2 ms·
>When interpreting electrons as quantum waves the term "empty" is largely meaningless. wouldn't it still be pretty meaningfully rephrased as 'stochastic densit
by 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.