3 ms·
Surely it's not an atom because it doesn't have electron orbitals? (Although I suppose electrons could orbit it, in the classical sense rather than the quantum
by skykooler 2y ago
Surely it's not an atom because it doesn't have electron orbitals? (Although I suppose electrons could orbit it, in the classical sense rather than the quantum sense!)
- adrian_b 2y agoIt is the limit case of a neutral atom, like the neutral atoms of the noble gases, which has 0 electrons instead of having 2 electrons, 10 electrons etc. From a big enough distance, there is no essential difference between neutrons and the neutral atoms of any noble gas. They all are neutral particles which do not react chemically. The weak van der Waals forces between the atoms of the noble gases decrease from radon to helium and neutron fits in this progression. At extremely small distances between neutrons, weak attraction forces appear between them, which are analogous to the van der Waals forces generated by residual electromagnetic interactions, but they are generated by residual strong nuclear interactions. A positive hydrogen ion has 0 electrons too, the same as a doubly-ionized helium atom, triple-ionized lithium atom, etc. The relationship between neutrons and these ions is the same as for instance between helium and lithium ions, beryllium ions, boron ions, etc. Calling a neutron as the limit case of an atom is a choice, but this choice simplifies many descriptions of things related to atoms and ions, in the same way as including zero in the cardinal numbers simplifies the descriptions of many things related to numbers, because there is no longer any need to describe separately some special cases.