Why an Electron Doesn't Fall into a Proton but a Positron Pulls It All the Way?(pajuhaan.medium.com)
pajuhaan.medium.com
Why an Electron Doesn't Fall into a Proton but a Positron Pulls It All the Way?
https://pajuhaan.medium.com/why-an-electron-doesnt-fall-into-a-proton-but-a-positron-pulls-it-all-the-way-in-a149f5cc9099
3 comments
Electron capture doesn’t contradict “electrons don’t fall into protons.” In an atom, the electron isn’t a tiny ball spiraling inward; it’s a stable quantum state.
But for inner orbitals there’s still some chance of finding the electron right at the nucleus. if the nucleus can lower its energy by turning a proton into a neutron, the weak interaction can use that overlap and the capture happens. so it’s not an electromagnetic “collapse”; it’s a weak nuclear transition that only becomes possible in certain nuclei.
My point is that a deeper microdynamics can still reproduce the familiar quantum phenomenology (including Dirac as the macroscopic limit); what would separate it from "repackaging or pseudo-theory" is if it actually predicts the physical constants and transition behavior that the standard model largely treats as input or has no idea about them, rather than explaining them.
But for inner orbitals there’s still some chance of finding the electron right at the nucleus. if the nucleus can lower its energy by turning a proton into a neutron, the weak interaction can use that overlap and the capture happens. so it’s not an electromagnetic “collapse”; it’s a weak nuclear transition that only becomes possible in certain nuclei.
My point is that a deeper microdynamics can still reproduce the familiar quantum phenomenology (including Dirac as the macroscopic limit); what would separate it from "repackaging or pseudo-theory" is if it actually predicts the physical constants and transition behavior that the standard model largely treats as input or has no idea about them, rather than explaining them.
Happy new year
I have a challenge for you,
many of the most basic questions in quantum physics still don’t really have answers. We say electrons don’t fall into protons because of energy levels and move on, but then an electron and a positron do collapse and turn into photons, so the story clearly isn’t finished. We talk about negative-energy bands, point to the Dirac equation, and accept the result — but none of this truly explains why nature chose this structure and not another. Nothing in the math forbids atoms from being ten times larger or smaller; the equations would still work. These aren’t black-hole or Big Bang mysteries — they’re everyday atomic questions we stopped asking because “it works” became good enough.
I have a challenge for you,
many of the most basic questions in quantum physics still don’t really have answers. We say electrons don’t fall into protons because of energy levels and move on, but then an electron and a positron do collapse and turn into photons, so the story clearly isn’t finished. We talk about negative-energy bands, point to the Dirac equation, and accept the result — but none of this truly explains why nature chose this structure and not another. Nothing in the math forbids atoms from being ten times larger or smaller; the equations would still work. These aren’t black-hole or Big Bang mysteries — they’re everyday atomic questions we stopped asking because “it works” became good enough.
Anyway, how do you explain beta capture?