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

12 answers

No not at all. They have a position probability function which is very weird looking. Check out this website

2007-01-13 12:46:51 · answer #1 · answered by catarthur 6 · 1 0

The similarities end excellent there, on the 'baby's form' of the atom. The good and weak nuclear forces, which carry the atom jointly, are a lot different that the rigidity of gravity, which holds a photo voltaic equipment jointly. To make issues more suitable unique about both situations... photo voltaic structures won't be able to style covalent bonds with one yet another, each and each planet may have a unique mass, and there is not any minimum or optimal type of products that would occupy portion of an orbit in photo voltaic equipment dynamics... imagine about comets, and asteroids, a number of which have very eccentric orbits crossing the orbits of countless planets... Electrons to no longer have satellites in orbit round them, obeying Kepler's guidelines. The dissimilarities bypass way previous those concepts, yet this record is a beginning of only how different the macro universe is from the micro universe.

2016-10-31 01:00:38 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

If you believe quantum mechanics, the way electrons move around and atom has little in common with how planets move around the sun. Electrons exist in 3 dimensional probability clouds, regions where they are most likely to be found. These clouds have very different shapes depending on the energy of the electron. It's more correct the think of the electron jumping around inside one of these clouds, with a small but finite probability of being found way far away, or even inside the nucleus at any given instant.

2007-01-13 16:59:11 · answer #3 · answered by ZeedoT 3 · 0 0

There is no similarity at all between the two phenomena.

Planets revolve around a star as dictated by mechanical laws of gravity and inertia. For more information, do an internet search on "angular momentum."

The positioning of electrons in the shell of an atom is dictated by quantum laws of probability and energy levels. Electrons do not orbit the nucleus in any way that resembles the orbiting of planets around stars. For more information, do an internet search on "Heisenberg Uncertainty Prinicple."

2007-01-13 14:05:22 · answer #4 · answered by aviophage 7 · 0 0

We tend to think of electrons "orbiting" in nice circles around atomic nuclei because of the pictures we saw and our old understanding of how atoms are structured. Electron "orbitals" are really more like "zones" where you're more likely to find an electron with a certain amount of energy. Only very few orbitals are even spherical, let alone circular, and the electrons don't really move around the nucleus in nice, defined loops like planets do around a star. Most look more like two balloons taped end to end, but the farther away from the nucleus you get, the more they start to look like a rotting melon--vaguely round and really lumpy.

2007-01-13 12:58:00 · answer #5 · answered by Jimmy 1 · 0 0

Electrons do not rotate around the nucleus in the planetary sense. The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics makes it impossible to pin down the position of an electron to that degree that an orbit can be spatially identified. The electron occupies an energy state, and can be imagined to be in a "cloud" around the nucleus, not in one specific spot at any time.

2007-01-13 12:51:08 · answer #6 · answered by gp4rts 7 · 2 0

Yes, there is a lot of similarity between the two except for the rather fixed rings and fixed number of electrons that could possibly be in each ring... The asteroid belt around the Sun is a good example of a ring which has many, many, many more objects in it than some particular ring in an atom.

2007-01-13 14:31:52 · answer #7 · answered by zahbudar 6 · 0 0

not really. with planets, their mass and the force of gravity (that makes the apple fall to the ground) are the deciding factors. with electrons, the deciding factor is how many units of energy (aka photons or x-rays or gamma-rays) they have. with each unit of energy, they are "farther away from the nucleus", but not always in a circular orbit like planets.

why doesn't gravity make a difference inside an atom? well, it doesn't make a noticeable difference when you're standing next to your buddy, so why would it make a difference to a tiny atom? it only makes a difference with large massive things like planets.

2007-01-13 12:48:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

electrons go around the nucleus because of electrical force and the planets to the sun is by gravity, So ya there some similarities between them.

2007-01-13 17:22:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

planetary revolution around the sun is dependent on gravitational force primarily.

inside an atom though, gravity is relatively weaker and instead electrons exist around the nucleus because of -- well, actually, I'm not entirely sure. it's either electromagnetism, or "weak nuclear force" or "strong force". check out wikipedia for particle physics, that'll probably explain it.

2007-01-13 12:47:48 · answer #10 · answered by car of boat 4 · 0 0

Not quite. Orbits express just energy levels of the electrons.

2007-01-13 13:12:50 · answer #11 · answered by PragmaticAlien 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers