0
$\begingroup$

Although electrons stays away from protons an atom remains electrically neutral But two atoms one positively charged and another negatively charged remain so until they comes in contact. Can the modern atomic model be wrong?

$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by Jon Custer, stafusa, John Rennie, Kyle Kanos, Cosmas Zachos Aug 3 at 16:26

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1
$\begingroup$

The electromagnetic field allows charged particles to interact with each other without being in contact. It pervades the space between the charged particles (and everywhere else).

The modern atomic model works extremely well. It is one of the triumphs of physics!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @safesphere Your idea that there is no electromagnetic field in quantum mechanics is far from the mainstream. In fact, it is extremely common to formulate the quantum mechanics of charged particles using an unquantized electromagnetic field. What do you think the electrostatic potential in the Schrodinger equation of the hydrogen atom represents? How do you think spin-orbit coupling is explained? Or the Stark effect? Or the Zeeman effect? Atomic structure has virtually nothing to do with QED. However, QED is necessary for understanding transitions between atomic states. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Jul 31 at 19:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @safesphere There have been numerous discussions on this site about how to think about Feynman diagrams and virtual particles. Your “no fields..., only particles in direct contact” view is in the minority. The general consensus is that the “intuition” gained from taking Feynman diagrams literally as you do is harmful to understanding quantum field theory. There is a lot of room for improvement in your answer as well, since it does not yet exist. Why not write one? $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Jul 31 at 23:19

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.