From: Herbert 22/06/2001 10:07:07 Subject: electron orbits post id: 330026 OK, so electrons very rarely, if ever, slow in their orbits enough to allow absorption into the nucleus. Why do most atoms have them orbiting in the first place? The creation of an orbit needs ideal circumstances, i think. The simple fact that + attracts - would imply that we should have a whole lot more neutrons in our universe than charged particles, wouldn't it? I've never even heard mention of lone neutrons before, and yet they must be around. From: Halogen Fisk ® 22/06/2001 10:20:46 Subject: re: electron orbits post id: 330037 Sorry Herbert if I'm stating the obvious, but electrons don not orbit in the "Newtonian" sense, (ie like planets.) An electron's "orbit" is more of a metaphor for the arrangement between electron & nucleus. Like spin on sub atomic particles doesn't actually mean they're spinning around. & yes there is a lot of hydrogen in the universe missing it's electron. From: Herbert 22/06/2001 10:33:01 Subject: re: electron orbits post id: 330046 Helium, old chap.... what keeps the electrons of a helium atom away from the nucleus? the electron-electron repulsion would be negated by the protons in the nucleus, because they would always be on opposite sides if the atom. From: Geraint ® 22/06/2001 10:37:42 Subject: re: electron orbits post id: 330051 Hi Halkogen - a hydrogen atome without its electron is a proton, not a neutron. There are NOT many free neutrons about as they decay with a half-life of around 10mins From: Halogen FIsk 22/06/2001 10:43:05 Subject: re: electron orbits post id: 330061 This is not my area of expertise, but I can tell you it's not Gravity. There are four fundemental forces: Strong nuclear force, Weak Nuclear FOrce, Electomagnetism, & Gravity. (in descending order of strength.) It's the nuclear forces that hold things together. & thanks Geraint.. I'll go back to TV & skydiving now :) From: James R (Avatar) 22/06/2001 13:26:18 Subject: re: electron orbits post id: 330179 The electrons in an atom stay in orbit due to the Pauli exclusion principle, which limits the number of electrons which can be found in each quantum state. If this quantum mechanical effect didn't exist, atoms would collapse as electromagnetic forces pulled the atoms into the nucleus. JR From: Joanna Dark 22/06/2001 13:30:53 Subject: re: electron orbits post id: 330185 atoms would collapse as electromagnetic forces pulled the atoms into the nucleus. you mean pulled the electrons?? From: Drues ® 22/06/2001 13:35:28 Subject: re: electron orbits post id: 330190 Does anyone remember that girl rock-band in the mid-90's called 'spdfgh'?? I wonder how many physics and chemistry students have them to thank for passing? *lol* From: James R (Avatar) 22/06/2001 13:36:21 Subject: re: electron orbits post id: 330193 Yes. Thanks Joanna. From: Paul H. 22/06/2001 13:38:13 Subject: re: electron orbits post id: 330194 Casual questions, responses optional: Is this right: in quantum tunneling, things are travelling faster than light? I've also heard that quantum "entanglement" is *not* now thought to be required for the quantum "non-local action" thing to happen. What do our resident la- coats think about all the weirdness associated with the various double slit experiments? How are the photons communicating? The Copenhagen Interpretation: When I take my eyes of the computer, does it cease to exist? Does anyone here really believe that? (Yes/No, or very short answers will do). From: James R (Avatar) 22/06/2001 13:48:52 Subject: re: electron orbits post id: 330200 Paul H, Although I am still waiting for an apology, I will respond to your questions. Is this right: in quantum tunneling, things are travelling faster than light? Possibly. But it doesn't violate relativity. I'm not sure what the latest results on this are. I've also heard that quantum "entanglement" is *not* now thought to be required for the quantum "non-local action" thing to happen. Where did you hear that? What was the context? What type of non-local action? Need more details to answer this one. What do our resident la- coats think about all the weirdness associated with the various double slit experiments? How are the photons communicating? The photons don't communicate. Each photon goes through both slits and effectively interferes with itself. The Copenhagen Interpretation: When I take my eyes of the computer, does it cease to exist? Does anyone here really believe that? That's not what the Copenhagen interpretation says, exactly. Measurement causes collapse of the wave function. Collapse probably doesn't require a conscious observer. Things retain a concrete existence when you're not looking, but they can be in a superposition of quantum states. But things act somewhat differently at a microscopic level than at macroscopic scales. At macroscopic scales, quantisation is usually undetectable for varous reasons. JR This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.