3 ms·

For those interested in more intuitive understanding of how the "smearing" breaks the meme about atoms being mostly empty space, check out these plots: https://

For those interested in more intuitive understanding of how the "smearing" breaks the meme about atoms being mostly empty space, check out these plots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#/media/File:Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#/media/File:Hyd... While you can argue they are still flawed, they do clearly show that the electrons have fairly large probabilities of being observed pretty much anywhere inside the "radius" of the atom.

RightMillennial 9y ago
Those are simply the electron orbitals which describe the probability of finding the respective election at a given point. That doesn't imply "smearing" any more than a picture with a long exposure does. Atoms are still mostly empty space.
- tzahola 9y ago
  Define “empty”.
- krastanov 9y ago
  I am really confused by what you are saying. It sounds like you think that electrons are point particles with charge that have some position somewhere. This is frequently a convenient model, but the last 100 years have showed pretty convincingly that the "reality" is that electrons are wavefunctions (or if you want to be pedantic, excitations of a particular quantum field). At this point, arguing about "are atoms mostly empty space" becomes a futile semantic argument. The model you picked in order to defend this statement is indeed useful in some limits, but it has been proven wrong. Imagining electrons as clouds has proven to be much closer to reality.
  - contoraria 9y ago
    It's hard to abandon the old idea, when the new idea, I mean, it's there, everywhere and nowhere at the same time, if you don't look, isn't particularly convincing, and the retort that it doesn't need to be convincing if you (read: I) just aren't smart enough, because it's counterintuitive, then I have a counterintuitive disregard for your cleverness. I have to concede, though, that "empty" is not a particularly meaningful physical concept, quite the opposite. Disregarding the Aether theory, only to replace it with fields of potentials, that is kind of running in circles. A model is fundamentally wrong. That's what it means to have a model. At that "clouds" is no more helpful then "empty". The fact of the matter is that no one has ever seen these things, no nucleus, no electrons, as far as I know. Yet, you haven't pointed out what was actually wrong with "Those are simply the electron orbitals which describe the probability of finding the respective election at a given point". Edit: Perhaps you intended to imply that this description is overly idealized (not to say simple).
metaobject 9y ago
Regarding the "smearing" concept, how does that square with the formation of neutron stars and white dwarfs? Those objects are incredibly dense because they're composed mostly (?) of nuceei or neutrons, respectively.
- krastanov 9y ago
  The plots I linked to are for a single atom. If you have many other atoms around it, the smearing becomes different. For instance, in metals some of the electrons are completely smeared over the whole macroscopic piece of metal (this is a bit handwavy, but not incorrect phrasing). Chemical bonds also happen due to deforming and sharing of those "smeared" clouds between neighboring atoms. If you have too much external pressure (gravity), those smeared electron clouds come too close to the nucleus, react with it, and the only thing left is neutrons.

RightMillennial 9y ago

Those are simply the electron orbitals which describe the probability of finding the respective election at a given point. That doesn't imply "smearing" any more than a picture with a long exposure does. Atoms are still mostly empty space.

tzahola 9y ago
Define “empty”.
krastanov 9y ago
I am really confused by what you are saying. It sounds like you think that electrons are point particles with charge that have some position somewhere. This is frequently a convenient model, but the last 100 years have showed pretty convincingly that the "reality" is that electrons are wavefunctions (or if you want to be pedantic, excitations of a particular quantum field). At this point, arguing about "are atoms mostly empty space" becomes a futile semantic argument. The model you picked in order to defend this statement is indeed useful in some limits, but it has been proven wrong. Imagining electrons as clouds has proven to be much closer to reality.
- contoraria 9y ago
  It's hard to abandon the old idea, when the new idea, I mean, it's there, everywhere and nowhere at the same time, if you don't look, isn't particularly convincing, and the retort that it doesn't need to be convincing if you (read: I) just aren't smart enough, because it's counterintuitive, then I have a counterintuitive disregard for your cleverness. I have to concede, though, that "empty" is not a particularly meaningful physical concept, quite the opposite. Disregarding the Aether theory, only to replace it with fields of potentials, that is kind of running in circles. A model is fundamentally wrong. That's what it means to have a model. At that "clouds" is no more helpful then "empty". The fact of the matter is that no one has ever seen these things, no nucleus, no electrons, as far as I know. Yet, you haven't pointed out what was actually wrong with "Those are simply the electron orbitals which describe the probability of finding the respective election at a given point". Edit: Perhaps you intended to imply that this description is overly idealized (not to say simple).

metaobject 9y ago

Regarding the "smearing" concept, how does that square with the formation of neutron stars and white dwarfs? Those objects are incredibly dense because they're composed mostly (?) of nuceei or neutrons, respectively.

krastanov 9y ago
The plots I linked to are for a single atom. If you have many other atoms around it, the smearing becomes different. For instance, in metals some of the electrons are completely smeared over the whole macroscopic piece of metal (this is a bit handwavy, but not incorrect phrasing). Chemical bonds also happen due to deforming and sharing of those "smeared" clouds between neighboring atoms. If you have too much external pressure (gravity), those smeared electron clouds come too close to the nucleus, react with it, and the only thing left is neutrons.