Science Junkie
What keeps electrons from falling into the nucleus of an atom?
At the intra-atomic level, classical mechanics and electromagnetism are no longer valid: electrons are not balls that orbit around the nucleus, they are more aptly described  by a probability distribution. So it’s necessary to analyse this systems’ behaviour using quantum mechanics. Therefore:
Bound systems can exist only for discrete values of energy —as per Schrödinger equation.
The ground-state (lowest-energy state) can’t correspond to a stationary particle state —as per the uncertainty principle.
This implies that the electrons’ ground-state can’t be the one that corresponds to electrons “fallen” in the nucleus. Consequently, their ground-state should have higher energy, that coincides to a state at finite distance from the nucleus. 
In other words: there are energy levels forbidden to an electron and the level that would coincide with the nucleus is one of these.
Image: [x]  -  Asked by dolems

What keeps electrons from falling into the nucleus of an atom?

At the intra-atomic level, classical mechanics and electromagnetism are no longer valid: electrons are not balls that orbit around the nucleus, they are more aptly described  by a probability distribution. So it’s necessary to analyse this systems’ behaviour using quantum mechanics. Therefore:

  • Bound systems can exist only for discrete values of energy —as per Schrödinger equation.
  • The ground-state (lowest-energy state) can’t correspond to a stationary particle state —as per the uncertainty principle.

This implies that the electrons’ ground-state can’t be the one that corresponds to electrons “fallen” in the nucleus. Consequently, their ground-state should have higher energy, that coincides to a state at finite distance from the nucleus. 

In other words: there are energy levels forbidden to an electron and the level that would coincide with the nucleus is one of these.

Image: [x]  -  Asked by dolems







  1. champagne-supernova-sky reblogged this from science-junkie
  2. sunyapeace reblogged this from science-junkie
  3. ffff33 reblogged this from omicronpsi
  4. omicronpsi reblogged this from science-junkie
  5. itsjustgalvin reblogged this from science-junkie
  6. hello-language-that-is-all reblogged this from science-junkie
  7. karkatshouting reblogged this from theprophetlemonade
  8. theprophetlemonade reblogged this from science-junkie
  9. multiverseofawesomeness reblogged this from science-junkie
  10. e-rythraean reblogged this from science-junkie
  11. mega-question-guy reblogged this from science-junkie
  12. layzcreature0 reblogged this from science-junkie
  13. godmindlove reblogged this from science-junkie
  14. juguini reblogged this from thatscienceguy
  15. bi-lakaifa reblogged this from andrewxabyss
  16. siriusblackismylover reblogged this from andrewxabyss
  17. andrewxabyss reblogged this from science-junkie
  18. dreaming-six-dimensions reblogged this from science-junkie
  19. invictascientia reblogged this from anthroreference
  20. hierosatori reblogged this from science-junkie
  21. poopy-shmoops reblogged this from science-junkie and added:
    Do these patterns coincide with stronger or weaker bonds between atoms?
  22. vonzimofancy reblogged this from anthroreference
  23. leecheezus reblogged this from erwinshrodinger
  24. erwinshrodinger reblogged this from science-junkie
  25. igugras reblogged this from personificationoflaziness
  26. kingofno1 reblogged this from thatscienceguy
  27. artiste9999 reblogged this from science-junkie
  28. killthemallthelawyers reblogged this from nwbwr
  29. gazolli reblogged this from thatscienceguy