English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

So, okay, I've got a question, being not an entirely physics junkie yet. This may be a simple answer, but maybe not...

Electrons are negatively charged, and protons are positively charged and neutrons are basically neutral, right?

So, all things being equal I'm assuming protons ane electrons have approximately the same strength of positive and negative charge yes?

And like charges repel whereas opposite charges attract?

So, why is it that atoms prefer the structure of protons in the nucleus and electrons in the shells as opposed to electrons in the nucleus and protons in the shells?? Shouldn't both ways of doing it be equally viable?

IE, would it be possible to have a nucleus of electrons and neutrons orbited by a shell of protons? If so, or if not, why?

They both seem to have the same properties of attracting the other, and repelling themselves. So, one would think the same structure could be built either way?

Why isn't it? Or... is it in some instances?

2006-07-14 06:17:44 · 7 answers · asked by Michael Gmirkin 3 in Science & Mathematics Physics

Ahh, okay, so ostensibly it's their mass difference that causes their structuring. IE, the heavier particles (protons) will exert more pull via gravity, thus clumping together into nuclei with neutrons. And their energy does less work on their mass (pushes it not as far, thus it vibrates rather than flying about like an electron) than the energy of an electron working on its mass (basically zinging about, as it were since its negligible mass is easier to push about).

One could draw a strong parallel with density. IE, more dense materials with more mass more tightly packed together (in this case protons) tend to clump together and "sink" toward the center of gravity (in this case into a clumped nucleus). Where gravity brings them together, their charge repels them from each other and their energy makes them sit and vibrate.

Whereas particles with a lighter less dense configurations and more energy per mass tend to stratify toward energy shells zipping about but held by gravity.. cool!

2006-07-14 06:59:45 · update #1

7 answers

This is impossible because a proton has more mass than an electron. A proton is actually much larger, and much more massive than an electron. In fact protons are made of quarks, which are even themselves more massive than an electron. Electrons are almost pure energy, the move at speeds near that of light and contain nearly no mass.

A particle like an electron, that is almost completely made of energy must maintain movement, it can never stop. In fact its movement is so eratic and energetic that you can never tell where it actually is, you can only understand where it PROBABLY is, hence the probability shells you were talking about.

A proton on the other hand is more than happy to stay sitting in an atomic nucleus. It is a large enough particle that vibratory movement is enough to sustain its mass/energy relationship with the rest of reality.

And while these two particles are attracted to eachother, they will never colide and meet for several reasons. First of all the Electron must keep moving, it can never stop. And secondly there are other subatomic forces that keep them apart.


Tiger Striped Dog MD

2006-07-14 06:22:59 · answer #1 · answered by tigerstripeddogmd 2 · 1 3

Ok, you are right, the proton and electron have identical but opposite charges.

Now, as far as an electron nucleus, this is impossible b/c the electron has a spin of 1/2, it is a fermion. The proton has a spin of 1, it is a boson. (So does the neutron)

I'm unable to derive all the quantum mechanics necessary for this, but the answer is, fermions can't occupy the same energy levels (including spin and projection of spin), so they can't cluster together in a nuclueus. (Pauli exclusion principle)
Bosons can.

For the record, there are shells w/in the nucleus too, as you get to larger nucleii, there are actually shells w/ different energies.

Also, there is such a thing a positronium, where an electron and a positron orbit each other. The positron has the same charge as an proton, but the mass of an electron.

There have also been efforts to create anti-hydrogen, which would consist of a positron orbiting an anti-proton: a particle w/ the proton's mass but a negative charge. I don't think it's been isolated yet.

2006-07-14 07:06:00 · answer #2 · answered by Iridium190 5 · 0 0

An atom of Zinc has 30 protons and 30 electrons, and approximately 35 neutons. to your configuration, the neutrons in those isotopes are: 34, 36, 37, 38, and 40 respectively. The form of protons and electrons does not substitute.

2016-10-07 22:17:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It isn't gravity, but the uncertainty principle that determines the sizes of the orbitals of electrons and protons. Remember that the uncertainty in position times the uncertainty of momentum is more than Plancks constant. Well, the momentum of a proton at a certain velocity is about 2000 times that of an electron with the same velocity. So, in balancing the uncertainties in position and momentum, the momentum of a proton can be much more uncertain with a much smaller uncertainty in velocity (and hence of position). So an electron stabilizes at larger distances from the center of mass. This explains the difference in size of an atom and the nucleus, by the way.

2006-07-14 12:34:40 · answer #4 · answered by mathematician 7 · 0 0

The nucleus of an atom consists of very tightly bound protons and neutrons. The electromagnetic force which causes like charges to repel prevents protons from binding together without neutrons (it would blow such a nucleus apart). When neutrons and protons are in very close range, they are held together by the strong nuclear force.

2006-07-14 06:22:52 · answer #5 · answered by Carl S 4 · 0 0

I don't think it'd be possible. Neutrons and protons are held together by the strong force. electrons and neutrons couldn't be held together this way and the nucleus would be unstable and wouldn't last very long.

2006-07-14 06:22:21 · answer #6 · answered by Itchyknee 2 · 0 0

Because that's the way it is now get over it....

Actually electrons are less massive than protons... plus all the cool aspects of matter and energy stem from those wispy beasts.

2006-07-14 06:23:02 · answer #7 · answered by Steve D 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers