IRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto- mona/message/48078
"JitenDa, looks like there is still a problem when you say, "In case of orbital electron, the electrostatic force is balanced by the centrifugal force (mv2/r), and there is no net force acting on the orbital electron along its tangential path."
1. JitenDa, looks like you are offended. Please read my e-mail (reproduced above) again and show me a single line which might have offended you. 2. If you have read Mr. Harunuzzaman's response, things should be pretty clear.
3. To you electrostatic force and centripetal force are two different things! This is a misconception. They are the same thing. Read both my e-mail and Mr. Harunuzzaman's e-mail.
4. Again read both my and Mr. Harunnuzaman's e-mail to be convinced that the fictitious centrifugal force is not required to explain the motion of a revolving object. Coulomb's electrostatic force (which acts as the centripetal force) alone is sufficient.
5. Has "Atomic Physics by E. V. SHPOL'SKII" mentioned the source of the centrifugal force? My question to you on this is still awaited.
6. "The only way electron will be able to stay in the orbit if these two forces attains an equilibrium (i.e. cancels one another). If they do not cancel, meaning net force acting in the radial direction, that resultant force would have caused displacement along the radial direction. Centripetal acceleration is not a real acceleration in the sense that a real acceleration would require a change in the magnitude of the velocity. It is called the centripetal acceleration due to the fact that velocity is a vector quantity and a directional change also manifests as a change in velocity."----Dr. Jiten Roy. So much deep-rooted misconception! I don't know how to fix it. I hope Mr. Harunuzzaman (assuming he is one of the most brilliant students in your batch and elder brother of my classmate Khalequzzaman in IBA) can do a better job. Let me try again. (a) Nothing cancels electrostatic (centripetal) force. The net force (in this case electrostatic force renamed as centripetal force) by Newton's Second Law of Motion accelerates the object by changing the direction of the object every moment . (b) JitenDa, centripetal acceleration is a real acceleration. By the First Law, net force on an object implies either the rest condition or movement in a straight line with uniform speed of the object. Neither is happening here. (c) Every moment the object is being displaced towards the center. Isn't it? Correct me if I am wrong. (d) Centripetal acceleration is not called centripetal acceleration becuase of the reason you have given. It is called centripetal acceleration because it acts towards the center.
7. "Another issue is that, there is no work done by the electron for its displacement from one point to another along the orbit, meaning that there is no resultant force acting on the electron at any point in its orbit. Each atomic orbit represents a stationary state with discrete energy values."----Dr. Jiten Roy. Another misconception. JitenDa, it should be "work done on the electron" not "by the electron." Anyway, here force is variable because it is changing direction every moment. Net work done on the electron by the nucleus during one complete revolution, I assume, is zero, although when you talk about point to point displacement, there must be a work done. That net work done is zero implies zero change in kinetic energy. I don't see any difficulty in explaining "steady state" although for finetuning we have to resort to the concepts of modern physics. I hope Mr. Harunnuzzaman can help us better in this regard.
8. I think you are sometimes confusing between Newton's Second and Third Laws (Mr. Harunuzzaman has also noticed that.) Let me just give one example. The sun exerts garvitational force on the earth and likewise the earth exerts same amount (but in opposite direction) of gravitational force on the sun. This is an example of the Third Law. The gravitational force exerted by the sun on the earth keeps the earth revolving around the sun. This is an example of the Second Law.
9. JitenDa, if I really have hurt your feelings by pointing out your mistakes, misconceptions, slips of the pen, etc., I am really sorry. Believe me that was not my intention. I am argumentative just to seek the real truths, not to hurt anybody's feelings. Our education systems are flawed. That is why it is possible for one to get even the highest academic degree even with misconceptions in basic knowledge. This e-mail is long and probably the last one I am writing to refute your wrong assertions. I have found a better substitute. Let Mr. Harunuzzaman be in and take over.
With regards Subimal __._,_.___ Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ Blog Archive
Link List
AddvertiseReffaral Link |