- #1
- 248
- 3
As the title suggests. What is the space between the nucleus and electrons of an atom?
Thanks
Thanks
Yes, there IS an energy bond, but I don't understand how you are relating that to the amount of space.Its some sort of energy bond?
As phinds says, that's not really a clearly defined concept. However, we can give you an answer that may be close to what you're trying to ask:As the title suggests. What is the space between the nucleus and electrons of an atom?
Ok, I thought I was clear. What is in the space between them. Meaning not what the nucleus or electron are composed of and not there distance. But what is in the SPACE of the atom excluding the nucleus and electron.
Ok, I thought I was clear.
It's one angstrom.As the title suggests. What is the space between the nucleus and electrons of an atom?
Thanks
Uh, that is not what I would say. There are some very strong fields in that region, both the electron field and the EM field.Ah - that's easy. Nothing - it's a vacuum.
There are some very strong fields in that region, both the electron field and the EM field.
You are probably right. I would guess that the OP was not asking about fields, but that is all there is at the subatomic level. At that level even matter is just fields.was thinking that fields (which are present everywhere) wasn't what OP had in mind.
At those scales matter is also described by fields. In other words there is a field for electrons and the electron around the nucleus is an excitation of this field. That matter field is quite strong in the space surrounding the nucleus.I know those fields exist. Is there any sort of matter that resides in those places?
That certainly would be correct in the Rutherford and Bohr models of the atom, but both of those have been superseded for quite some time. In modern theories that region is filled with fields, including matter fields.The way I understood this question is that there is quite a bit of "empty space" in a normal atom under normal conditions.
That certainly would be correct in the Rutherford and Bohr models of the atom, but both of those have been superseded for quite some time. In modern theories that region is filled with fields, including matter fields.
Compressibility does not imply the existence of empty space, and the fact that energy is required seems to imply the opposite. After all, how much work does it take to compress vacuum?To me this implies that an object like the Earth has plenty of room to compress its size, although I realize the energy required is immense.
A field is any physical quantity that has a value (which may be 0) at each event in spacetime.I'd like to hear you idea of what a field is even if you aren't an expert on it.
Compressibility does not imply the existence of empty space, and the fact that energy is required seems to imply the opposite. After all, how much work does it take to compress vacuum?
Exactly. Compressing vacuum is easy. Compressing atoms is not.And compression of vacuum is "easy" until pressure is equalized correct? At which point it begins taking more and more energy to force more matter into the same volume.
In a neutron star the material is fundamentally different. There are no longer atoms which have been squeezed. The squeezing destroys the electrons and protons and creates neutrons. It is primarily the absence of electrons which accounts for the higher density.What is it that is actually gets compressed then in a neutron star?
In a neutron star the material is fundamentally different. There are no longer atoms which have been squeezed. The squeezing destroys the electrons and protons and creates neutrons. It is primarily the absence of electrons which accounts for the higher density.