They don't circle the nucleus at all. They're actually all around it, all at once, but they happen to favor some places more than others. If you take the average of all the places, it's the path they would take if they did circle all around it.
Or to look at it another way, Think of a wave traveling in a circle. Now adjust the freequency of the wave until it just fits one sized circle. The circle is real, but it's not a path of an object, it's just the place where the wave just fits. That's the path of the electron.
Or pick up a set of dice, throw them and get a number. Keep on throwing them and write all the numbers you get. Add 'em up and figure out which numbers come up more often than others. That set of numbers is the places where the electron spends most of it's time, but all the numbers come up sooner or later, just some come up more often than others.
I could go on like this all day. All the explanations would be right (because they give the right answers) but they can't all be right because they're all different. Go figure.
Perpetual motion is not impossible. Objects will move forever without slowing down if there's no friction. Planets will circle the sun indefinitely
without any need to add energy to keep them moving. Planets aren't just moving, they're falling. They just never hit the ground. You don't use up any energy falling.
Perpetual motion is not only possible, it's everywhere.
Space/Science » in reply to Do the electrons of an Atom truly “circle†the atom’s nucleus? If so, aren’t they then in perpetual motion?
Not really
The whole thread (41 posts)
- Physics news update -- The Casimir Effect Heats Up
- Something's not right.
- There's more to electricity than meets the eye. Photons, too. (n/t)
- Thanks SDF
- It's a stretch,
- Do the electrons of an Atom truly “circle†the atom’s nucleus? If so, aren’t they then in perpetual motion?
- Not really
- re: note that if true, we could then define Energy, Mass, and gravity all in one equation!
- The formula would look something like:
- Do the electrons of an Atom truly “circle†the atom’s nucleus? If so, aren’t they then in perpetual motion?
- I doubt gravity is in any way electrical.
- Gravity
- I think gravity is to weak a force to be THE force that holds or creates or "makes rigid" matter from energy.
- re: I think gravity is to weak a force to be THE force that holds or creates or "makes rigid" matter from energy.
- I think gravity is to weak a force to be THE force that holds or creates or "makes rigid" matter from energy.
- Not in the sense that most people think of electricity
- Gravity