Why does electron $(-)$ keep rotating round the nucleus $(+)$ even they are attracted? [duplicate]












3












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • Why don't electrons crash into the nuclei they “orbit”?

    10 answers




I'm a secondary school pupil, my physics textbook discussed atomic physics without deep details because we are young boys, to explain electron motion we first learn about rotational motion.
The main problem is that why the electron dose not fall on the nucleus, my textbook said that it doesn't because of centrifugal force, but amazingly I found out in this site that centrifugal force doesn't exist, I told my teacher about this, but he believe that centrifugal force exist, and I will not have any satisfying answer from him.
I'm looking for a simple answer (without deep details) that could satisfy such a young asker










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




alfatih Abdullah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Chair, John Rennie, ACuriousMind quantum-mechanics
Users with the  quantum-mechanics badge can single-handedly close quantum-mechanics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
13 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Regarding "centrifugal force doesn't exist": xkcd.com/123 . Hint: it does exist, but it's a fictitious force.
    $endgroup$
    – Ruslan
    13 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Why doesn't the moon crash into the Earth? Why don't the planets crash into the sun?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Also don't listen anyone who says that the centrifugal force doesn't exist. It surely exists for anyone in a rotating frame of reference. Don't hold onto anything while going around a sharp curve while driving and then tell me if you think the centrifugal force doesn't exist.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    12 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    You can also try looking at this page after you have read the answers others gave you: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    7 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • Why don't electrons crash into the nuclei they “orbit”?

    10 answers




I'm a secondary school pupil, my physics textbook discussed atomic physics without deep details because we are young boys, to explain electron motion we first learn about rotational motion.
The main problem is that why the electron dose not fall on the nucleus, my textbook said that it doesn't because of centrifugal force, but amazingly I found out in this site that centrifugal force doesn't exist, I told my teacher about this, but he believe that centrifugal force exist, and I will not have any satisfying answer from him.
I'm looking for a simple answer (without deep details) that could satisfy such a young asker










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




alfatih Abdullah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Chair, John Rennie, ACuriousMind quantum-mechanics
Users with the  quantum-mechanics badge can single-handedly close quantum-mechanics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
13 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Regarding "centrifugal force doesn't exist": xkcd.com/123 . Hint: it does exist, but it's a fictitious force.
    $endgroup$
    – Ruslan
    13 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Why doesn't the moon crash into the Earth? Why don't the planets crash into the sun?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Also don't listen anyone who says that the centrifugal force doesn't exist. It surely exists for anyone in a rotating frame of reference. Don't hold onto anything while going around a sharp curve while driving and then tell me if you think the centrifugal force doesn't exist.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    12 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    You can also try looking at this page after you have read the answers others gave you: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    7 hours ago














3












3








3





$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • Why don't electrons crash into the nuclei they “orbit”?

    10 answers




I'm a secondary school pupil, my physics textbook discussed atomic physics without deep details because we are young boys, to explain electron motion we first learn about rotational motion.
The main problem is that why the electron dose not fall on the nucleus, my textbook said that it doesn't because of centrifugal force, but amazingly I found out in this site that centrifugal force doesn't exist, I told my teacher about this, but he believe that centrifugal force exist, and I will not have any satisfying answer from him.
I'm looking for a simple answer (without deep details) that could satisfy such a young asker










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




alfatih Abdullah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$





This question already has an answer here:




  • Why don't electrons crash into the nuclei they “orbit”?

    10 answers




I'm a secondary school pupil, my physics textbook discussed atomic physics without deep details because we are young boys, to explain electron motion we first learn about rotational motion.
The main problem is that why the electron dose not fall on the nucleus, my textbook said that it doesn't because of centrifugal force, but amazingly I found out in this site that centrifugal force doesn't exist, I told my teacher about this, but he believe that centrifugal force exist, and I will not have any satisfying answer from him.
I'm looking for a simple answer (without deep details) that could satisfy such a young asker





This question already has an answer here:




  • Why don't electrons crash into the nuclei they “orbit”?

    10 answers








quantum-mechanics electrons atomic-physics






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




alfatih Abdullah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




alfatih Abdullah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 11 hours ago









Qmechanic

106k121951221




106k121951221






New contributor




alfatih Abdullah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 15 hours ago









alfatih Abdullahalfatih Abdullah

243




243




New contributor




alfatih Abdullah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





alfatih Abdullah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






alfatih Abdullah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




marked as duplicate by Chair, John Rennie, ACuriousMind quantum-mechanics
Users with the  quantum-mechanics badge can single-handedly close quantum-mechanics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
13 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









marked as duplicate by Chair, John Rennie, ACuriousMind quantum-mechanics
Users with the  quantum-mechanics badge can single-handedly close quantum-mechanics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
13 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Regarding "centrifugal force doesn't exist": xkcd.com/123 . Hint: it does exist, but it's a fictitious force.
    $endgroup$
    – Ruslan
    13 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Why doesn't the moon crash into the Earth? Why don't the planets crash into the sun?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Also don't listen anyone who says that the centrifugal force doesn't exist. It surely exists for anyone in a rotating frame of reference. Don't hold onto anything while going around a sharp curve while driving and then tell me if you think the centrifugal force doesn't exist.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    12 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    You can also try looking at this page after you have read the answers others gave you: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    7 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Regarding "centrifugal force doesn't exist": xkcd.com/123 . Hint: it does exist, but it's a fictitious force.
    $endgroup$
    – Ruslan
    13 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Why doesn't the moon crash into the Earth? Why don't the planets crash into the sun?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Also don't listen anyone who says that the centrifugal force doesn't exist. It surely exists for anyone in a rotating frame of reference. Don't hold onto anything while going around a sharp curve while driving and then tell me if you think the centrifugal force doesn't exist.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    12 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    You can also try looking at this page after you have read the answers others gave you: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
    $endgroup$
    – Alchimista
    7 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
Regarding "centrifugal force doesn't exist": xkcd.com/123 . Hint: it does exist, but it's a fictitious force.
$endgroup$
– Ruslan
13 hours ago




$begingroup$
Regarding "centrifugal force doesn't exist": xkcd.com/123 . Hint: it does exist, but it's a fictitious force.
$endgroup$
– Ruslan
13 hours ago




3




3




$begingroup$
Why doesn't the moon crash into the Earth? Why don't the planets crash into the sun?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
12 hours ago




$begingroup$
Why doesn't the moon crash into the Earth? Why don't the planets crash into the sun?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
12 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Also don't listen anyone who says that the centrifugal force doesn't exist. It surely exists for anyone in a rotating frame of reference. Don't hold onto anything while going around a sharp curve while driving and then tell me if you think the centrifugal force doesn't exist.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
12 hours ago






$begingroup$
Also don't listen anyone who says that the centrifugal force doesn't exist. It surely exists for anyone in a rotating frame of reference. Don't hold onto anything while going around a sharp curve while driving and then tell me if you think the centrifugal force doesn't exist.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
12 hours ago














$begingroup$
You can also try looking at this page after you have read the answers others gave you: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
You can also try looking at this page after you have read the answers others gave you: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
7 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

There are two ways to answer this:



Consider the motion of earth around the sun. Both attract each other due to gravity. Because the sun us much more massive than earth, we can consider it as stationary and ignore the force of the earth acting on the sun.



Now the earth is in circular motion due to the centripetal forceof the sun. Analogy: spin a bucket over your head around a string. You always have to pull towards the center to keep the bucket on a circle. The sun does the same for Earth.



Now, electron and nucleus are similar to earth/sun, they attract due to the electric force. The equations for gravitational and electric forces are "basically the same", so one could argue that also electrons orbit the nucleus the same way as planets orbit the sun.



This is wrong.



There are two problems: electrons are quantum objects and one can not talk about their position in the first place.



Second, charges going in circles would radiate energy, the electron would "fall into the nucleus" almost instantly.



The whole topic of quantum physics is hard and requires a lot of practice to get used to it, but it is necessary to explain stuff at microscopic levels.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Nice answer. The first (classical physics) part is also explained in a bit more detail in physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9049/…
    $endgroup$
    – user1583209
    14 hours ago



















2












$begingroup$

To understand this, you have (unfortunately) to completely abandon the idea, that the electron is orbiting the nucleus. You have to accept, that you cannot really track the motion in every detail (not because of measurement, but because of nature).



I will try to give you a short and full explanation without too many details but I have to introduce a weird concept (in the classical sense).



Uncertainty



One of the main results of "quantum mechanics", the theory of really small stuff (which was a revolution 100 years ago), is the so called "uncertainty principle". You can best think of this in the sense of a photograph. Take two pictures of a moving person:




  • One time you get a crisp picture of the person. You know really well where the person is located but you cannot say something about the velocity (maybe a bit).

  • The second time it is blurred. You just can say, that the person is somewhere around this blurring but not exactly where. On the other side you may be able to track the velocity of the person by the blurring effect.


This is just a methaphor, but it at least explaines this uncertainty principle in some sense. The crucial point: uncertainty in position and velocity are linked! If one of them goes up, the other one goes down.



Now the electron



If it would fall into the nucleus, it would be exactly located at the position of the nucleus. This would raise the uncertainty in velocity, therefore the kinetic energy ($T=mv^2/2$) and it would "escape" from the nucleus again (it may sound odd, but perfect knowledge of position would mean an infinite uncertainty in velocity!). Of course, such a situation is prevented (by the same mechanism) before the electron hits the nucleus.



What is the electron doing?



One principle in quantum physics is, that particles like to go into a state, where they have the smallest amount of energy. By increasing the uncertainty in the position (blurr), the velocity uncertainty goes down, thus the kinetic energy will decrease. Therefore it desires the most uncertainty in position. The only thing preventing the electron to be a free particle is the attraction by the nucleus. It so to say limits the maximum uncertainty in position.



Classical orbits



Now you see, why we cannot speak of classical orbits anymore: because of uncertainty in both, position and velocity, we have to accept, that we just can track the electron down to a "cloud" around the nucleus with some speed.



I hope this explanation was clear in some sense. It has the price, to abandon things like orbits and to accept things like the uncertainty principle. But despite quantum mechanics beeing an overall "weird" theory (philosophically) at all, it explaines lots of things in our modern world and is considered to be the right theory for these applications.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    5












    $begingroup$

    There are two ways to answer this:



    Consider the motion of earth around the sun. Both attract each other due to gravity. Because the sun us much more massive than earth, we can consider it as stationary and ignore the force of the earth acting on the sun.



    Now the earth is in circular motion due to the centripetal forceof the sun. Analogy: spin a bucket over your head around a string. You always have to pull towards the center to keep the bucket on a circle. The sun does the same for Earth.



    Now, electron and nucleus are similar to earth/sun, they attract due to the electric force. The equations for gravitational and electric forces are "basically the same", so one could argue that also electrons orbit the nucleus the same way as planets orbit the sun.



    This is wrong.



    There are two problems: electrons are quantum objects and one can not talk about their position in the first place.



    Second, charges going in circles would radiate energy, the electron would "fall into the nucleus" almost instantly.



    The whole topic of quantum physics is hard and requires a lot of practice to get used to it, but it is necessary to explain stuff at microscopic levels.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Nice answer. The first (classical physics) part is also explained in a bit more detail in physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9049/…
      $endgroup$
      – user1583209
      14 hours ago
















    5












    $begingroup$

    There are two ways to answer this:



    Consider the motion of earth around the sun. Both attract each other due to gravity. Because the sun us much more massive than earth, we can consider it as stationary and ignore the force of the earth acting on the sun.



    Now the earth is in circular motion due to the centripetal forceof the sun. Analogy: spin a bucket over your head around a string. You always have to pull towards the center to keep the bucket on a circle. The sun does the same for Earth.



    Now, electron and nucleus are similar to earth/sun, they attract due to the electric force. The equations for gravitational and electric forces are "basically the same", so one could argue that also electrons orbit the nucleus the same way as planets orbit the sun.



    This is wrong.



    There are two problems: electrons are quantum objects and one can not talk about their position in the first place.



    Second, charges going in circles would radiate energy, the electron would "fall into the nucleus" almost instantly.



    The whole topic of quantum physics is hard and requires a lot of practice to get used to it, but it is necessary to explain stuff at microscopic levels.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Nice answer. The first (classical physics) part is also explained in a bit more detail in physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9049/…
      $endgroup$
      – user1583209
      14 hours ago














    5












    5








    5





    $begingroup$

    There are two ways to answer this:



    Consider the motion of earth around the sun. Both attract each other due to gravity. Because the sun us much more massive than earth, we can consider it as stationary and ignore the force of the earth acting on the sun.



    Now the earth is in circular motion due to the centripetal forceof the sun. Analogy: spin a bucket over your head around a string. You always have to pull towards the center to keep the bucket on a circle. The sun does the same for Earth.



    Now, electron and nucleus are similar to earth/sun, they attract due to the electric force. The equations for gravitational and electric forces are "basically the same", so one could argue that also electrons orbit the nucleus the same way as planets orbit the sun.



    This is wrong.



    There are two problems: electrons are quantum objects and one can not talk about their position in the first place.



    Second, charges going in circles would radiate energy, the electron would "fall into the nucleus" almost instantly.



    The whole topic of quantum physics is hard and requires a lot of practice to get used to it, but it is necessary to explain stuff at microscopic levels.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    There are two ways to answer this:



    Consider the motion of earth around the sun. Both attract each other due to gravity. Because the sun us much more massive than earth, we can consider it as stationary and ignore the force of the earth acting on the sun.



    Now the earth is in circular motion due to the centripetal forceof the sun. Analogy: spin a bucket over your head around a string. You always have to pull towards the center to keep the bucket on a circle. The sun does the same for Earth.



    Now, electron and nucleus are similar to earth/sun, they attract due to the electric force. The equations for gravitational and electric forces are "basically the same", so one could argue that also electrons orbit the nucleus the same way as planets orbit the sun.



    This is wrong.



    There are two problems: electrons are quantum objects and one can not talk about their position in the first place.



    Second, charges going in circles would radiate energy, the electron would "fall into the nucleus" almost instantly.



    The whole topic of quantum physics is hard and requires a lot of practice to get used to it, but it is necessary to explain stuff at microscopic levels.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 15 hours ago









    JasperJasper

    1,0941517




    1,0941517












    • $begingroup$
      Nice answer. The first (classical physics) part is also explained in a bit more detail in physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9049/…
      $endgroup$
      – user1583209
      14 hours ago


















    • $begingroup$
      Nice answer. The first (classical physics) part is also explained in a bit more detail in physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9049/…
      $endgroup$
      – user1583209
      14 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    Nice answer. The first (classical physics) part is also explained in a bit more detail in physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9049/…
    $endgroup$
    – user1583209
    14 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Nice answer. The first (classical physics) part is also explained in a bit more detail in physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9049/…
    $endgroup$
    – user1583209
    14 hours ago











    2












    $begingroup$

    To understand this, you have (unfortunately) to completely abandon the idea, that the electron is orbiting the nucleus. You have to accept, that you cannot really track the motion in every detail (not because of measurement, but because of nature).



    I will try to give you a short and full explanation without too many details but I have to introduce a weird concept (in the classical sense).



    Uncertainty



    One of the main results of "quantum mechanics", the theory of really small stuff (which was a revolution 100 years ago), is the so called "uncertainty principle". You can best think of this in the sense of a photograph. Take two pictures of a moving person:




    • One time you get a crisp picture of the person. You know really well where the person is located but you cannot say something about the velocity (maybe a bit).

    • The second time it is blurred. You just can say, that the person is somewhere around this blurring but not exactly where. On the other side you may be able to track the velocity of the person by the blurring effect.


    This is just a methaphor, but it at least explaines this uncertainty principle in some sense. The crucial point: uncertainty in position and velocity are linked! If one of them goes up, the other one goes down.



    Now the electron



    If it would fall into the nucleus, it would be exactly located at the position of the nucleus. This would raise the uncertainty in velocity, therefore the kinetic energy ($T=mv^2/2$) and it would "escape" from the nucleus again (it may sound odd, but perfect knowledge of position would mean an infinite uncertainty in velocity!). Of course, such a situation is prevented (by the same mechanism) before the electron hits the nucleus.



    What is the electron doing?



    One principle in quantum physics is, that particles like to go into a state, where they have the smallest amount of energy. By increasing the uncertainty in the position (blurr), the velocity uncertainty goes down, thus the kinetic energy will decrease. Therefore it desires the most uncertainty in position. The only thing preventing the electron to be a free particle is the attraction by the nucleus. It so to say limits the maximum uncertainty in position.



    Classical orbits



    Now you see, why we cannot speak of classical orbits anymore: because of uncertainty in both, position and velocity, we have to accept, that we just can track the electron down to a "cloud" around the nucleus with some speed.



    I hope this explanation was clear in some sense. It has the price, to abandon things like orbits and to accept things like the uncertainty principle. But despite quantum mechanics beeing an overall "weird" theory (philosophically) at all, it explaines lots of things in our modern world and is considered to be the right theory for these applications.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      To understand this, you have (unfortunately) to completely abandon the idea, that the electron is orbiting the nucleus. You have to accept, that you cannot really track the motion in every detail (not because of measurement, but because of nature).



      I will try to give you a short and full explanation without too many details but I have to introduce a weird concept (in the classical sense).



      Uncertainty



      One of the main results of "quantum mechanics", the theory of really small stuff (which was a revolution 100 years ago), is the so called "uncertainty principle". You can best think of this in the sense of a photograph. Take two pictures of a moving person:




      • One time you get a crisp picture of the person. You know really well where the person is located but you cannot say something about the velocity (maybe a bit).

      • The second time it is blurred. You just can say, that the person is somewhere around this blurring but not exactly where. On the other side you may be able to track the velocity of the person by the blurring effect.


      This is just a methaphor, but it at least explaines this uncertainty principle in some sense. The crucial point: uncertainty in position and velocity are linked! If one of them goes up, the other one goes down.



      Now the electron



      If it would fall into the nucleus, it would be exactly located at the position of the nucleus. This would raise the uncertainty in velocity, therefore the kinetic energy ($T=mv^2/2$) and it would "escape" from the nucleus again (it may sound odd, but perfect knowledge of position would mean an infinite uncertainty in velocity!). Of course, such a situation is prevented (by the same mechanism) before the electron hits the nucleus.



      What is the electron doing?



      One principle in quantum physics is, that particles like to go into a state, where they have the smallest amount of energy. By increasing the uncertainty in the position (blurr), the velocity uncertainty goes down, thus the kinetic energy will decrease. Therefore it desires the most uncertainty in position. The only thing preventing the electron to be a free particle is the attraction by the nucleus. It so to say limits the maximum uncertainty in position.



      Classical orbits



      Now you see, why we cannot speak of classical orbits anymore: because of uncertainty in both, position and velocity, we have to accept, that we just can track the electron down to a "cloud" around the nucleus with some speed.



      I hope this explanation was clear in some sense. It has the price, to abandon things like orbits and to accept things like the uncertainty principle. But despite quantum mechanics beeing an overall "weird" theory (philosophically) at all, it explaines lots of things in our modern world and is considered to be the right theory for these applications.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        To understand this, you have (unfortunately) to completely abandon the idea, that the electron is orbiting the nucleus. You have to accept, that you cannot really track the motion in every detail (not because of measurement, but because of nature).



        I will try to give you a short and full explanation without too many details but I have to introduce a weird concept (in the classical sense).



        Uncertainty



        One of the main results of "quantum mechanics", the theory of really small stuff (which was a revolution 100 years ago), is the so called "uncertainty principle". You can best think of this in the sense of a photograph. Take two pictures of a moving person:




        • One time you get a crisp picture of the person. You know really well where the person is located but you cannot say something about the velocity (maybe a bit).

        • The second time it is blurred. You just can say, that the person is somewhere around this blurring but not exactly where. On the other side you may be able to track the velocity of the person by the blurring effect.


        This is just a methaphor, but it at least explaines this uncertainty principle in some sense. The crucial point: uncertainty in position and velocity are linked! If one of them goes up, the other one goes down.



        Now the electron



        If it would fall into the nucleus, it would be exactly located at the position of the nucleus. This would raise the uncertainty in velocity, therefore the kinetic energy ($T=mv^2/2$) and it would "escape" from the nucleus again (it may sound odd, but perfect knowledge of position would mean an infinite uncertainty in velocity!). Of course, such a situation is prevented (by the same mechanism) before the electron hits the nucleus.



        What is the electron doing?



        One principle in quantum physics is, that particles like to go into a state, where they have the smallest amount of energy. By increasing the uncertainty in the position (blurr), the velocity uncertainty goes down, thus the kinetic energy will decrease. Therefore it desires the most uncertainty in position. The only thing preventing the electron to be a free particle is the attraction by the nucleus. It so to say limits the maximum uncertainty in position.



        Classical orbits



        Now you see, why we cannot speak of classical orbits anymore: because of uncertainty in both, position and velocity, we have to accept, that we just can track the electron down to a "cloud" around the nucleus with some speed.



        I hope this explanation was clear in some sense. It has the price, to abandon things like orbits and to accept things like the uncertainty principle. But despite quantum mechanics beeing an overall "weird" theory (philosophically) at all, it explaines lots of things in our modern world and is considered to be the right theory for these applications.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        To understand this, you have (unfortunately) to completely abandon the idea, that the electron is orbiting the nucleus. You have to accept, that you cannot really track the motion in every detail (not because of measurement, but because of nature).



        I will try to give you a short and full explanation without too many details but I have to introduce a weird concept (in the classical sense).



        Uncertainty



        One of the main results of "quantum mechanics", the theory of really small stuff (which was a revolution 100 years ago), is the so called "uncertainty principle". You can best think of this in the sense of a photograph. Take two pictures of a moving person:




        • One time you get a crisp picture of the person. You know really well where the person is located but you cannot say something about the velocity (maybe a bit).

        • The second time it is blurred. You just can say, that the person is somewhere around this blurring but not exactly where. On the other side you may be able to track the velocity of the person by the blurring effect.


        This is just a methaphor, but it at least explaines this uncertainty principle in some sense. The crucial point: uncertainty in position and velocity are linked! If one of them goes up, the other one goes down.



        Now the electron



        If it would fall into the nucleus, it would be exactly located at the position of the nucleus. This would raise the uncertainty in velocity, therefore the kinetic energy ($T=mv^2/2$) and it would "escape" from the nucleus again (it may sound odd, but perfect knowledge of position would mean an infinite uncertainty in velocity!). Of course, such a situation is prevented (by the same mechanism) before the electron hits the nucleus.



        What is the electron doing?



        One principle in quantum physics is, that particles like to go into a state, where they have the smallest amount of energy. By increasing the uncertainty in the position (blurr), the velocity uncertainty goes down, thus the kinetic energy will decrease. Therefore it desires the most uncertainty in position. The only thing preventing the electron to be a free particle is the attraction by the nucleus. It so to say limits the maximum uncertainty in position.



        Classical orbits



        Now you see, why we cannot speak of classical orbits anymore: because of uncertainty in both, position and velocity, we have to accept, that we just can track the electron down to a "cloud" around the nucleus with some speed.



        I hope this explanation was clear in some sense. It has the price, to abandon things like orbits and to accept things like the uncertainty principle. But despite quantum mechanics beeing an overall "weird" theory (philosophically) at all, it explaines lots of things in our modern world and is considered to be the right theory for these applications.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 13 hours ago









        P. U.P. U.

        963




        963















            Popular posts from this blog

            數位音樂下載

            When can things happen in Etherscan, such as the picture below?

            格利澤436b