Electrons in the shell of atoms cannot be small balls flying around in orbit (this is what Rutherford thought). If they were orbiting the nucleus, they would emit radiation (because they would constantly be accelerating), thus losing energy and would collapse into the nucleus in a fraction of a second. All matter in the universe would have been annihilated in a fraction of a second after the big bang.
At the highest level of physics that I learnt (Advanced-Level Physics in the UK), electrons in the shell of an atom are better modelled as waves and their energy is represented by their wavelength (called
The De Broglie Wavelength).
Quote:Electrons in the shell of atoms cannot be small balls flying around in orbit (this is what Rutherford thought). If they were orbiting the nucleus, they would emit radiation (because they would constantly be accelerating), thus losing energy and would collapse into the nucleus in a fraction of a second. All matter in the universe would have been annihilated in a fraction of a second after the big bang.
At the highest level of physics that I learnt (Advanced-Level Physics in the UK), electrons in the shell of an atom are better modelled as waves and their energy is represented by their wavelength (called The De Broglie Wavelength).
The problem with going that "small" is that stuff show both wave and particle behavior, just take light as an example..
Noone quite knows what it is, sometimes it's a wave, sometimes a particle..
The real question we all have to ask ourselves is this:
Why do we care?!
Quote:The real question we all have to ask ourselves is this:
Why do we care?!
Atleast I find it fun to discuss these kinds of things..
Also, it's because of pointless crap like this we have, for example, computers..
I should start a site dedicated to this stuff. What do you think?
>anarky
shiftLynx, I didn't say they were. You disappoint me, commander.
Quote:After a while the electrons go back to their previous orbit and in the process "create" an outgoing photon.
Maybe it was a mis-interpretation on my part, but this implies electronics physically orbiting around a nucleus... which is drawn directly from the Rutherford model.
Whether I disappoint you or not doesn't matter to me. Try not to be so condescending.
As I understand it, the most accurate description of electrons that I have learned is electrons existing as particles in specific orbit areas around the atom's core. That doesn't mean they are particles but it means that they have specific orbital pattern "ranges" where each electron has a certain probability of occuring.
I don't know about them being actual "waves", though, because they do orbit.. waves can't orbit...
I'm you feel I am being condescending to you. I'm referencing a Star Wars situation..
Okay, sorry for the mis-interpretation - I've never watched Star Wars.
That's also the most accurate description I know of, but I also know that it's impossible for an electron to be physically orbiting the nucleus of an atom for reasons said before. I guess that the real answer is that I don't know enough physics.
I think that the particle model works for electrons free from an atom, but as soon as it becomes part of an atom... I don't know.
Quote:shiftLynx Wrote:Electrons in the shell of atoms cannot be small balls flying around in orbit (this is what Rutherford thought). If they were orbiting the nucleus, they would emit radiation (because they would constantly be accelerating), thus losing energy and would collapse into the nucleus in a fraction of a second. All matter in the universe would have been annihilated in a fraction of a second after the big bang.
At the highest level of physics that I learnt (Advanced-Level Physics in the UK), electrons in the shell of an atom are better modelled as waves and their energy is represented by their wavelength (called The De Broglie Wavelength).
The problem with going that "small" is that stuff show both wave and particle behavior, just take light as an example..
Noone quite knows what it is, sometimes it's a wave, sometimes a particle..