Timeline for Why do electrons occupy the space around nuclei, and not collide with them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2020 at 10:31 | history | edited | PM 2Ring | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed typos
|
| Nov 29, 2019 at 15:48 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Nov 29, 2019 at 18:46 | |||||
| Dec 18, 2011 at 7:01 | comment | added | joseph f. johnson | «electron orbits being restricted to a set of finite energiescan be given a reasonably natural explanation in terms of de Broglie's picture of all matter as being composed of waves by requiring that a integer number of waves fit into the circular orbit.» You are following de Broglie too, too faithfully here. This begs the question. ¿Why should a three-dimensional wave have to fit around a circular orbit? (like a train on a rail track). They teach Bohr in grade school, too....This is the main problem with your answer, since this hack is quite unmotivated. | |
| Dec 3, 2011 at 2:27 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | @Mike That's a fine explanation, but it's not a plane wave bent into a circle (as in the Borh--de Broglie picture). It's a three dimensional standing wave, which is hard for weak little brains like mine to visualize. That leaves the concept of "orbital radius" a little fuzzy: it is easy enough to compute the mean radius, but that doesn't mean the electron stays that far from the nucleus. | |
| Dec 3, 2011 at 2:24 | comment | added | Mike Dunlavey | @dmckee: The explanation I've picked up somewhere, though it's probably way over-simplistic (probably wrong, even) is that the electron is described by a wave function, and since it's in an orbit, it has to be a standing wave, which discretizes the energy levels it can have, and the energy level determines its "orbit radius". (I know that's really sophomoric, sorry. My knowledge of physics is mostly Newtonian.) | |
| May 6, 2011 at 21:21 | comment | added | voithos | @dmckee Alright, perhaps I was exaggerating a bit. It would be somewhat silly of me to say that your answer was fantastic if I didn't understand any of it. I was just saying that you pointed out a lot of things that I should look up. I might ask supplementary questions later on, though, if I can't seem to get something. | |
| May 6, 2011 at 15:47 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | @voithos: If you don't get most of it, then I've pitched it at the wrong level. | |
| May 5, 2011 at 2:14 | history | edited | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body; edited body
|
| May 5, 2011 at 2:06 | vote | accept | voithos | ||
| May 5, 2011 at 2:06 | comment | added | voithos | @dmckee Wow, that explanation is fantastic, thank you. Honestly, I didn't understand about 90% of it, and the other 10% I couldn't put in context. But I'll try to try to analyze, and perhaps look back on later when I hopefully will have a deeper understanding on this subject. | |
| May 3, 2011 at 23:39 | history | edited | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| May 3, 2011 at 23:28 | history | edited | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
much expanded; added 129 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2011 at 17:13 | history | edited | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2011 at 16:50 | history | answered | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | CC BY-SA 3.0 |