They do not have to be. They don't really have any defined shape. Electrons are contained anywhere in their respective orbitals (and orbitals are only defined with 90% probability of the electron being there). If you define the atom as the nucleus + electrons, then it would have a spherical shape, but wouldn't be a perfect sphere during any single point in time.
2007-05-25 20:19:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Rick P. 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
sphere is the best ..."economical" shape...but i don't think that they are spheres.....take..hydrogen...if we say thats a sphere....well how about helium???
Helium is 2 protons and 2 neutrons.......just imagine 4 spheres packed together......it does not create a sphere....but helium is an "atom".
protons neutrons and electrons are made up of quarks. I can't remmeber if they are all the same....but i think you need 3 quarks to make each of them. Well can you image 3 identical objects when you put them together make up a sphere....also we know electrons are much smaller than protons......so quarks vary in size.
The calculations we use though......with our level or precision...a sphere is good enough estimate.
I know physicists like to pretend everything is a sphere. I've done examples for larger molecules.....where a spherical assumption gives a different results than a more realistic assumption.........but physics in the end rules chemistry. .....no laws of phsyics...chemistry doesn't exists.
Its a good approximate
2007-05-26 04:00:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by My name is not bruce 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Due 2 orbital arrangement naturally,exceptionally sphere is the best compact orientation along the inner orbitals started from 1S orbital and so on..moreover nucleus is rounded atomic sphere,indeed it became the template of next orbital shaped by electrons..
logic could tells,the shape provide better cell surface for elastic collisions at standard behavior.and it save more spaces due 2 the earlier convenience natural it possessed..
btw,in any condition(solid/liquid/gases),the movement of a sphere proved 2 be more agile,hindering unnecessary collision
2007-05-26 03:40:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by wong c 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The nucleus exerts a field that is uniform in all directions. So, every orbital would be based on a spherical background, as the locus of all points in space at a fixed distance from a point is a sphere.
2007-05-26 03:13:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ajinkya N 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's because there are electrons moving around a central point, the nucleus. This is going to create a circular shape in 2D. In 3D, they just draw a sphere (the electron cloud) being the area of probability where the electrons might be around the nucleus.
2007-05-26 03:16:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Justin M 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
in quantum mechanics electrons are NOT particles - they are waves. thus they are 'spread out' in the region around the nucleus so atoms are not perfect spheres. i think for simplicity we are told they are spheres because it is the most appropriate/relevant shape and makes representing atoms much easier in diagrams.
2007-05-26 06:45:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
atoms can be spheres due to the nuclear force created by the nucleus.
2007-05-26 03:14:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by gmchugh90 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
acc to "liquid drop model of nucleus" proposed by Bohr, a liquid drop is stable when it attains a spherical shape. at this state it will have minimum surface tension force and hence minimum potential energy.
Similar concept can be applied to an atom or nucleus. an atom Will be spherical so that it has minimum surface barrier potential.
2007-05-27 03:52:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by chitti 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The forces which hold the nucleons together tend to pull all of them equally towards each other and that makes the atom spherical. But at the scale of the nucleons, is it really spherical?
2007-05-26 04:18:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by Swamy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
They don't know that they are sphere, that's just their best guess based on the laws of physics.
2007-05-26 03:01:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by alwaysmoose 7
·
0⤊
0⤋