The discussion centers on the concept of empty space between an atom's nucleus and its electrons, concluding that this space is essentially a vacuum, containing no matter. It highlights that the Bohr model inaccurately depicts electrons as orbiting the nucleus, as electrons exist in probabilistic regions rather than fixed locations. The conversation also touches on the implications of quantum mechanics, particularly the uncertainty of electron positioning and the nature of vacuum, which is defined as a space devoid of matter, though neutrinos may still traverse this space.
PREREQUISITESStudents of physics, educators in atomic theory, and anyone interested in the fundamental nature of matter and quantum mechanics.
lzkelley said:Great question. You're right, nothing (to our knowledge).
Empty space makes up 99.9% (or more) of matter... and matter itself makes up a ridiculously small portion of the universe...
At the same time i should point out that the bohr model isn't exactly accurate (i.e. electrons don't circule around the nucleus like planets around the sun). Electrons aren't at anyone place at any particular time, they can only be described by what region they will most likely be in at a particular time. So in a way, this "empty space" is a region where there might be electrons (though very unlikely -> especially far away).
pirtle said:How can nothing be in the space that could hold an electron, but doesnt?
Space is quite literally just space. It's nothing. Because there is truly nothing in space, it is a vacuum.
If nothing was inbetween the electrons, wouldn't they as well be a vacuum?
WilliamD said:As to your second question, I'm slightly confused as to what you mean. Just because that their is empty space between one electron and another electron doesn't mean that the electrons themselves are vacuums. Similarly, just because a jar encompasses a vacuum doesn't mean that the jar itself is a vacuum.