The description of the atom as a nucleus circled by one or several electrons was initially called the "planetary" model. So this analogy does go back a long time (since 1913)
That said, the planets tend to orbit on a single plane, or very close to the same plane, while electons are apparently all over the place. Electrons also jump back and forth from orbital to orbital, as a result of energy being absorbed or released. Finally, electons are not considered to be of a dicrete size anymore, more like a cloud.
2006-08-10 05:00:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Vincent G 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The model of the atom does look like our universe. However, it is just a written resemblance of what an atom really looks like. The electrons in an atom don't actually follow the path of orbit like the planets do to the sun. Electrons can zip all over the place.
2006-08-10 05:04:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Electrons do not orbit the nucleus of an atom in a planer fashion. This is based on the planetary model of atoms proposed at the turn of the century by Niels Bohr at the birth of quantum theory. It is a simplistic model that often shows up in basic textbooks as an introduction to sub atomic structure. It is not an accurate model at all. In fact, think of a tennis ball and you have a better analog to the atom.
In fact, you can not actually measure the position of an electron in an atom. We can only assign a probability density for finding an electron in 3D space in relation to the nucleus. This probability density gives rise to the fuzziness of the atom if we could actually observe one in real time.
But keep on reading...
2006-08-10 16:52:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by DrSean 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you're referring to the antiquated model in which the atom looks like planets rotating around a sun. A more recent and more accepted model is--I forgot what it's called--but rather than "orbits" there is a sort of "shield" of electrons surrounding the nucleus. In this area there is a certain probability that an electron is present.
2006-08-10 05:02:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, I noticed the same too.
I think the explanation is this:
Since the universe we lived was created from the explosion of a incredible dense piece of materia. A sort of super atom that contained all the energy of the universe in side. The current atoms, the planets and the rest of the universe just follow the model of its "father" (The big super atom). All comes from the same. Even us humans, we are just startdust.
All these is valid if the bing bang theory is valid, which still remain to be totally proven.
Good question !
2006-08-10 05:16:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You actually mean "solar system" -- that is our sun and its "little buddies".
Another similarity is that everything is mostly nothing -- empty space.
However, electrons don't quite behave like planets, as they jump in their orbits (which aren't like planet orbits at all, as they don't stick to one plane -- and in fact, are better described as an "electron cloud"). Also, you're leaving out the other things that circle the sun, such as comets, the few molecules of gas and stuff that's all over the place, etc, the fact that planets come in different sizes, and more.
Yes, I had had this thought, too, when I was first learning about these things. Making big connections and analogies like this is a Very Good Thing to do, but then, you don't want them to take over your thinking, preventing your learning about the details. (Not saying you're doing that, just warning you about it, because it's so easy to get carried away.)
2006-08-10 05:09:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by tehabwa 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
the day till now immediately, in certainty. Devils night with the aid of motionless In White and Psychosocial with the aid of Slipknot The resemblance is frightening. additionally immediately, i observed an analogous patch in not the yank usual with the aid of Asking Alexandria sounds precisely like countless of the guitar in Unholy Confessions with the aid of Avenged Sevenfold.
2016-10-01 21:51:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
When I was 6 or 7,, :-)=
2006-08-10 05:02:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Jcontrols 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
what a profound question
be careful you don't go silly contemplating where 'space' ends
logically there can be no end, bcoz there is always more on the other side of the 'fence'
2006-08-10 05:02:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've noticed that too! Makes you wonder doesn't it?
2006-08-10 05:02:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋