Do you really expect me to believe electrons take this weird shapes around the atom instead of just spinning around the atom? And you're really telling me the electron is stationary while spinning around the atom?
This is bullshit. Rutherford's model made way more sense
They arent stationary. These are just its most probable places to be. Yes, true it spins around the nucleus.
Unless they are in a superposition of states they are stationary
The electron moves, b***h
>Yes, true it spins around the nucleus.
Wasn't that debunked? They'd lose energy from having negatively charged electrons spin around a positively charged core. They'd glow and then lose speed and collapse.
The nucleus vibrates them one way, and captures them by vibrating the local gravity and em field into a certain shape; that certain shape is also vibrating, and feeling pressure from just beyond it, what distinguishes it's shapeness, it's boundary and beyond it's boundary.
So the electron is given energy from the vibrating nucleus, and from the em and gravity field extent shape that traps the electron in a boundary.
The electron is not peddling a bike around an orbit, it is being taken for a ride by oscillators
Where does nucleus get the energy to vibrate from?
Quarks that make up the proton and neutron, are not perfectly all encompassingly neutral, especially being pushed around by their surrounding fields and waves of surrounding fields, the protons and neutrons, the quarks that make them are not just perfectly sitting still there, if they were, how would they form the surrounding fields into a shape at a distance? Unless like gravity, their mass presence displaces the surrounding fields into geometries the electron gets wellly trapped in.
The reason there can be magnetic field of magnets at distance beyond the magnets body, is because electron movements, why wouldn't it follow, the reason the nucleus can make a nucleus field at a distance from its body that the electron is trapped in, due to nucleus movements.
Actions at a distance are either due to: movement or displacement.
Displacement is associated with gravity (though let's not pretend the sun is not moving)
Movement is associated with magnetism
No, just read Zettelini or similar. They just do the same orbital analysis ( attractive potential and disattractive centrifugial) but uses the scrödinger equation math. A beggar in kings clothes.
>Yes, true it spins around the nucleus.
No, you cannot redefine english like this. It does not spin, it becomes a 4d manifold
I thought one of the inherent incompatibilities of QM (3D) and GR (4D) was the number of dimensions?
The number of dimensions is the same. The problem is they don't agree with each other once extrapolated into a different scale. QM works for small stuff, GR works for medium scale (planets and small galaxies), and neither of them predict what the rest of the universe looks like/the larger scale.
The incompatibility of QM and GR is the problem of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
Because QM's time is absolute and causal, while GR's time is relative and pretends to be causal.
>weird shapes
Spherical harmonics are fairly simple and have a lot of symmetry.
Whatever works for you buddy, doesn't really matter since it's all approximately accurate anyway
They are flying around the nucleus, they just do it at 1% of the speed of light so it looks like a homogenous field
The nucelus is constantly vibrating, this makes the electron juice constantly shaken.
The nucelus vibrates the gravity and EM field surrounding it, so that the gravity and EM field surrounding it are geometrically warped;
The electron juice becomes ensnared in these geometric vibrating warpages, and vibrates along with it.
If you try to poke the electron with a stick it doesn't just sit still or gently move the stick, it shakes the stick, like bzzz bzzz bzzz bzzz bzzz, because the nucelus is vibrating, makes the electron vibrate, makes your stick vibrate. So the electron is a wave, it is not a single small particle, but a volume of substance whose body can move in relation to it's body, as is nessecary for a wave
>electron juice
Electron is not a particle!!!!!!!
Constantly sloshing juice is more like a wave than a particle, thus!
Electron is a particle. It just flies in the aether ocean making a local wave.
Ok ok. That's what I was trying to find out. Because people said electron is a wave, has a wave function, has wave properties etc. Wave particle duality, I was trying to comprehend and conceptualize exactly exactly exactly exactly how and what that means.
Cause people also say it has a radius.
Waves can also have radius. Does em wave have radius? Does ocean wave have radius? Does wiggling jump rope have radius? Does vibrating cup of water have radius?
So the electron around those orbitals in op picture, is like those motorcycles at extreme carnival festivals riding around those sphere metal cages?
>So the electron around those orbitals in op picture, is like those motorcycles at extreme carnival festivals riding around those sphere metal cages?
Is this like how an electron particle moves around it's orbital?
>motorcycles at extreme carnival festivals riding around those sphere metal cages
Good analogy. And remember, if they hit each other they got knocked down.
A single electron motorcycle can even know itself out. If it doesnt follow its last path its aether wave will knock it out.
aether doesn't exist
>aether doesn't exist
Aether = Medium = Field
Em Aether/Medium/Field
Gravity Aether/Medium/Field
EM/Gravity Aether/Medium/Field
No waves without a medium
so why would you need aether when particle theory demonstrates that EM and Gravity waves are also quantized thereby allowing waves to transmit without a medium
furthermore, why would you need a medium when strings combining and decombining can create the basic forces anyway, which produces a wavelike result when viewed from our macro-sized perspective
>particle theory
>needs "particle-wave duality" to function
>quantum mechanics
>midwits need "particle-wave duality" to understand quantum properties
>postulate magic without explanation
>"you're just too stupid to accept my bullshit"
>postulate magic without explanation
Pick an explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_textbooks_on_classical_mechanics_and_quantum_mechanics
What if I pick
?
Then people will call you moronic. Up to you.
Why? Why not? Schroedinger derived his equation by considering the wave mechanics of rays of light at microscopic scale, and he did so from classical considerations, mentioning the aether multiple times. Quantization arises naturally from wave harmonics in a potential barrier, which are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. De Broglie considered his matter waves as waves in the aether.
The particle fanboys, Bohr-Einstein, only added obscurantism to the picture. Von Neumann's "disproof" of hidden variables was wrong.
Bohm resurrected the classical picture, and Bell was in favor for it. Edward Nelson derived Schroedinger's equation from Brownian motion.
Are Schroedinger, de Broglie, Bohm, Bell, all moronic?
Dirac thought an aether to be necessary for electromagnetism, was he moronic? Michelson didn't reject the aether even after his experiment, was he moronic? Was Lorentz? Poincaré?
All the mathematics at the foundation of quantum mechanics was originally derived from the assumption of the existence of an aether. Is quantum mechanics moronic?
>Are Schroedinger, de Broglie, Bohm, Bell, all moronic?
No, but neither was Galilei for not knowing about special relativity. You are trying to equate ignorance today with lack of knowledge in the past.
>You are trying to equate ignorance today with lack of knowledge in the past.
Wrong. They are all contemporary to a matter which continues to exist to this day.
How was Bell "ignorant" of quantum mechanics when he supported de Broglie-Bohm against it? How was Bohm "ignorant" of quantum mechanics when he reproposed de Broglie's pilot wave idea? How was Schroedinger "ignorant" of quantum mechanics, when he expressed distaste at the quantum mechanicists using his wave equation?
How would you know what you know today. Look at the technology we have. They didnt have it.
Cool. So what?
What's your fricking point? That you're a genius because you believe in the aether?
That the aether is a more rational explanation for quantum mechanics than whatever magical or contradictory belief you may have, answering
Ever heard of a point particle le moron?
>Ever heard of a point particle le moron?
How does the unexcited electron field crystalize into point particle?
Basically imagine anything, give it enough reasoning for its absence or possible influence. And you've just shat out a framework. Congratulations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
Frick this, I had to study so much chemistry and I don't even like it.
Frick you and your fricking electrons and protons.
I just like smirking when I see something like pic related on a IFLS! tshirt.
that is just the region for optimal positions of point particles with sphere force staying as tight together as possible
Gods legos
What forces the electron to not sit still or have a simpler orbit?
The orbitals are depicted as 3d shapes, do electrons orbit just on the surface of these shapes, or in the middle too?
An atom is sitting around, electrons are orbiting a nucleus,
On earth there are surrounding pressures and movements, if the atom is bumped into, on say the right side, would the left side electron be altered due to this,
Think about tieing two maracas handle to handle horizontal, and attatching it to a perpendicular stick, attatched to some vibrating engine, and then you hit the maraca on the left, you suddenly push it to the right, won't the beads in the maraca on the right experience this and have their vibration altered?
The energy of a waveform is inversely proportional to the confinement of it's position. These orbital shapes are like this because being more confined would increase their energy. Macroscopic objects are also smeared out but they're so big there's barely any difference
Something (em field geometry, gravity field geometry) is keeping the electrons confined in that region
Does the electron get energy when it gets near the nucleus and is repulsed, how forceful is that act of repulsion;
And the outer boundary of the orbital, does that also contribute energy to the electron when it hits up against it?
Then when atoms share electron, the oribital I geuss does not look so teardrop like, but that the accompanying nucleus has a similar pointy of the tear drop orbital look
>The orbitals are depicted as 3d shapes, do electrons orbit just on the surface of these shapes, or in the middle too?
These things show a density as a function of 3 dimensions. It's pretty hard to draw, which is why they often choose one specific value and draw it as a surface in a 2D projection of a 3D object.
If you do the maths, you find out the radial part: https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Mechanics/10%3A_Multi-electron_Atoms/Radial_and_Angular_Parts_of_Atomic_Orbitals
Combining the spherical and the radial parts gives you the probability density:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Map%3A_Chemistry_-_The_Central_Science_(Brown_et_al.)/06%3A_Electronic_Structure_of_Atoms/6.06%3A_3D_Representation_of_Orbitals
The primary reason why it's bullshit is that it doesn't really seem to tell you much how the atoms actually behave in practice.
>weird shapes
Of all the possible models of an atom where the electron isn't literally orbiting around the nucleus (which doesn't make sense considering synchrotron radiation), distributions that look like spherical harmonics are probably the least weird.
I want to see a real good animation visualization of the most accurately expressed understanding of a nucleus capturing an electron, and the electron existing in it's orbit, the nucelus capturing another electron; light waves entering the atom and how the electrons are effected, how the electron drops it's energy level and showing when and where in that process radiation is emited. They have has about 20 years to make this animation, who has done thee best job?
If they weren't frauds, such animation would be already in text books, the answer is we don't know, or these who know don't share it. That is all, Official science is moron-tier
Someone get a graphic designer computer program nerd on another board to make this, the scientests are too proud to ask for help
This KILLS the QM shitter
This has a problem with nodes. They've simply ignored it for the 2s orbital and decided that each electron only occupies one lobe of a p orbital because otherwise it would have to teleport.
you would believe it if you studied chemistry, especially inorganic chemistry. We can pretty much straight up see evidence for orbital shapes in the electron densities of the molecules we make. And we can straight up use atomic orbitals as a basis set to compute the states of said molecules and the predicted properties are observed experimentally.
It didn't seem that the orbitals are anywhere restrictive enough. For example why does carbon always seems to bind in a =|| pattern? As if there were two binding sites on top, and two binding sites at the bottom, rotated by 90 degrees, (as if each was on an edge of a cube, and other atoms could either bind on an edge for a single bond, or to a side for a double bond)? Oxygen the same thing, but only with one side. And so o, and almost all molecules seem to follow this pattern.
You haven't provided any specific details or examples.
>we straight up see evidence in the electron densities in the molecules we make
are you suggesting we've made a single molecule, isolated it, and mapped its electron density in what otherwise is a vacuum? It's possible, please provide the link
I didn't find inorganic chemistry too useful besides learning a bit about group theory
Not the original replier, but The orbitals in a crystal surface can be mapped with scanning Tunneling microscopy
Now, there are some caveats: the orbitals of a molecule (such as a surface) are not the exact spdf orbitals of a nice hydrogen-like atom, but rather the atomic orbitals form a basis from which the actual states are composed
Maybe I'm moronic, but these electron orbitals are based off the Schrodinger equation for the electron in hydrogen. The orbitals are a map of the probability density of where the electron will be, based off the energy of the electron.
As soon as a second electron is introduced, like in the case of helium, the equation breaks down. We can't use the schrodinger equations to map the probability density of electrons, so we just apply the findings for hydrogen to all other elements.
Whoever is saying they are stationary is wrong. The electrons always have vibrational motion at the least. They all possess spin. If you're asking if they electron rotates like the earth around the sun, then a professor would tell you that's incorrect.
If you're trying to use wave mechanics to find an answer but conceptualizing a particle, you're missing the point of our models.
Dven at QM the electron moves and accelerates.
>repulsive centrifugal potential
>angular momentum
yes, you are full of shit. The electron has angular momentum. it has to have motion around the nucleus.
QM fails to take account electron on electron interaction. Somehow it compensates this by doing some weird wave mechanics out of nowhere. I expect this wave to be real and its called EM wave.
Particles don't exist like tiny balls. They are perturbations of fields that exist everywhere. If you do something that makes them appear to be in a specific location, it's because you've interrupted the field in some way. The 1s orbital IS the electron, not where you can find an electron.
So (free) electrons do no exist? Tell that to my old tv's vacuum tube.
It's just transferring energy to the screen through electron waves in the EM field.
How does electron wave differ from EM wave?
Different types waves can exist in the electromagnetic field, one of which is the electron.
Interesting theory.
is electron some kind of single wave crest and positron some kind of anti-crest?
No. They're distinguished by other properties. How an electron oscillates determines its energy.
How can a wave have differeent properties if its just a wave
Imagine a white beach. If you make a mound it is a photon, but this can be turned into an electron and a positron by spliting the mound in two and sending half of the color spectrum left and the other half right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode-ray_tube
this thing clearly cant exists in QM
A ring can spin without moving.
The frick is a spinnor?
A number that spins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinor
Will learning 3d vector calc help me understand chemistry? Div Grad Curl and that stuff?
Not directly, but in the long run, probably. Without vector calc you cannot understand electrodynamics.
I have a chemistry degree and we barely even used basic calculus. Any time more advanced mathematics came up, we were given shortcuts to skip having to learn it because it was so far outside the scope of anything else.
Well, I'm learning on my own and I'm the kind of guy who wants the 'roots' of stuff. Like I started a book on proofs but struggled because I was being autismo about there not being definitions of certain operators.
I've heard that undergrad chem is actually a false set of approximations to help you understand grad chem, which is also a false set of approximations, which helps you finally understand real chemistry. I kinda imagine part of that might be because you can't expect entry-level chem students to be comfortable with n-dimensional diffeqs. So they summarise
Not that I'm comfortable, but I'm just aimlessly learning on my own with no deadlines. I'm doing vector calc now and plan on getting into chem soon, so I just wanna know where it might apply so I can skip the approximations/ have material to apply my vector calc learnings to.
I would recommend to learn it, but accept the approximations without proving four millennia of chemistry by hand.
Sure, I'd just like to be able to look at a couple of them and dig in halfway so I feel more confident that I can do so with the others if I want.
my degree was econ/finance and the more I learned, the more I found that the basic math didn't line up with the theories so I have a complex now.
I think, it can't hurt to flick through Introduction to electrodynamics by David Griffiths. He explains the vector algebra you need for electric and magnetic fields. But I'm a physicist, so what I recommend might be overkill for a chemist.
It's because the field strays into biology, physics, materials science, electronics, etc. so it's impossible to fully understand everything without learning those fields too. You get an outline in undergrad, then specialize afterwards.