This is probably a question with an obvious answer, but I just started hon. chem & phys this year, so I don't really know. Why aren't the electrons in the orbitals pulled into the positive nucleus by magnetic force? This is very puzzling to me.
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As it is, if the Electron goes to move past the Nucleus, the force of gravitation pulls it towards it, and its path curves. If its speed were too high then it would go past the Nucleus on a curved course, but would not be held in orbit. If its speed were too low then it would spiral in and eventually crash into it. But if its speed is just right, it is held in a stable orbit, which is circular or elliptical.
Its momentum makes it want to move away from the Nucleus in a straight line, but the attractive force pulls it towards it, and it can't get away. The result is that it stays in orbit around the Nucleus.
So basically it's just a combination of it's natural speed working against the orbit it's on to keep it on a steady course.
To answer the question about electrons, the same thing happens, except that there is a nucleus instead of the Earth, one or more electrons instead of the moon, and the attractive force between them is electrostatic instead of gravitational.
This is probably a question with an obvious answer, but I just started hon. chem & phys this year, so I don't really know. Why aren't the electrons in the orbitals pulled into the positive nucleus by magnetic force? This is very puzzling to me.
I don't think there is a good classical analogy. For an electron in the potential well of the nucleus, there is a minimum allowed energy state, the ground state. There just is no lower energy state available to it, so it cannot be closer to the nucleus. (Note, by the way, that the ground state wave function actually does overlap the nucleus, and so in some sense the electron does spend part of its time in the nucleus.)
The nucleus does absorb orbital electrons; the process is called electron capture. It only happens, though, when the nucleus is unstable because it has too many protons, i.e. the isotope with one fewer proton and one more neutron is energetically favored over the original isotope.But then why wouldn't the nucleus absorb it like a beta particle?
This is probably a question with an obvious answer, but I just started hon. chem & phys this year, so I don't really know. Why aren't the electrons in the orbitals pulled into the positive nucleus by magnetic force? This is very puzzling to me.
As it is, if the Electron goes to move past the Nucleus, the force of gravitation pulls it towards it, and its path curves. If its speed were too high then it would go past the Nucleus on a curved course, but would not be held in orbit. If its speed were too low then it would spiral in and eventually crash into it. But if its speed is just right, it is held in a stable orbit, which is circular or elliptical.
Its momentum makes it want to move away from the Nucleus in a straight line, but the attractive force pulls it towards it, and it can't get away. The result is that it stays in orbit around the Nucleus.
So basically it's just a combination of it's natural speed working against the orbit it's on to keep it on a steady course.
To answer the question about electrons, the same thing happens, except that there is a nucleus instead of the Earth, one or more electrons instead of the moon, and the attractive force between them is electrostatic instead of gravitational.
No, that's wrong. The electrons are attracted by the positive electric charge, not by magnetism. The neutrons, which are neutral, have no effect on the attraction between the protons and the electrons.I would say energy balance.
In the nucleus, perhaps the neutrons weigh out the protons just enough so that the electrons aren't overly attracted by magnetism, as an electron orbits the nucleus the magnetism is just enough to pull the electron back till the electron's own energy swings it back away.
Unstable nuclei can have either too many protons or too many neutrons; for heavier nuclei, any combination of protons and neutrons is unstable. The instability has very little to do with the electrons in the atom, however.(An unstable element is one with too many protons, but you probably already knew that.)
I don't think an atom can become unstable by having too many electrons, because they would just zoom past the nucleus because the nucleus' magnetism wouldn't be strong enough to attract them into orbit.
Can a nucleus have too many neutrons? Or doesn't this matter?
I thought that's what magnetism was - negative charge being attracted by positive charge, and vice versa.No, that's wrong. The electrons are attracted by the positive electric charge, not by magnetism.
But then why is an atom with too many protons unstable?The neutrons, which are neutral, have no effect on the attraction between the protons and the electrons.
You're talking uranium, etc.?Unstable nuclei can have either too many protons or too many neutrons; for heavier nuclei, any combination of protons and neutrons is unstable.
It's both: that's why we call it electromagnetism, because it's all basically the same thing.I thought that's what magnetism was - negative charge being attracted by positive charge, and vice versa.
Because protons have a positive charge, so they repel each other. But, protons and neutrons are also attracted to each other because of the strong nuclear force.But then why is an atom with too many protons unstable?
Neutrons have no affect on electron number, but there are still limits to how many (and how few) neutrons they can have.You're talking uranium, etc.?
Does having too many neutrons have the same effect on the electrons?
Because if they got any closer they'd lose energy. But there's a minimum amounts of energy they have to have (it's called the zero point energy).This is probably a question with an obvious answer, but I just started hon. chem & phys this year, so I don't really know. Why aren't the electrons in the orbitals pulled into the positive nucleus by magnetic force? This is very puzzling to me.
Great question PhilosophicalBuster!This is probably a question with an obvious answer, but I just started hon. chem & phys this year, so I don't really know. Why aren't the electrons in the orbitals pulled into the positive nucleus by magnetic force? This is very puzzling to me.
This is probably a question with an obvious answer, but I just started hon. chem & phys this year, so I don't really know. Why aren't the electrons in the orbitals pulled into the positive nucleus by magnetic force? This is very puzzling to me.
~sigh~If the Sun and Earth are attracted to one another, why don't they fall on eachother?
lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.
This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God ..., Or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God* usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him** are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshiped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?