Electrons in Nucleus: What Prevents Collision?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Neutrino98
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electrons Nucleus
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of what prevents electrons from colliding with the nucleus of an atom, exploring concepts from quantum mechanics, atomic structure, and astrophysical phenomena. Participants delve into theoretical frameworks, including the implications of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the behavior of electrons in extreme conditions, such as in neutron stars.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why electrons do not collide with the nucleus, suggesting that proton attraction should lead to atomic destruction.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the quantum model of the atom indicates electrons exist in probabilistic states rather than fixed orbits, referencing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • It is noted that Bohr's model, which suggests electrons revolve around the nucleus, conflicts with Maxwell's laws, which imply that accelerating charged particles should emit energy and spiral into the nucleus.
  • Participants discuss Schrödinger's wave equation and the concept of orbitals, where the probability of finding an electron is maximized.
  • A later reply introduces the phenomenon of electron capture, explaining that under certain conditions, such as in neutron stars, electrons can be absorbed by protons, leading to the formation of neutrons and influencing stellar evolution.
  • The concept of electron degeneracy pressure is mentioned as a factor that prevents collapse in stars below a certain mass, while larger stars may undergo electron capture, converting protons to neutrons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of electron behavior in atoms, with some supporting the quantum mechanical perspective while others reference classical models. The discussion includes both agreement on the probabilistic nature of electrons and disagreement regarding the implications of various theories.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on interpretations of quantum mechanics and unresolved aspects of classical theories. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the implications of these theories for atomic stability.

Neutrino98
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
What prevents the electrons from hitting the nucleus? Shouldn't the proton attract it and destroy the atom?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Read the FAQ: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511179
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Neutrino98 said:
What prevents the electrons from hitting the nucleus? Shouldn't the proton attract it and destroy the atom?

A very very common question indeed. All the values which are basically calculated , like force on an electron , radius etc. are quantized. Our new quantum model of atom does not say that electron revolve around the nucleus ! Its in fact the probability of finding an electron in the atom. Heisenberg said that we cannot precisely know the trajectory of an electron until we can measure its momentum and position simultaneously. But we cannot know in fact its momentum and position simultaneously. Heisenberg uncertainty equation is given by :

ΔxΔp > h/4π or ΔxΔp = h/4π
(Δx is uncertainty in position and Δp is uncertainty in momentum and h is plank's constant.)

So if Δx is very small , the Δp is very large and vice versa.

Bohr said that electron revolve around nucleus. But Maxwell's law states that any charged particle accelerating should emit energy. According to this , electron should spirally bang into the nucleus. Bohr gave the reason that electron revolve in a constant energy shell and that's why does not emit energy.

Bohr gave the excuse , but could not give the reason for his excuse because already established theory like Maxwell's rule was in fact correct.

Ultimately Wernier Heisenberg and Schrödinger proved him wrong.

From Schrödinger wave equation , we can obtain ψ of which ψ2 basically gives the probability of finding an electron in a unit volume , in an atom. Orbital , a new concept at that time was developed. Orbital was an area where probability of finding an electron was maximum i.e. ψ2 was coming maximum.
 
Last edited:
Adding onto what sankalpmittal said, under certain circumstances such as those in a process known as electron capture, the electron can be absorbed by the proton. A common example of such an event is during the formation of neutron stars. When a star of less than 1.44 solar masses is no longer able to undergo fusion reactions in it's core, it collapses in on itself. The Pauli exclusion principle states that no two identical fermions (such as electrons) can occupy the same quantum state. As the star is collapsing, the electrons get closer and closer to each other and closer to occupying the same quantum state. By the Pauli exclusion principle, energy in the form of pressure is released in order to prevent this from happening. The pressure will eventually be sufficient enough to prevent further collapse and the star will become a white dwarf. This pressure is known as electron degeneracy pressure.

However, if the star is larger than 1.4 solar masses, then electron degeneracy will not be able to prevent further collapse and the process of electron capture will be initiated. In electron capture, the electron is absorbed by the proton and as a result it converts into a neutron. As a result of multiple electron capturing processes, the majority of protons in the star become neutrons, hence the name "neutron star."

The 1.4 solar mass limit is known as the Chandrasekhar limit.

Here is a good article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K