Electron Orbits: Why Do They Remain Stable Around the Atom's Core?

[tc-]

Hi all,
Why does electrons orbit the core of the atom instead of crashing into it? What force/forces is/are responsible for this? The difference in charge should pull them together right?

 

[dextercioby]

Hi all,
Why does electrons orbit the core of the atom instead of crashing into it? What force/forces is/are responsible for this? The difference in charge should pull them together right?

Read all posts from here
I've given u the link to the third page,but read all posts from all three pages.
If u're a smart guy,u'll come up with the answers...

 

[tc-]

I think i will need some additional input to understand it, and if i got it right i should look into quantum mechanics?

 

[dextercioby]

I think i will need some additional input to understand it, and if i got it right i should look into quantum mechanics?

I'm afraid so,it's the only theory which provides answers for question related to atom/molecule physics...Don't worry abot relativity,understand what QM for nonrelativistic systems has to say about atoms and then,if u like,take the Dirac equation and solve it.It can be solved only for the hydrogen atom with the nucleus put at rest (for this not to look weird when it comes to SR,assume the nucleus mass is infitely large compared to the electron's (it's actually 1836 larger)) and no hyperfine interaction.QM has developed powerful tools for problems not solvable exactly,which are perturbation theory and functional methods.

But first,understand what Schroedinger has to say about the H atom.

 

[tc-]

I'm afraid so

It seems interesting

You got any recommended reading?

 

[dextercioby]

It seems interesting

You got any recommended reading?

1.How much math do you know and how much are u willing to learn??
Give specific examples.It's the only way i could select from the QM books that I'm aware of which ones to recommend.
2.How much physics do you know and how much QM can u handle...??
Again,provide examples.

Gimme as complete as possible aswers,so i can come up with the best books reccomandations.

 

[tc-]

1.How much math do you know and how much are u willing to learn??
Give specific examples.It's the only way i could select from the QM books that I'm aware of which ones to recommend.
2.How much physics do you know and how much QM can u handle...??
Again,provide examples.

Gimme as complete as possible aswers,so i can come up with the best books reccomandations.

1. I'm not sure really what level my math is in because the educational system here in Sweden is kind of different but i would think my math is collage grade if that's a good reference or not i don't know. Math is one of my favorite subjects and i enjoy studying it. As to how much i want to learn the only limit is time.

2. As for now I'm only familiar with classical physics(and you probably figured). Also have some knowledge in kemistry. Haven't looked at QM yet, just read a small QM intro so far, but it seems interesting.

Right now I'm very interested in particles and how the work and interact with each other, especially within atoms.

 

[dextercioby]

Damn,i asked for examples,not bull****. I don't care about the educational system in Sweden,as I'm not a part of it.
In maths,partial comprehension of QM (i'm not contradicting Feynman here)
requires "heavy arthilery":topology and functional analysis,linear algebra (especially infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces),complex variable calculus,differential geometry (if u want non algbraic methods of quantization) with simplectic manifolds,mathematical statistics,...
In physics,Hamiltonian approach to classical dynamics is essential.Both for constrained and unconstrained systems.Electrodynamics could be useful,but the interaction between quantum systems and radiation in of the realm of QED.

So this is the general,supeficial and supesimplified picture.
Are u in with me,or not??

Daniel.
PS Since we're talking about theoretical physics,general chemistry is of no use.QM for molecules is called QChemistry and it gives the correct descripton of the chemistry's fundamental notion:chemical bond.Without QM,Hueckel,Heitler,London and Pauling would have ment less for the science community in general and that of chemistry in particular.

 

[tc-]

Damn,i asked for examples,not bull****.

The reason i gave you bull is because i had no references or whatever to tell what could possibly be useful, didn't want to list all the things i know(though this is relatively little) here knowing most of it is just crap i won't need.

Anyway, seems i will need to study some more math before looking into QM.

 

[rayjohn01]

Tc---
There is little question that to really understand QM that the maths is fundamental -- However it is quite possible -- informative -- and fascinating -- to read non- maths
explanations which indicate how different this is from classical physics , -- do not be discouraged by BS replies - which give the impression that they understand -- if they did they would not be answering this forum .
Ray.

 

[The Bob]

I think an idea for tc- is that the electrons move fast enough around the nucleus (like a planet) that is does not get pulled in. I believe it is safe to say that if an electron stopped moving it would collide with the nucleus but it is orbiting fast enough to counter the attraction of the nucleus.

Maybe this is to simplistic but it has kept my mind off of the question for a while now and it will continue to do so until I learn the real answer.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[dextercioby]

I think an idea for tc- is that the electrons move fast enough around the nucleus (like a planet) that is does not get pulled in. I believe it is safe to say that if an electron stopped moving it would collide with the nucleus but it is orbiting fast enough to counter the attraction of the nucleus.

Maybe this is to simplistic but it has kept my mind off of the question for a while now and it will continue to do so until I learn the real answer.

The Bob (2004 ©)

The idea as this forum is to give people a description of reality as accurate as possible.Sometimes,this is not possible in easy terms,using familiar (nonmathematic) language.The important thing is though,tO BE CORRECT AT ANY COST.

Daniel.

PS.Try not to make public your own ideas which are easily proven wrong.Keep'em for yourself.

 

[The Bob]

The idea as this forum is to give people a description of reality as accurate as possible.Sometimes,this is not possible in easy terms,using familiar (nonmathematic) language.The important thing is though,tO BE CORRECT AT ANY COST.

Daniel.

PS.Try not to make public your own ideas which are easily proven wrong.Keep'em for yourself.

How rude. I got this idea from a PF member and it was simply an idea. I was not expecting anyone to be harsh but either explain why it is so wrong or simply say that the idea is incorrect to real physics and it is too hard to explain but it is wrong.

Being correct ALL THE TIME is not always best, either but yes it is good and normally more useful.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[dextercioby]

How rude. I got this idea from a PF member and it was simply an idea. I was not expecting anyone to be harsh but either explain why it is so wrong or simply say that the idea is incorrect to real physics and it is too hard to explain but it is wrong.

Being correct ALL THE TIME is not always best, either but yes it is good and normally more useful.

The Bob (2004 ©)

YEP,sometimes i get real bad... Let's assume you picked it up from smb.What made u believe that the idea was scientifically grounded...?What did your mind say...??"It sounds reasonable...".You'll have to know that "reasonable" is not a word in science. Mathematics and physics are EXACT SCIENCES;it's either u know,or u don't...But I'm not going further with this "phylosohy of science" c***.

Daniel.

PS.PF member u say...Well,they were certainly not "science advisors"...
PPS.How fast do electrons move around the nucleus...??At what speed would be they colide with the poor proton/nucleus??

 

[briton]

Hi all,
Why does electrons orbit the core of the atom instead of crashing into it? What force/forces is/are responsible for this? The difference in charge should pull them together right?

You could use the much simpler model of the electrostatic attraction between the electrons and nuclei as being the centripetal force.

 

[The Bob]

YEP,sometimes i get real bad... Let's assume you picked it up from smb.What made u believe that the idea was scientifically grounded...?What did your mind say...??"It sounds reasonable...".You'll have to know that "reasonable" is not a word in science. Mathematics and physics are EXACT SCIENCES;it's either u know,or u don't...But I'm not going further with this "phylosohy of science" c***.

I never said it was based in science. I said it was a way of seeing it FOR NOW, not forever.

PS.PF member u say...Well,they were certainly not "science advisors"...

Can't remember who but they were scientific but not about this. Basically I was gotten rid of as soon as I asked questions and so I have only this idea in my mind.

PPS.How fast do electrons move around the nucleus...??At what speed would be they colide with the poor proton/nucleus??

I can only assume that they travel very fast (and I know that is not scientific). I believe I once heard the electrons traveled at the speed of light but I think that might have been photons and still that was from a rubbish website that my friend got to prove me wrong when I said that nothing but light and other energies without mass are the only objects that can move at the speed of light (again I see you picking up a point here but I want you to correct me, just not harshly).

I do know that electrons don't actually orbit (again I don't know what they do) but, again, it is an idea to satisfy the mind for now. Remember even being told that an electron shell only has 8 electrons and then finding out that that was lie? Well this is the same but I am willing to accept correction.

The Bob (2004 ©)

P.S. I do understand orbitals and why there are more than 8 electrons in shells 3+. It is because of there d and f states.

 

[nahkaimurrao]

nahkaimurrao

QM simply states that the possible energy levels of an electron are 'quantized'.
The electron must have an energy that is an integer multiple of its 'ground state' energy, its lowest possible energy. If the electron were to have zero energy it would not exist. Thus the energy of the electron is always positive and thus it always has some Kinetic and/or Potential energy.

The ground state electron for the Hydrogen atom has no angular momentum, (meaning it does not orbit) and is repeatedly falling through the core of the nucleus.

Imagine you have a pipe though the Earth from one side to the other. If you dropped a rock it would accelerate to the center, then pop out the other side, stop then turn around and accelerate back through the center back to you at which point if you are ready you could possibly catch it, (assuming it didn't lose any energy to air resistance).

Why does the rock not stop in the center? Because it picks up speed as it moves to the center and so doesn't stay there very long, and only slows down as it travels 'up' the other side.

The electron does the same thing. It can't just stop because it always has some energy. The electron accelerates toward the proton but doesn't stop there because it is moving too fast to stop and so it comes out the other side, slows down on the way up, then drops toward the nucleus and repeats.

However, there is a theory that a proton and an electron can somehow combine to form a neutron. A neutron has more energy/mass than proton and electron combined so there is obviously some 'binding energy' involved.

 

[D H]

Why, oh why are you resurrecting a 3-4 year old thread?