easy to use for other elements as well.)

A mole isn't a unit of mass - it's just a name for a number of objects, like "dozen". When chemists say they have a mole of something, they mean they have 6e23 atoms or molecules of it. It's useful to know the actual number of atoms, because that way you can work out things like reaction ratios - if you know a reaction needs 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen, then what you want to make sure is that you have twice as many moles of hydrogen as you do of oxygen.

>>8440114
Avogrado's Number is entirely arbitrary.
Protons are not Hydrogen atoms.
I told you, the gas constant is the Boltzmann constant times Avogrado's Number.

>>8435543
>Why don't the protons repel each other?

They so totally do.

Other nuclear forces are just stronger than electrostacit repulsion, except in certain atoms, at certain times, when radiation is released.

NEUTRONS BITCH

one time a dude asked this question on omegle and the stranger said "because the electrons push them together"

>>8438279
The short answer was QM because chances are the person asking doesn't know QM. If they wanted a more in depth explanation, which has been offered by a few posters, than they can go and pick up a textbook. It is difficult to explain concepts to someone that doesn't have the math or physics background about quantum mechanics. Stop being pretentious and actually contribute

>>8440117
Why base it on Hydrogen, is it because it was the first discovered pure element? Shits random as fuck. The whole mole theory is wonky because it's based on hydrogen for some arbitrary reason.

>>8440118
>Protons are not Hydrogen atoms.
was referring to [OH-] and [H3O+] ergo concentration of hydrogen atoms

>I told you, the gas constant is the Boltzmann constant times Avogrado's Number.
Why?
I seriously hate to be a phil fag here but why base something as crucial to chemistry as PV=nRT on 2 random combined arbitrary equations.

I'm gonna stop now getting a bit too OT for my own good.

>>8442006
>why base something as crucial to chemistry as PV=nRT on 2 random combined arbitrary equations.
Because when you replace R in that equation by k*6.022*10^23 you get PV=NkT where N is the number of particles. This is the equation used in most thermodynamics and physics classes, it's only the chemfags that use lowercase n. If you want to know why the Boltzmann constant is what it is that has something to do with photons being quantized. I'm not entirely sure, I haven't completed QM yet.

>>8442006
>I seriously hate to be a phil fag here but why base something as crucial to chemistry as PV=nRT on 2 random combined arbitrary equations.

Take 5 minutes, read what thermodynamics is. It will make some mention to statistical mechanics, which should intrigue you. Read about that.

All those equations come from something. Somebody wasn't just sitting in their office one day and randomly wrote down pV = nRT and realized it described an ideal gas.