If electrons are negatively charged then why aren't they in the nucleus with protons?

It's irrelevant.

>t. J.J Thomson, 1904

You are some 15 year old, aren't you. This is taught in fucking highschool.

Strong force mumbo jumbo.

Hmmm?

centripetal acceleration, the electron keeps 'just' missing the nucleus, same with gravity

Inderesding argumend. :)

lel. thats good

Not true at all
Simulations modeled that way all show atom would decay in fractions of a second

???
Someone come up with a valid response to this question already.
Lol

en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Quantum_theory_of_the_atom

>Fuck. I went ahead and looked it up myself, since no one is replying.

"Electrons act differently than everyday objects because electrons can behave as both particles and waves. Actually, all objects have this property, but the wavelike behavior of larger objects, such as sand, marbles, or even people, is too small to measure. In very small particles wave behavior is measurable and important. Electrons travel around the nucleus of an atom, but because they behave like waves, they do not follow a specific path like a planet orbiting the Sun does. Instead they form regions of negative electric charge around the nucleus. These regions are called orbitals, and they correspond to the space in which the electron is most likely to be found."

in other words, the electrons can theoretically be found in the nucleus

if you measure them, you have a small chance of finding an electron in the nucleus, no?

But why is it what only the electrons can behave as waves AND particles, but the protons can only behave as particles?

Because they feel like it

Not true at all
The reason that the wave functions for electrons exclude the nuclear region is because of the centrifugal force term in the Hamiltonian.

All things (according to quantum theory) are both "waves" and "particles".

Its tough to imagine that someone such as Dalton, Bohr, Rutherford or Schroedinger couldve developed some kind of atomic model and explaination, building on each other's ideas and experiments.

But no, we must be bombarded with stupid questions outside of SQTs.

where do electrons come from

Some elections move in waves and some don't, it depends on the type of atom here is an example of a hydrogen atom.

"There are more than 109 different types of atoms - one for each element. Differences between the atoms give the elements their different chemical properties. In 2001, there were 115 known elements."

Protons and neutrons do behave like waves, its just less than 1/1837 the of an electrons wave affects.

My beef with the idea of electron clouds is this:

A fan blade has a definite shape, position, etc. Spin that mofo really fast around an axis and suddenly you can't tell where the blade is or the shape of the damn thing. But you know that there is a "cloud" where if you put your finger it will hurt a lot.

Why can't electrons be like that? They have a shape and a position, but they are moving so fast they seem to be occupying a 3-D space instead of a point in space, just like a rotating fan blade.

In effect, the difference between the cloud and the point source is the relative time to the observer. If we could slow ourselves down and become really tiny, we could observe the electron always as a point.

Thoughts?

>electron is a particle

So let's ask the geniuses over at Veeky Forums

Nope

Lmfao I'm at my rest and I laughed out loud, fucking ass hole

Aether theory says that more than a century ago and mainstream science only accept it today. Isn't it funny?

Desk.

see
Don't make fun of people when you yourself don't know what you're talking about.

How did you come up with that PARTICular number? ;) Please share.

Lol really though

Using this, and only this. Can you imagine how fucking cool that would be..?

computerworld.com/article/3066870/wearables/why-a-smart-contact-lens-is-the-ultimate-wearable.html

Although.. I'm pretty sure the contact lenses is not capable of microscopic qualities.

...

protons are much larger than electrons so the proton wavelike nature can be considered "small" in comparison with electron duality

You can understand how that could easily be misunderstood right?? ..heh
You know..them being large and slow and all??

>insecurities showing.

So what are you trying to say???

Bc they don't want to hang out with the protons and nuetrons. They just don't. In EVERY DIFERENT ATOM OUT OF 115 OF THEM, they just don't hang man.

There's a non-zero probability of finding the electron in the nucleus. So whether you believe the wavefunction is real or not, the electron does spend time in the nucleus.

The minimum frequency a wave can have is the mass of that particle. The electron mass is 2000x less than the proton mass, so it "spreads out" in space 2000x more. It can be high energy electron and still appear as a much larger wave than the nucleus does.

omg guys you are so retard

the electron does not collide because the e.m. between protons and electrons causes a centripetal acelleration, like the moon and the arth

PLUS according to MQ electrons can only be in some low-potential-zone that satisfy a resonance for their schroedingher equations (according to the fact that they act as waves because of de broglie's law)

If the electrons are orbiting 'like the moon' then how come they aren't continually radiation energy? They are then accelerating charges.

Because it's the arth, never underestimate the arth

?

yeah sorry, the idiot mispronouncing 'earth' deleted his message

mass ratio

my message isn't deleted faggot, just look above
omg i missed a key on the keyboard, kill him!11!!

They don't irradiate energy because the direction of the acceleration is orthogonal to the direction of the velocity (where he is actually moving)