0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
1. how could gold atoms able to form into 1 piece since every gold atom has negative charged electron cloud?
2. why can't we compress a gold ball any smaller since atom's electron cloud should be easily compressible?
3. we can see comets hit the sun, why can't we see electrons hit nucleus? even in the x-ray tube?
thank you both, but i am not convinced at all.
i am not scientist, just a college dropped out. but i have reasonable doubts about present theory of atomic structure. be appreciate your opinion/answer. please don't quote wiki, just give straight logic/fact. nothing more or less. all i want is open minded discussing. thank you, and thank this great forum!1. how could gold atoms able to form into 1 piece since every gold atom has negative charged electron cloud?2. why can't we compress a gold ball any smaller since atom's electron cloud should be easily compressible?3. we can see comets hit the sun, why can't we see electrons hit nucleus? even in the x-ray tube?
do you really think electrons are orbiting/circling/clouding around nucleus?
Quote from: jccc on 14/05/2015 18:52:33do you really think electrons are orbiting/circling/clouding around nucleus? No scientist does. And who cares what anyone else thinks about a scientific matter?
how scientist think about atoms? if they don't think electron are circling? isn't all the wiki pics show electrons are circling? what is the truth about atomic structure?
ever doubt any theories? still think light is photon emitted by electron?
still think electrons are orbiting?
i was major in physics.
too much word puzzles.
ever doubt any theories?
I believe that when an electron in an atom is accelerated light is produced, which can be described as a wave or a photon.
That's incorrect. That's a classical way of thinking about an atom and the classical model is flawed. ........In quantum mechanics one cannot think of a particle as moving on a classical trajectory. That means that we can't think of an electron as moving in any sense if the term.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 15/05/2015 12:39:05That's incorrect. That's a classical way of thinking about an atom and the classical model is flawed. ........In quantum mechanics one cannot think of a particle as moving on a classical trajectory. That means that we can't think of an electron as moving in any sense if the term.I think we mean the same thing as I don't think of the electron as being moved in any classical sense. I was trying to avoid using 'atom energy levels', as I know what jcccs response to that always is. My choice of words didn't work, I should stick to calling things what they are rather than trying to accommodate other people's sensitivities.jccc that reminds me. You are always drawing parallels between big size physics and small size. Doesn't work. On earth surface we are used to picking up a 10lb weight with a lift force of 10lb or greater, any value 10.1, 11.778, etc. at atomic levels it becomes obvious that you can only give energy out in chunks, quanta, not as a continuous variable. Similarly analogies like electrons whizzing round like planets doesn't work, nor does fixed in a 'jelly', nor does crashing down to hit the nucleus.Think little.
just simple question, please share your thought.