Why does electrons hover around the core of the atom instead

>>8666719
lol chemistry is just a theory they still haven't proven it. if it were real gravity would pull all the electrons to the center of the earth and electricity wouldnt work

they do.
the closer you are to the nucleus the more probability of finding an electron around it. this decreases with distance

that's basically what orbiting is. What electrons do around a proton is no different from the earth orbiting the sun, just on a really really tiny level. Orbiting is just perpetual falling in an elliptical motion.

>>8666725
Isn't earth orbiting around the sun in a flat ring, while the neutron moves in 3d space?

>>8666719
Neutrons

>>8666720
This is physics stuff

>>8666725
They don't orbit

>electrons hover around the core of the atom
they don't and they're not small spheres either

>>8666720
This desu

>>8666725
So you're saying eventually the sun will swallow earth?

>>8666725
But nothing disturbs planets orbiting the sun. If they did I'm sure now and then one of them would end up spinning into the sun.

>>8666722
Then how do you explain the "layers" of electrons? How do those small bastards understand to align in logically functioning electron layers and to seek 8 electrons to their outer layer?

muh wave distribution

But seriously, take a quantum mechanics class.

File: IMG_5705.jpg (55KB, 600x700px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x700px

>>8666751
Are you suggesting that the atom model is too complicated to be explained by /sci/? T.op

>>8666749
>>8666758
we're lazy to explain things to people who cannot use google for simple questions.

>>8666746
>nothing disturbs planets orbiting the sun
Well there are meteors, space junk, and also us shooting rockets off of Earth (that will never return), so the orbits are disturbed. Fortunately elliptical orbits are considerably stable (compared to say circular orbits, which would very easily spiral out of control), which is why the Earth hasn't been smacked into the sun

>>8666719

read this guys
>>8666751

This is because if heisenberg incertitude principle, the more electron get close to the nucleus, the more it ask them to have a precise location. However if they have a precise location they cannot have a precise energy. But the energy is quantic and precise in the observation, this is why the electron bound to the nucleus.

Therefore the electron cannot have a location as precise as being inside the nucleus otherwise it won't be bounded to the nucleus (meaning the atom would not exist).

>>8666764
But still I can envisage a scenario where an electron loses its momentum, making it at the mercy of the nucleus it orbits, and being pulled in. Can this never happen? It seems like it ought to be happening a lot.

File: 7270F3BD-F39F-4F43-8D85-6928DD042BAF-3572-00000351305AE3B3_tmp.png (30KB, 333x215px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 333x215px

>>8666719

"To sum up, the probability density and radial probability plots express two different things: the first shows the electron density at any single point in the atom, while the second, which is generally more useful to us, tells us the the relative electron density summed over all points on a circle of given radius.

References
Why Doesn't the Electron Fall Into the Nucleus? Franklin Mason and Robert Richardson, J Chem. Ed. 1983 (40-42). See also the comment on this article by Werner Luck, J Chem Ed 1985 (914)."

https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Quantum_Mechanics/09._The_Hydrogen_Atom/Atomic_Theory/Why_atoms_do_not_Collapse

>>8666768
If electrons orbited the nucleus in the way you believe they do, then yes. Even if left in a vacuum, the electrons would be constantly accelerating (due to orbiting nucleus), and would thus emit radiation, and 'lose' energy through that.

(The spoiler is that the orbital model of which you speak is probably wrong / too simple)

>>8666771
Thank you anon for that source, but I didn't understand much after reading it. Although now it seems like those models like in the OP pic are misleading. I guess I have more studying to do. T.op

>>8666728

look at OP's picture they're just flat rings it only looks like 3D motion because there's a lot of them

>>8666719
Before an electron is observed it exists in a superposition of all possible states, effectivly an assembly of different probabilities. A certain number of those states will be inside the radius of the nucleus. However once the electron is observed the probability collapses to a single state. the most likely state is (off the top of my head) [math]3a/4 [/math] where [math] a [/math] is the Bohr radius, normally when we do some experiment like this we take a large number of electrons and then look at the average, which is predicted (and experimentally verified) to be [math] a [/math].

The take away points from this are:
>The electron has no definite position before a measurement is made
>On measurement, the probability distribution collapses to single state
>The most likely position is [math] 3a/4 [/math]
>It has a small, but non-zero, probability of being found within the radius of the nucleus.

>>8666812

god doesn't play dice

>>8666836
>Einstein pls go

But seriously at this point it's pretty clear the man lost that debate (hell it was pretty clear during his life time).

>>8666719
>attract one another
because electrons hate each other
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle