# Tag Info

0

It's really not as difficult or as dangerous as he described. People shoot down things they don't understand.

2

There is no particular reason why one should be of such a sign and the other of the other. The choice is mostly historical and the opposite choice (positive charge for the electron and negative for the proton) would work as well with just some slight sign changes in the equations. The only important part is that their charge be opposites.

-1

Protons are not an elementary particle, whilst electrons are. Protons are made up of Quarks, electrons aren't made up of difference constituent parts; they're just electrons. I'll leave it to you to look up the constituent parts of protons; they have individual charges within themselves. The actual reason that one is positive and one is negative is slightly ...

0

The central charge of atoms also strongly influences it's chemical actions. For example, ionization energies change with both the number of central positives. With regards to quantum mechanics, the Born - Oppenheimer approximation is used for calculating bond lengths, and depends on both the state of the nucleus as well as the state of the electron cloud, ...

2

It depends on what exactly you are asking. Suppose we take 64g of copper i.e. one mole of copper. Each copper atom contributes one conduction electron, so our chunk of copper contains $6.023 \times 10^{23}$ (Avagadro's number) conduction electrons with a total charge of 96488 coulombs. John's answer involves removing those electrons by a chemical reaction. ...

0

Can a piece of metal have all of its conduction electrons stripped? Yes. If so, has this been done Yes. and for what value? I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that. But one example of the thing you're asking about is electrolysis. Check out things like galvanic corrosion and sacrificial anodes.

2

Do electrons always have a probability of being somewhere [in] the same way as when they surround a nucleus? Yes. Of course they don't have a probability a of being somewhere when surrounding a nucleus, they have a frequency of being found somewhere if measured, which is different. You can get a full probability too, but only if you specify even more ...

-1

Do electrons always have a probability of being somewhere? It's lies to Pies again I'm afraid. We make electrons (and positrons) out of light waves in pair production. We can diffract electrons because of the wave nature of matter. And waves are not point particles. They are extended entities. They do not exist at one point only. So all that ...

1

The Maxwell equations do not remain invariant in form when changing to a rotating coordinate system and therefore predictions made from them, like the Larmor radiation formula, cannot be held to be true anymore. While that sentence is sufficient to answer your question, if you want to dive deeper, here are some quick resources: ...

5

Let's suppose the electron we are considering is in an orbital described by the wavefunction $\psi$. If we look in some small volume element $dV$ then the probability of finding the electron in that volume element is: $$P = \psi^*\psi \, dV$$ To calculate the probability of findng the electron inside the nucleus we'll use polar coordinates, and as our ...

0

The electric current passing through a wire is related to the charge moving through it in the following sense: fixing a point of the wire in space, how much charge passes through it as time goes on? In other words, you have the constitutive relationship (readily derived from electromagnetic theory) that the current flowing through a volume in space is equal ...

2

The charged black hole that would have the mass and charge of the electron violates the extremality bound. So classically, it's forbidden. In the Planck units, the mass is less than $10^{-22}$ (times the Planck mass) but the charge is of order one. So any description of the electron as a black hole is inadequate. The corrections are much larger than the ...

0

Here is an image with the conducting layer all around the glass from the inside: and here is the circuitry (from a different link): As you see the circuit closes with the conducting layer. The power supply provides the energy to keep the cathode negative and the anodes positive. In this diagram the heating of the cathode comes from a different power ...

1

To keep the electrons flowing, you need to connect the anode and cathode of the tube to a suitable circuit. If the cathode is at a sufficiently negative voltage compared with the anode, then the electrons being emitted by the cathode will be constantly replaced with new ones.

0

Can photons travel through space independent of time? That's what they do. They don't travel forward through time in any real sense. It takes a photon 8 minutes to travel through space from the Sun to you. You time such motion on a clock. But take a look at what that clock really does. It isn't literally measuring the flow of time. It's "clocking up" ...

0

Look at it like this, The poles of a magnet are the regions where the magnetic field lines enter or leave the interior of the magnet. The pole where the field lines enter the magnet is called the south pole and the pole where the field lines exit the magnet is called the north pole.

-3

My simple view in layman's terms. Electricity is like water flowing in a river. The river are the wires and the electrons are the logs in the river, copper is full of logs by the way. So the photons are like the water moving very quickly propelled by high to low pressure (volts). As the water in the river passes the logs (electrons) it moves them slowly ...

1

It appears to me that you are slightly confused with regards to the concept of current in conductors. Now, if I only choose one side of this rectangle, and apply external electrical field ∑ only to it, what EMF would I create on the conductor? I would simply say ∑, however then I had the following idea, and I started to doubt if I create 2∑ instead ...

1

The shorter the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave the more energy it carries, when it hits an atom and gets absorbed the electron gains kinetic energy and jumps to higher energy state. This happens only if the energy of the photon is equal (within the width of the energy levels) to the difference between the energy levels. The "gaining kinetic ...

1

Quantum interactions behave in a much more wave-like way than a pinball model would suggest. The interactions are quantised, which is where a lot of the particle-like behaviour comes from, but until an interaction depends on the specific position of the electron, it will continue to behave much more like a wavy cloud than a ball. The pinball will also fail ...

-1

to be more specific about the definition of charge, charge is an intrinsic property of inherent matter. As we all know the mass which is considered as the fundamental property of every particle in this universe, electric charge is considered as the fundamental property of the particle that is used for electrostatic purposes.from the Franklin`s view he ...

0

Answering the first part: how was polarity first arrived at? Simple: electrostatics is part of electromagnetism in general, and the names of the charge polarities come from electrostatics history. Fur touched against rubber becomes net-positive while the rubber becomes net-negative. Early electrostatic voltmeters, the "Quadrant Electrometers," followed ...

1

Electrons jump out of their orbit when they gain enough energy to escape the attraction from nucleus. This energy can be pumped in by us or when electrons collide elastically they transform energy. Conductors and semi-conductors work because electrons jump out of their orbit by getting energy.Movement of electrons is what conducts current. (This is my ...

0

The ground is connected to every point of the metal plate by the metal wire and the metal plate. I mean, there is a metal wire that connects the ground to the plate, and then there is the metal plate that connects every point on the metal plate to each other, therefore every part of the metal plate is equally connected to the ground. When you touch the ...

0

As several answers have stated already: A positron by itself is not known to decay at all. But if you are considering "encounters" in the course of which a given positron ceases to exist, then how about the "absorption" of a positron by a neutron, leaving a proton, accompanied by (emission of) an anti-electron-neutrino: $$\mathbf n + \mathbf e^+ \rightarrow ... 1 Yes a positron can decay without encountering an electron. But it must encounter another particle because as it is said in another answer, the positron is a stable particle (in the vacuum), so it cannot decay on its own. An example of "decay" not involving an electron:$$e^+ + \mu^- \to \bar{\nu_e} +\nu_{\mu} this decay proceeds via the weak interaction (a ...

1

How can I convince myself that wavefunctions of electrons on molecular orbitals are indeed standing waves? Actually, it's better not to. In modern Quantum Physics the idea of electrons as standing waves is increasingly seen as no more than an analogy and not a very good one either. In some cases like this system it's a rather compelling one but even ...

0

How can I convince myself that wavefunctions of electrons on molecular orbitals are indeed standing waves? It seems to me there is a confusion between a Bohr type model of atoms and molecules and the quantum mechanical framework with the orbitals. One can design an orbit of an electron as a standing wave classical solution and then one has to ...

Top 50 recent answers are included