4 ms·
This is a wildly pedantic point about the probabilistic nature of electron clouds. When interpreting electrons as particles, the atom is mostly empty. The posi
by nickelpro 3y ago
This is a wildly pedantic point about the probabilistic nature of electron clouds.
When interpreting electrons as particles, the atom is mostly empty. The position of the electron is not known with certainty, but the number and mass of the electrons is and it is very small compared to the size of the entire atom. Volumetrically electrons are point particles and take up no space at all.
When interpreting electrons as quantum waves the term "empty" is largely meaningless.
- esperent 3y ago> When interpreting electrons as particles, the atom is mostly empty The Bohr planetary model, which I assume is what you're referring to, is equivalent to Newtonian mechanics. It's simple to understand and a good starting point for high schoolers. It's even still usable for certain types of calculations. However, like Newtonian mechanics, at a deeper level and according to modern understanding, it's fundamentally wrong. Instead we use the Schrodinger electron-cloud model. According to which the ~nucleus~ (EDIT I mean atom not nucleus) is not mostly empty. It's not pedantic to discuss this, any more than it's pedantic to discuss why Newtonian mechanics is less accurate than relativity. https://www.compoundchem.com/2016/10/13/atomicmodels/ https://www.compoundchem.com/2016/10/13/atomicmodels/
- dotnet00 3y agoSeems like you're argeeing with their point while framing it as if you don't agree?
- esperent 3y agoThey say the article is pedantry. I say that it's not. That sounds like a disagreement to me.
- Drew_ 3y ago> Instead we use the Schrodinger electron-cloud model. According to which the nucleus is not mostly empty. The electron cloud and the nucleus are different things. The electron cloud on it's own is an empty volume except where the electrons are at any given moment.
- 613style 3y ago>The electron cloud on it's own is an empty volume except where the electrons are at any given moment. The article specifically rejects this way of thinking and makes the point that the electrons are not in the cloud. The electrons are the cloud. Thinking of them as little balls whizzing about so fast that it seems cloud-like is wrong.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Retric 3y agoExcept saying that the volume of space is filled is also incorrect. Multiple particle’s probability distributions may overlap without those particles interacting with each other. They don’t “fill” space. It’s common to say they behave as a particle and a wave, but it’s equally valid to say they don’t behave as a particle or a wave. It’s a distinct phenomena and thinking in terms of large scale things you’re familiar with is simply misleading.
- 613style 3y agoIt sounds like you might disagree that the room I'm in right now is filled with air or that my cup is full of tea. This article is trying to help laypeople have better intuition about things from the quantum point of view. It's full of evocative prose. Arguing about the definition of the word "full" is completely tangential to the point.
- Retric 3y agoMore, I just think it’s misleading. Even the most basic introduction to physics should cover the idea that the air in the room has a pressure to it rather than the room being full. The point of physics is to have a unified system where the same description applies to the widest possible number of phenomena. Calling atoms empty or full isn’t a great description but neutrino’s behavior for example lends itself to calling them empty.
- 3y ago
- iraqmtpizza 3y agoa probability field isn't really ever empty unless zero or near-zero is considered an empty space. which is kind of like a painting on which the some of the canvas is background
- tbrownaw 3y agoI assume that being probably empty is equivalent enough to being mostly empty, especially in bulk.
- iraqmtpizza 3y agonational review told me to buy in bulk to achieve economic mobility so i think maybe you're right
- b800h 3y agoNo, because as the article explains, the probability isn't of the "which pocket are my keys in" kind.
- imtringued 3y agoThe pocket isn't empty because there is air inside...
- nickelpro 3y agoA probability field is not a geometric volume. The phrase "empty" is meaningless to apply to it and doesn't provide laymen with any useful intuition. Fields may have high or low energy densities, and we might compare that to the height and frequency of waves on the ocean in explanation. But just as the ocean is violent or becalmed, not "full" or "empty", so are fields neither full or empty.
- thereisnospork 3y ago>When interpreting electrons as quantum waves the term "empty" is largely meaningless. wouldn't it still be pretty meaningfully rephrased as 'stochastic density[0]' or similar? I would presume that a nucleus, as a superposition if its respective waves, has a far higher stochastic density than the rest of an atom. Or rephrased, an atom is mostly [near] empty space. [0] of energy, or mass
- mypalmike 3y ago> Or rephrased, an atom is mostly [near] empty space. This is fair. But the point is that a model which is fundamentally stochastic is more valid than one where particles are continuously moving through some subset of mostly empty space.
- rpwverheij 3y agowildy pedantic? I found it enlightening that without the properties of the quantum waves / particle clouds a molecule could not be. So it seems pretty crucial then to consider the perspective of particles as quantum waves. Which is not something I'm very familiar with. So I really enjoyed this article.