I still don't get it. Why doesn't the electron

>>8960061
Boundary conditions for the wave function of the electron. That is what gives rise to quantization.

>>8960061
Well classically it's understood as the Coulomb attraction and centripetal force being equal.

But that's classical, the modern understanding is that the electron has no definite position before measurement. On measurement the distribution of positions collapses to a single definite position, on average this position will be the Bohr radius. However there's a small, but non-zero, probability of it being found inside the radius of the proton.

>what is electron capture

>>8960061
Same reason the Earth doesn't fly into the sun.

>>8960061
Cuz the electron has energy or some shit

>>8960061
For most intents and purposes it does

>>8960061
It did, the graphic is just misleading in that the electron is actually the size of the entire orbit it is depicting and actually just sitting directly on the proton. That's why you'll detect it basically anywhere you look in that 'orbit'.

Electrons with more energy are just bigger and can overlap electrons with less and more energy but they all just sit on the proton.

>>8960074
Not really even classically correct either because Larmor formula

>>8960061
Why doesnt the moon fly into the earth? It actually is but at a very slow rate. Similarly the elctron is falling into the proton. They both fall in a spiral but the spiral for all intents and purposes looks like a circular orbit.

>>8960230
>It actually is but at a very slow rate
It's not though. It's drifting away from the earth.

File: Only_10_Int.png (165KB, 303x311px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 303x311px

>>8960230
>Similarly the elctron is falling into the proton. They both fall in a spiral but the spiral for all intents and purposes looks like a circular orbit.
Holy fuck

>>8960061
>>8960069
>>8960074
>>8960079
>>8960096
>>8960230
is this some form of trolling? Have none of you heard about the weak nuclear force?

>>8960320
Why don't you elaborate.

>>8960320
>is this trolling
No way buddy youre on 4chan no trolls here

>>8960320
The fuck has weak interaction have to do with helium atom.

>>8960074
>Well classically it's understood as the Coulomb attraction and centripetal force being equal.
>But that's classical, the modern understanding is that the electron has no definite position before measurement. On measurement the distribution of positions collapses to a single definite position, on average this position will be the Bohr radius. However there's a small, but non-zero, probability of it being found inside the radius of the proton.
If we consider that space is quantized, aren't these two explanations actually the same at such a small scale and such a high speed?

>>8960370
I think anon is taking the name "electron capture" seriously.

>>8960320
>>8960347
I agree, as scientists we need to scientifically figure out why if an electron is negative and a proton is positive why don't they attract??!??!?

>>8960371
>If we consider that space is quantized
It's not. At least not outside some speculative theories.
>aren't these two explanations actually the same
No, they have two very different origins.
>at such a small scale
Even in theories with quantised space, that's still at least on the Planck scale, which is far smaller than qm.
>and such a high speed?
The energies involved here are actually pretty small.

You'll have to expand on your idea for me to address specifics though.

>>8960378
Oh wait you're right. The scale is definitely not small enough here, and even if it were, attributing the electron's lack of definite position to its speed would be implying that the electron is orbiting the proton faster than light, which is of course impossible.

I'm getting things all confused. What I was (mis)remembering was the idea that *energy* is quantized, *not* space. But that only explains the presence of discrete orbitals, not why the electrons' positions within those orbitals are probabilistic rather than following a continuous and predictable orbiting motion.

Hmm.

That brings me to another idea I recall having about this: is it possible that information, like other substances, has some maximum physical density? Maybe electrons' positions are probabilistic because an electron isn't large enough to contain complete information on its own motion. Its position would then become fixed when we observe it because we're "tilting the glass" and causing all the information to "accumulate on one side [or attribute, rather]."

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

is everybody literally retarded here?

>>8960187
That's not how probability distributions work

Wow so many uneducated people here. SAGE!

>what is a neutron

>>8960061
I know right. Obviously this means the proton is flat

The simplest answer is that it has some amount of energy, and due to that energy, it has to move around.

The truth is that some electron orbits do have probability density in the nucleus, but it would just never be "absorbed" by it because of the types of interactions.

>>8960401
>That brings me to another idea I recall having about this: is it possible that information, like other substances, has some maximum physical density?

Yes.

>>8961058
Here's a stack exchange discussion on the topic.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2281/maximum-theoretical-data-density

>>8961050
Hey anon.
What is the not-the-simplest answer?

>>8960061
It actually does.
The atom in your picture is hydrogen. The electron is in the 1s orbital. Like all s orbitals, its got a maximum inside the nucleus. Thing is, at any point, it can also be anywhere else inside the orbital because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. And forget about the idea of electrons revolving around the nucleus, it's proven wrong and absolutely useless.

>>8961250
So the electron cloud is actually "touching" the proton and simply ends at the Bohr radius?

Neat.

next time anybody asks if there are any anons who study physics and made it past QM I'll just direct them to this thread and say clearly not

>so many wrong answers, posted as if they are correct and obvious

>>8961334
It doesn't end. The probability just gets very small. The probability cloud extends to infinity desu.

File: 4858a5e15319821597514881b601833b.jpg (74KB, 1068x737px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1068x737px

>>8961250
>s orbitals have a maximum inside the nucleus
nice try
>>8961334
No, the electron cloud never touches the proton because the proton isn't a "sphere" that can be touched.
Also it doesn't end at the Bohr radius, in fact the Bohr radius is the mean radius of an electron in the lowest energy orbital, so it's almost guaranteed to move outside of it. The probability density is an equation with respect to radius (inverse square I think, but it's been a while) so it just gets really small farther out.
>>8961338
This thread hurts.

File: 359c8df2d49e88c22e2d424545b0e215.jpg (367KB, 1711x1297px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1711x1297px

>>8961424
Your graph shows the probability for the electron to be at a certain distance from the nucleus. Its got a minimum in the nucleus because thats the probability for the electron to be at a point vs on a sperical area that gets larger with the distance fom the nucleus. The actual electron density is the probability for the electron to be at a certain point (or volume element) in space and is highest inside the nucleus.

>>8960374
protip they are not >positive and negative breaking benjamin frank

>>8960374
protip they are not positive and negative breaking benjamin frank

>pos and negative

The real question is why the electron doesn't radiate its energy. Accelerating charges radiate electromagnetic waves which carry energy. The Rutherford model of hydrogen features an orbiting electron. Therefor it must accelerate, and it must radiate its energy away. This is obviously not what happens, so the Rutherford model must be wrong.

Instead we find that the energy exists within spherical harmonic solutions to the Schrodinger equation for a spherically symmetric coulomb potential.

It turns out that quantum mechanics models the structure of hydrogen better than any other. If you want a real answer to the question you need to bone up on quantum mechanics, and avoid the quackery on 4chan.

>>8961521
I could be misunderstanding you here, but the most probable position for an electron is just [math] a_0 [/math]. The probability for an electron in a 1s orbital to be found within the nucleus is quite small, I make it to be something on the order of [math] P(r \leq r_p ) \approx 10^{-15} [/math]

>>8960406

>muh boundary conditions

How about explaining what physical phenomena causes boundary conditions? You can't. Regurgitate more.

>>8962090

you're plotting psi^2 * r^2. Obviously r^2 is going to go to zero. Just psi^2 is the actual electron density and 1s solutions to the hydrogen-like problem do infact have non-zero density at/in the proton.


Have you heard of inverse beta-decay?

>>8963702
Show me the exact calculation you're doing, because you've clearly misunderstood something here.
>you're plotting psi^2 * r^2.
Well if you want to find the expectation value of position you're going to have to calculate that. Likewise if you want to find the most probable position you're going to have to maximise [math] | \phi (x) |^2 [/math]. I really don't see how you've come to the conclusion that an electron is most likely to be found inside the nucleus. Sure it's PDF is a maximum at 0, but that doesn't mean it's most likely position is also 0.

>>8962090
a0 is not a position but a distance from the nucleus

most likely distance from nucleus is a0

most likely position is inside the nucleus

its not that hard to understand

>>8960320
so the weak force repels?

>>8965266
>Distance from the nucleus is not a position
Fuck off brainlet.

>>8965266
>a0 is not a position but a distance from the nucleus
Fucking retard.

File: 1487981052337 (1).jpg (21KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x400px

>>8965612
>>8965616
Sweeties distance is a scalar, position is a vector.

>>8965622
>Hurr durr I think being pedantic means I smart
I ask myself each day why I still come back here.

>>8965623
>difference between a scalar and vector quantity is pedantry
back to
>>>/r/ilovescience

>>8965622
>distance is a scalar
Lmao, brainlets are adorable. They're synonyms dipshit.

>>8965266
>most likely position is inside the nucleus
Prove it.

File: 1490635516603.png (59KB, 658x662px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 658x662px

>>8965629
They're actually homophones you literal giga brainlet

>>8965634
So you're just shitposting for the sake of it? Why?

>>8965638
Because you are?

>>8960061
>I still don't get it. Why doesn't the electron fly into the proton?

If it just flew into the proton then you;d know exactly where it is violating the uncertainty principle, it's actually a bit more complicated than that but that's pretty much the gist of it.

>>8960061
Because proton is actually flat and electron is hovering over it.

Dumb ass

>>8960061
>Why doesn't the electron fly into the proton?
Because electron is not a particle, it's a cloud

There is no such thing as one electron. Show me one, please. How do you detect one electron? How does it behave if we placed it in some kind of atomic cage?

If we truly valued Maxwell, we would understand that it is only reasonable to talk about charge density, or about fields.

Now however they be quantised is the true mystery. Apperently the proton is always some fixed sphere and the electron is some kind of spherical harmonic cloud around it, the result of the laplacian. Why cannot the proton be some blob, some kind of donut, aswell?

Saying the electron lies inside the orbit is equivalent to saying the e field around a proton follows the orbital shape.

File: 1111.jpg (33KB, 493x491px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 493x491px

>>8960061

>equilibrium

>>8965623
>pedantic
the difference between position and distance from the nucleus is exactly the point you mongoloid

My terrible understanding of it is that the uncertainty principle effectively acts similar to a like-charge repulsion. You can confine the electron to the nucleus, but then the momentum is going to be (probably) large enough to immediately escape.

How that actually works I have no idea. I suppose it's why people are saying an electron is not a "real" particle.

>>8966058
Every particle has uncertainty, including protons/neutrons. Their quantum locality is much more defined because they are composite particles (of quarks) with considerable mass.

>>8960061
ITT: Atomists who were blown out by the ancient Greeks thousands of years ago.

File: electron_clouid-580x396.jpg (74KB, 580x396px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 580x396px

I still don't get it. Why doesn't the electron cloud eventually cause torrential downpours onto the proton?

File: gorilla-thinking.jpg (527KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1920x1200px

>>8966228
It does. The ground and excited states are basically the water cycle. Increased quark buildup is akin to carbon emissions.

>>8961338
>>so many wrong answers, posted as if they are correct and obvious

This should be the new banner for /sci/

>>8960371
>If we consider that space is quantized
Why would we do that?

>>8960074
It's classically understood that the Coulomb attraction and centrifugal force are equal* not centripetal force, centripetal force in this example is the coulomb attraction

>>8960230
Tidal forces are actually pulling the moon away from the earth. And by that I mean because the moon is past Geostationary orbit, it orbits slower than the Earth spins. So it is borrowing energy from the Earth's rotation via tidal forces and getting pulled along. This added energy speeds up the moon's orbital velocity, and this added velocity makes the moon fall further away from Earth.

Eventually the moon and Earth will be tidally locked though and then tidal forces will disappear and everything will be ok except the Sun is now slowly exploding.

>>8960061
Why do electron positron pairs always decay?

>>8966883
They don't, if one gets sucked into a black hole

>>8960061
Gravity

Why doesn't the moon fly into earth?

>>8967555
It does tho

I'm literally retarded, what happens if there are more Electron than Proton?

>>8967577
Then you have an ion.

>>8967844
Then why isn't Steel worth less???

>>8966339
That's what we should do. For other reasons, not basic QM, though. But, for example (four-)momentum representation being equivalent to (four-)position representation and Lorentz invariance. Put these together and see what you have.

>>8960061
stay in school

It has enough momentum so that when it enters the proton's gravitational dimple in spacetime, it begins orbiting it. If the electron was going slow enough, in theory it would just fall straight into the nucleus, but due to entropy we're pretty certain that an electron moving too slow would violate thermodynamics.

Electron and proton system (hydrogen atom) is more stable than their combination as a neutron and some form of energy

>Free neutron decay
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron_decay
>Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of about 14 minutes, 42 seconds

On the other hand electron capture is very unlikely, though it happens

>>8968020
The weird thing about this is for a free electron and free proton in space, there are only attractive forces between them
They should directly fall into each other on a straight line, provided there aren't much particles to sway them from the path

Therefore I think most the atoms formation happened when universe was a lot more denser and collisions were unpredictable

Currently, probably the neutron formation reactions are more frequent in the vast emptiness of space for rogue particles

>>8968020
Simply giving false information does not count as trolling.

>>8961925
this

>>8968039
Nah but it's still personally entertaining anyway. I once convinced someone that iguanas have milk, and that a drop of it is poisonous enough to kill an adult elephant.

>>8968040
thats also not the only problem with the rutherford model, it cant explain how atoms interact (chemical reactions etc.) and is pretty much useless

>>8968058
meant for
>>8961925

>>8961250
So is there no movement pattern at all? What about the wave-particle duality thingy, wasn't it established that that's applicable to electrons because they move that way or am I just wrong? Do they just appear at different points around the nucleus through tunneling or what??

>>8962095
The fact that we assume continuous probability density distribution of an electron.

>>8967924
Why would the fact that having more electrons than protons makes something an ion have anything to do with the price of steel?

>>8960061
I still dont get it. Why doesnt the earth fly into the sun?

>>8960061
It's forbidden by the uncertainty principle.

The more you constrain a particle's location, the more uncertain its momentum must be, therefore the larger its velocity can be, so there must be more energy available to it. Mathematically, there is a constant minimum for the product of each particle's uncertainty of position and uncertainty of momentum:
C <= SX * SP (where C is half the reduced Planck constant, SX is uncertainty of position, and SP is uncertainty of momentum)

Because the electron has very low mass (~1836 times that of the proton), to reach the same momentum as a proton, it must have a very high velocity. So, taking the mass factor out, the combined uncertainty of electron position and momentum is ~1836 times higher than that of the proton. In other words, the proton is inherently much more specifically localized and stationary (or at least in a meaningful, predictable trajectory) than the electron.

So while the electron should gain more and more kinetic energy as it approaches the proton, which seems like it should be possible to radiate away as ultraviolet light, to constrain it nearer and nearer to the proton requires that more and more kinetic energy be available to it. If it radiated that energy away, the energy would no longer be available to support its required uncertainty of momentum, so it can't happen. Therefore, when the electron is in its lowest orbital, it has energy it can't radiate away, and has a stable average distance from the proton.

While it can be closer than that lowest-orbital-average-distance, when it is, it must retain the kinetic energy to move farther than that again.

We no more have a mechanism for the uncertainty principle than we do for conservation of energy. It's just a rule that the particles always seem to follow.

The uncertainty principle is sometimes explained as a rule about observation, but it's a fundamental rule particles follow when not being observed.

>>8969172
>the electron has very low mass (~1836 times that of the proton)
Oops... I meant the other way around, of course:
>the electron has very low mass (1/~1836 that of the proton)

>>8960061

A neutron, where electron and proton are unified in the proton core, is an unstable particle. The reason is that the neutron core itself is made up of positively and negatively charged particles, the forces accompanied by like charges being so close together are bigger in comparison to the electron hovering around the proton configuration. That is why the electron doesnt fly back into the proton, because it is repelled by the negative charge present in the core. (There are two negatively charged particles present in the neutron core, and one positive charge. A single positive charge can't repel itself).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron#Free_neutron_decay

tl;dr because it is energetically favourable for the electron to chill outside the core.

File: asjhdaj.png (8KB, 509x619px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 509x619px

>>8965629
>>8966231
>>8967924
>>8968020
>>8968046
>4chan is not a reliable source of information.

>>8969986
That is absolutely wrong

>>8960086
best answer

File: liquidmercury-56a12c243df78cf772681ba6.jpg (289KB, 1660x1530px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1660x1530px

>>8960061
mercury is liquid at RT but the 2 adjacent to it are not.

why? the valence 6s2 s-orbital electrons exhibit relativistic contraction, preventing them from forming strong intermolecular bonds.

the nucleus of mercury is large, and the valence electrons are poorly screened, feeling a larger charge from the nucleus. As a result, the electrons have to travel faster to prevent them from spiraling into the nucleus. They move up to 58% of the speed of light, which increases their mass significantly. Heavier electrons are attracted more to the nucleus than lighter ones, angular momentum causes them to move closer to the nucleus. As a result, the atom's radius shrinks and the valence electrons end up spending more time closer to the nucleus, making them less available for bonding other mercury atoms.

the reason why the electrons speed up rather than simply fall into the nucleus is because the energy levels are quantized, they are forbidden from doing so.

why are they forbidden? cause god most likely.

Ice made of lava!

>>8960061
>This thread
I....It's absolutely abhorrent. The only correct answer is the second post, how the fuck did this thread get up to 99 posts?

>>8970283
awr credibility lever is too low

what can we do to change that, bros?

how can we become a peer-reviewed journal

>>8960061
Because both at that point, distance and velocity behave like waves, so is like the electron goes like a phantom trough the proton, never falling into it.

>>8960061
Why doesn't the moon fly into the Earth? Because you're fucking an idiot.

>all these idiots babbling about centrifugal force/moon/earth
/sci/ truly is nothing but brainlets

>>8968020
Boooooooo

>>8968948
location statistics explains the physics

Good-bye.