Space between nucleus and electrons

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of the space between the nucleus and electrons in an atom, exploring the nature of this space, what it contains, and the implications of various atomic models. Participants engage in a range of topics including theoretical interpretations, the role of fields, and the nature of vacuum at the atomic scale.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that electrons do not have defined positions, existing instead in a probability cloud, which complicates the question of space between them and the nucleus.
  • One participant suggests that the space could be considered a vacuum, while another counters that strong fields exist in that region, including electron and electromagnetic fields.
  • There is a discussion about the interpretation of "space" as either a measure of distance or as a description of what exists in that space, leading to further clarification requests.
  • Some participants mention that at the subatomic level, matter is described by fields, and that these fields are present everywhere, including the space between particles.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the concept of fields and their relation to matter, seeking a clearer definition.
  • There are references to atomic models, such as the Rutherford and Bohr models, and how modern theories have evolved to describe the atomic structure in terms of fields rather than empty space.
  • Participants discuss the implications of compressibility of matter and the energy required to compress it, questioning the existence of empty space in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the space between the nucleus and electrons, with some arguing it is a vacuum while others emphasize the presence of fields. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing interpretations and no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the ambiguity in the original question regarding whether it pertains to the size of the space or its contents. There is also mention of limitations in understanding the implications of fields and the nature of vacuum at the atomic scale.

  • #31
DaleSpam said:
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?

What is it that is actually gets compressed then in a neutron star? I had assumed that what seemed like solid ground was only solid due to electron repulsion of the atoms.(Of course there are chemical bonds, etc as well) And If this repulsion is overcome, the nuclei compress closer together spatially.

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.

I apologize if my questions seem overly naive.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
JLowe said:
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.
Exactly. Compressing vacuum is easy. Compressing atoms is not.

So it doesn't seem like the compression of atoms implies the presence of vacuum inside the atom. There is something different about the inside of an atom and what we normally think of as vacuum.
 
  • #33
JLowe said:
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.
 
  • #34
DaleSpam said:
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.

I understand what you're saying. I suppose my error is in the visualization of how this compression is occurring.
 
  • #35
It's like compressing springs so to speak until you break the springs and the nuclei collapse leads to one big nucleus, basic analogy. There is no middle ground once broken, and singularities which are basically the next step everything affects a sphere as if it is in one point.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K