3 ms·

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 mor

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 8y ago
Define “empty”.
krastanov 8y 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 8y 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).

tzahola 8y ago

Define “empty”.

krastanov 8y 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 8y 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).