If electrons are negatively charged then why aren't they in the nucleus with protons?
>>8119070
when moon is attracted by earth (and reverse) why it is not colliding?
>>8119070
I would just google it. Surely someone must have asked this before and got a helpful answer.
>>8119070
To avoid excessive proximity to other electrons.
It's not Paulitically correct.
>>8119080
Kek
>>8119076
I don't want to just blindly trust the Liberal media. I want to make sure that I get a fair and balanced opinion on this scientific fact before I jump to any conclusions.
>>8119070
Cos then we'd know their position and their momentum :)
>>8119077
How about a hydrogen atom? Only 1 e-
>>8119140
It's irrelevant.
>>8119070
>t. J.J Thomson, 1904
You are some 15 year old, aren't you. This is taught in fucking highschool.
Strong force mumbo jumbo.
>>8119168
Hmmm?
>>8119070
centripetal acceleration, the electron keeps 'just' missing the nucleus, same with gravity
>>8119134
Inderesding argumend. :)
>>8119134
lel. thats good
>>8119269
Not true at all
Simulations modeled that way all show atom would decay in fractions of a second
>>8119355
???
Someone come up with a valid response to this question already.
Lol
https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Quantum_theory_of_the_atom
>Fuck. I went ahead and looked it up myself, since no one is replying.
"Electrons act differently than everyday objects because electrons can behave as both particles and waves. Actually, all objects have this property, but the wavelike behavior of larger objects, such as sand, marbles, or even people, is too small to measure. In very small particles wave behavior is measurable and important. Electrons travel around the nucleus of an atom, but because they behave like waves, they do not follow a specific path like a planet orbiting the Sun does. Instead they form regions of negative electric charge around the nucleus. These regions are called orbitals, and they correspond to the space in which the electron is most likely to be found."
>>8119446
in other words, the electrons can theoretically be found in the nucleus
if you measure them, you have a small chance of finding an electron in the nucleus, no?
>>8119446
But why is it what only the electrons can behave as waves AND particles, but the protons can only behave as particles?
>>8119453
Because they feel like it
>>8119355
Not true at all
The reason that the wave functions for electrons exclude the nuclear region is because of the centrifugal force term in the Hamiltonian.
>>8119453
All things (according to quantum theory) are both "waves" and "particles".
>>8119076
Its tough to imagine that someone such as Dalton, Bohr, Rutherford or Schroedinger couldve developed some kind of atomic model and explaination, building on each other's ideas and experiments.
But no, we must be bombarded with stupid questions outside of SQTs.
where do electrons come from
>>8119446
Some elections move in waves and some don't, it depends on the type of atom here is an example of a hydrogen atom.
"There are more than 109 different types of atoms - one for each element. Differences between the atoms give the elements their different chemical properties. In 2001, there were 115 known elements."
>>8119453
Protons and neutrons do behave like waves, its just less than 1/1837 the of an electrons wave affects.
>>8119446
My beef with the idea of electron clouds is this:
A fan blade has a definite shape, position, etc. Spin that mofo really fast around an axis and suddenly you can't tell where the blade is or the shape of the damn thing. But you know that there is a "cloud" where if you put your finger it will hurt a lot.
Why can't electrons be like that? They have a shape and a position, but they are moving so fast they seem to be occupying a 3-D space instead of a point in space, just like a rotating fan blade.
In effect, the difference between the cloud and the point source is the relative time to the observer. If we could slow ourselves down and become really tiny, we could observe the electron always as a point.
Thoughts?
>>8119074
>electron is a particle
>>8119101
So let's ask the geniuses over at 4chan
>>8119471
Nope
>>8119472
Lmfao I'm at my rest and I laughed out loud, fucking ass hole
>>8119446
Aether theory says that more than a century ago and mainstream science only accept it today. Isn't it funny?
>>8119478
Desk.
>>8119470
How did you come up with that PARTICular number? ;) Please share.
Lol really though
>>8119471
Using this, and only this. Can you imagine how fucking cool that would be..?
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3066870/wearables/why-a-smart-contact-lens-is-the-ultimate-wearable.html
Although.. I'm pretty sure the contact lenses is not capable of microscopic qualities.
>>8119453
protons are much larger than electrons so the proton wavelike nature can be considered "small" in comparison with electron duality
>>8119492
You can understand how that could easily be misunderstood right?? ..heh
You know..them being large and slow and all??
>insecurities showing.
>>8119475
So what are you trying to say???
>>8119070
Bc they don't want to hang out with the protons and nuetrons. They just don't. In EVERY DIFERENT ATOM OUT OF 115 OF THEM, they just don't hang man.
>>8119070
There's a non-zero probability of finding the electron in the nucleus. So whether you believe the wavefunction is real or not, the electron does spend time in the nucleus.
>>8119453
The minimum frequency a wave can have is the mass of that particle. The electron mass is 2000x less than the proton mass, so it "spreads out" in space 2000x more. It can be high energy electron and still appear as a much larger wave than the nucleus does.
omg guys you are so retard
the electron does not collide because the e.m. between protons and electrons causes a centripetal acelleration, like the moon and the arth
PLUS according to MQ electrons can only be in some low-potential-zone that satisfy a resonance for their schroedingher equations (according to the fact that they act as waves because of de broglie's law)
>>8119563
If the electrons are orbiting 'like the moon' then how come they aren't continually radiation energy? They are then accelerating charges.
>>8121348
Because it's the arth, never underestimate the arth
>>8121836
yeah sorry, the idiot mispronouncing 'earth' deleted his message
>>8119484
mass ratio
>>8121853
my message isn't deleted faggot, just look above
omg i missed a key on the keyboard, kill him!11!!
They don't irradiate energy because the direction of the acceleration is orthogonal to the direction of the velocity (where he is actually moving)
