what is the energy source that electrons use to always whiz around in atoms all the time? Can this energy be harvested?
>>7889910
They get excited easily. Places to be, things to see
>>7889910
This is like asking what energy source does the earth use to move around the sun,
Basically, you have a flawed understanding of fundamental forces. Go back to Physics I and start from there.
>>7889910
>what is electricity
>what is magnetism
If a stationary proton and stationary electron are placed near each other, will they collide to form a neutron?
>>7889918
Why can't we use gravity to generate power??
>>7889963
>>7889963
I know this is bait, but I'll bite anyway.
Suppose you somehow have some vacuum where there's no matter and you add in a proton and an electron and bind them together, you now have a hydrogen atom.
>>7889963
What if sun made of protons collided with sun made of electrons would they cancel each other out?
>>7889983
We can and do. Tidal generators use the pull of the Moon's gravity to haul water "up" then the pull of the Earth's to haul it back "down" to generate energy.
>>7889999
>/sci/ the post
>>7889998
It would make a giant hydrogen atom.
>>7889910
Quantum gravity
>>7889963
The easy answer here is that there's no such thing as a "stationary" electron. Even at absolute zero there is some motion. However, even defining what electrons do as motion is tricky and could be in correct. For instance, currently we don't have a clear and set understanding of how electrons switch orbitals around an electron. We know they do but the "path of motion they take" or even if they take one, is still a mystery. To put it simply, when you start studying the motions and behaviors of electrons and other subatomic particles, Newtonian physics alone cannot explain it.
>>7889910
[math]\frac{M_e {V_e}^{2}}{r} = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\cdot\frac{e^{2}}{r^{2}}[/math]
Centripetal force=coulomb force
>first time LaTex
>>7889983
>what is a hydroelectric powerplant
>>7889998
Funnily it would create an actual normal sun, unless ofc unless the energy released wouldn't blast it to hell first.
>>7890049
[eqn]\frac{M_e V_e^2}{r} = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\cdot\frac{e^2}{r^2}[/eqn]
I doubt it will still render, I tried to make it renderable on /sci/'s shitty LaTeX renderer.
>>7890015
That's interesting. I had understood that the reason for motion was simply imbalances in the interacting forces. (For OP. As an example try to hold opposing magnetic poles together. They always slide away from each other. Add in weak gravity, electrostatics and influences from surrounding atoms and hey presto, motion) But wtf do I know, I flip burgers for a living.
>>7890087
That's what I want to know, too. It renders perfectly on the preview. But once you embed it onto your post, nothing renders. It's pretty irritating.
>>7890049
nice typesetting faggot
>>7890083
Electrons don't exist in between the orbitals, they only exist in one or the other. They don't really move either.
>>7890122
Electron don't exist in a definite orbital.butan orbital is the set of all points where probability finding electron is highest.they'll teach you after Bohr's model.Be patient
>>7890121
[math]\shortparallel{a}[/math]
>>7889910
>what is the energy source that electrons use to always whiz around in atoms all the time
Free will. Prove me wrong u dogmatic faggots. Protip u kant.
>>7889963
No, it would form a hydrogen atom. The weak nuclear force is what makes particles decay into other particles. For instance, if a w boson donated a neutrino to a neutron, it would switch one of its down quarks into an up quark, slightly shifting its charge to positive and thus forming an electron
>>7889999
yes....it is....
>>7889910
Maybe you should try
Electrons don't move around.
They are a force that exists within the atom. The EM force.
We call it an electron to give it a name. It is just a nomenclatular representation of our observation of that force.
You should more realistically think of an electron as a field. Almost like how you can feel the magnetic field between two poles.
Like this magnetic field, the electron field has areas of higher probability density whereby it may interact witha discrete form of matter and be attracted to it.
You may also think of a packet or quanta of this electromagnetic field to be called an electron.
This is why we say they have a wave particle duality.
Source: I am a particle physicist.
>>7891281
>You may also think of a packet or quanta of this electromagnetic field to be called an electron
u wot m8
the em field's quanta is the photon
the electron is a lepton, it's just the quanta of the electron field
also wave particle duality is the worst meme ever
quanta of fields are not the same as what we classically call "particles"
>>7891281
No, you are a shit Physicist.
>>7890008
so.. a sun.
>>7891281
Please tell me you're from US.
This thread made me think of this.
If after the big bang all the universe was mostly plasma, then where did the electons go?
>>7889918
you didnt answer him
you just tried to sound smart and failed utterly
>>7891326
>the electron is a lepton, it's just the quanta of the electron field
thanks. I meant to say electron field
>>7891331
Well, let's see how you would explain it to a payment without just regurgitating a bunch of functions. Dick.
>>7891326
>also wave particle duality is the worst meme ever
>quanta of fields are not the same as what we classically call "particles"
No, they aren't exactly but why would I write a Qft lecture to OP when he obviously doesn't know about field states, eigenstates or operator functions?
He won't understand any of it. At least with what I posted the will more intuitively understand it than he did before.
This place is basically pop/sci/ after all.
>>7890004
Why hasn't this replaced oil?
There's shitloads of ocean and shitloads of gravity
>>7889983
funny that this fucking moron is prob using eletricity generated by gravity
>>7892089
>Fill your car's tank with ocean water
>Wait for the Moon's gravity pull
>???
>Did I just invent the tidal car?
>>7889963
if you collapse them with enough pressure, then yes you get a neutron. This happens in neutron stars
>>7892089
because it does not scales very well
>>7892101
Everyone in my lecture is looking at me laughing my ass off at this
>>7889920
if only we knew
>>7892101
but tidal energy is a thing anon.
>>7889997
Even if they’re stationary first?
>>7891550
He's absolutely correct.
>>7890083
>reason for motion was simply imbalances in the interacting forces
This is fundamentally incorrect. The reason for *acceleration* is imbalance of forces (i.e. non-zero net force). Motion in and of itself does not require any forces to be acting. Hence the whole "an object in motion will stay in motion"
>>7890250
lol, after taking gen chem 1 this babby thinks he can talk down to people with his flawed "understanding" of QM
>>7890008
underrated post
>>7889918
Best answer in the thread
>>7889918
Pretentious cunt arnt you.
I suggest you go back to basics are relearn the English language before you start trying to tell people about science.
>>7889998
This was actually addressed by XKCD's What If blog, and the answer is that the starting situation has more mass-energy than the entire observable universe, and all hell would break loose.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/140/
>>7892471
He's not. Electrons are not analogous to the planetary system. Actually, the question was wrong to begin with. Electrons don't whiz around in atoms. It's a quantum mechanical system.
>>7892488
>arnt
>Criticizes the English of someone whose post had very minor errors
We get it, you're insecure about your intelligence
>>7892498
*you're intelligence
>>7892493
No shit.
I'm saying he was absolutely correct in that the OP has a flawed understanding of the situation, and it's analogous to asking another ultimately flawed question. The best thing to do is to actually learn the physical principles first.
>>7889963
As this poster, I wasn't really baiting. I sort of know they wouldn't, but responses haven't explained why not. After all, positive and negative charges should attract each other until they collide. What would prevent this for an electron near a proton both of which have low velocity? Is it the quantum effect that low velocity implies high variability of position? Explain like I'm dumb please.
>>7892488
>arnt
>>7892503
*youre're intelligence
>>7892480
>Schrödinger equation come in gen chem 1
Nice to know all kinds of people are getting into science
>>7892507
It is indeed governed by quantum mechanics. When you talk about things on such tiny length scales, it essentially always boils down to quantum mechanics (or relativistic QM, but since you state that they're "stationary", we don't need to worry about SR for the moment).
That is to say that the ordinary notion, that charges simply attract right to each other, doesn't hold. There's a sort of zero-point energy, if you will. Being "stationary" isn't really a thing in quantum mechanics. No matter how much energy you take away from the particle, eventually you get to its ground state. The ground state is the lowest possible energy state that it can have.
If you put a proton and an electron next to each other like that, it would most likely form a hydrogen atom in the ground state (though bringing charges in from infinity in QM might be hairier than I imagine, so this isn't a definitive answer. I have a degree in physics, but only an undergraduate one)
>>7892535
Your post did not even mention the Schrodinger equation. Quit baiting. Quantum numbers and the notion of orbitals and probability density are introduced in any decent first semester university chem course.
>>7891999
some of us are on phones with autocorrect. We aren't so artistic to fix the autocorrect, you fag.
>>7892607
>artistic
>>7889999
dem quads doe
