Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Electrons orbiting the core

  1. Dec 6, 2004 #1

    tc-

    User Avatar

    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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 6, 2004 #2

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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...
     
  4. Dec 6, 2004 #3

    tc-

    User Avatar

    I think i will need some additional input to understand it, and if i got it right i should look into quantum mechanics?
     
  5. Dec 6, 2004 #4

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  6. Dec 6, 2004 #5

    tc-

    User Avatar

    It seems interesting :smile:

    You got any recommended reading?
     
  7. Dec 6, 2004 #6

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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 reccomend.
    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.
     
  8. Dec 6, 2004 #7

    tc-

    User Avatar

    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 thats 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.
     
  9. Dec 6, 2004 #8

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Damn,i asked for examples,not bull****. :grumpy: I don't care about the educational system in Sweden,as i'm not a part of it. :tongue:
    In maths,partial comprehension of QM (i'm not contradicting Feynman here)
    requires "heavy arthilery":topology and functional analysis,linear algebra (especially infinite dimentional 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.
     
  10. Dec 7, 2004 #9

    tc-

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  11. Dec 9, 2004 #10
    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.
     
  12. Dec 9, 2004 #11
    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 ©)
     
  13. Dec 9, 2004 #12

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  14. Dec 9, 2004 #13
    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 ©)
     
  15. Dec 9, 2004 #14

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    YEP,sometimes i get real bad... :tongue2: 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. :wink: 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?? :confused:
     
  16. Dec 9, 2004 #15
    You could use the much simpler model of the electrostatic attraction between the electrons and nuclei as being the centripetal force.
     
  17. Dec 9, 2004 #16
    I never said it was based in science. I said it was a way of seeing it FOR NOW, not forever.

    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.

    I can only assume that they travel very fast (and I know that is not scientific). I believe I once heard the electrons travelled 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.
     
  18. Jun 10, 2008 #17
    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.
     
  19. Jun 10, 2008 #18

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Why, oh why are you resurrecting a 3-4 year old thread?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Electrons orbiting the core
  1. Electron orbitals. (Replies: 3)

  2. Electron orbitals? (Replies: 6)

  3. Electron orbit question (Replies: 11)

Loading...