Timeline for Wrong explanation for why "electron can't exist in the nucleus"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 25 at 16:07 | comment | added | JEB | @naturallyInconsistent yes. I'm $e(p, p)e$ scattering (SLAC) all-the-way. I don't care what a bunch of atomic physicists measure in their little tabletop apparatus that can't even be seen from space. | |
| Sep 25 at 9:57 | comment | added | naturallyInconsistent | Unrelated: Do you know about the proton radius puzzle? Even CODATA is weighing in and recommending 0.84fm instead of the older value? The new value has the extremely nice property that we can pretend that nucleons are almost-hard-spheres under close packing for large nuclei; But that first requires that we stop using estimates of nuclear radii from before this millennium. | |
| Sep 25 at 9:43 | comment | added | naturallyInconsistent | Fun clarification: Your expansion of the highly localised electron wavefunction over the $\ell=0$ eigenstates cannot just be over the discrete bound $n$ states only. Not least because as $n$ grows, the wavefunction is weighted less and less near the nucleus and more farther out. That is actually sensible, because all the bound states contribute negatively to the energies; instead, the unbound Coulomb waves will be the dominant contributions, and that is also why the energy expectation value is so huge. Definitely explosive. | |
| Sep 9 at 17:05 | history | answered | JEB | CC BY-SA 4.0 |