this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
54 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Science

8644 readers
78 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Or in other words which forces keep electrons in orbitals and prevent it from flying away or crashing into the nucleus according to modern understanding?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, of course. That's what keeps them bound together.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The follow up question would be the opposing force which keeps them in orbit(als)? This balance of force was called the planetary model which has this shortcoming that electrons might fall into the nucleus.

If electrons actually followed such a trajectory, all atoms would act is miniature broadcasting stations. Moreover, the radiated energy would come from the kinetic energy of the orbiting electron; as this energy gets radiated away, there is less centrifugal force to oppose the attractive force due to the nucleus. The electron would quickly fall into the nucleus, following a trajectory that became known as the "death spiral of the electron". According to classical physics, no atom based on this model could exist for more than a brief fraction of a second.

https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Northern_Alberta_Institute_of_Technology/CHEM1130_Principles_in_Chemistry_I/2%3A_Quantum_Mechanical_Picture_of_the_Atom/2.05%3A_The_Bohr_Atom

I am trying to recall what kind of forces enable the orbitals of electrons according to Quantum Mechanics.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Here is an explanation from part of that site:

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Mechanics/09._The_Hydrogen_Atom/Atomic_Theory/Why_atoms_do_not_Collapse

Summed up best as:

What this means is that within the tiny confines of the atom, the electron cannot really be regarded as a "particle" having a definite energy and location, so it is somewhat misleading to talk about the electron "falling into" the nucleus.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

the electron cannot really be regarded as a "particle" having a definite energy and location, so it is somewhat misleading to talk about the electron "falling into" the nucleus

Good way to put it. And if I recall correctly, electrons in "s" orbitals actually do spent a certain fraction of their time inside the nucleus.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

As I understand it, it's the quantum part of quantum mechanics.

Electrons can only have fixed energy states, they can only radiate or accept fixed sized packets of energy - a "quantum" of energy. So an electron that is hit with the correct sized quantum of energy can be excited up to the next orbital, and it will emit the same sized packet of energy when it returns to its ground state. So they can't gradually emit radiation and fall into the nucleus.

Eventually electrons should spontaneously decay but that's predicted to be in 10 to the power of 40 years or something like that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

electrons should spontaneously decay

Really? What is it hypothesized that they decay into?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

They are not expected to decay. The half-life they're thinking of is a lower-bound based on current measurements, not an actual expected half-life.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I looked it up, after 6.6 x 10e28 years or so they are theorised to decay into neutrinos and photons.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Six hundred and sixty octillion years. That research is going to be hard to fund.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Huh, interesting. So would charge not be conserved in that process? Neither neutrinos nor photons are charged.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Charge conservation would indeed be violated, which is why this decay is not expected. Dave is mistaken: the half-life they're referring to is an experimental lower-bound, not a actual expected value.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Thanks, that makes more sense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Presumably there is a transformation of charge to energy which is then carried away by the photon, but all of this is beyond my understanding of the theories involved.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Charge conservation would unambiguously be violated, which is why this decay is not expected. The half-life you quote is an experimental lower-bound.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There's kind of alot going on, but the shortest answer is "the electrostatic force between the positive nucleus and negative electron creates orbits in the same way that gravity allows a moon to orbit a planet". The electron is moving fast enough that it just "misses" the nucleus. At least, from a classical lens.

It gets more complicated when you introduce orbital angular momentum and start considering the magnetic effects of moving charges, and that's what leads to the funky non-spherical orbital shapes.