Is today's science...

[DARK0717]

is modern science 10000000% sure that electrons ARE particles?

[Strange]

Just now, DARK0717 said:

is modern science 10000000% sure that electrons ARE particles?

They are not particles. But they have some properties that are particle-like.

[DARK0717]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

They are not particles. But they have some properties that are particle-like.

Then why do i get a spinning ball of negatively charged electrons around a nucles in texbooks or even everywhere?

Edited April 14, 2019 by DARK0717

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, DARK0717 said:

Then why do i get a spinning ball of negatively charged electrons around a nucles in texbooks or even everywhere?

Because the physics that discusses orbitals and waves is more advanced than neophytes could probably understand. You get models and discussions that are "good enough" for the topic you want to discuss, and this practice happens at multiple levels of discussion. Classical Newtonian, relativity, quantum mechanics, on down deeper into the rabbit hole. It's always a little more complicated as you dive deeper, and look at the physics on the fringe of any model.

<TomCruiseYouCan'tHandleTheTruth.gif>

[DARK0717]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Because the physics that discusses orbitals and waves is more advanced than neophytes could probably understand. You get models and discussions that are "good enough" for the topic you want to discuss, and this practice happens at multiple levels of discussion. Classical Newtonian, relativity, quantum mechanics, on down deeper into the rabbit hole. It's always a little more complicated as you dive deeper, and look at the physics on the fringe of any model.

based on an experiment i saw a few months back, bombarding an atom with some particle shows the position of electrons as it spins. But to me, it seem more like a field of electrons rather than particles spinning, a field that has little concentrations of electrons. More like bubbles on a pool of magma. Which of these sound better in the surface?

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, DARK0717 said:

based on an experiment i saw a few months back, bombarding an atom with some particle shows the position of electrons as it spins. But to me, it seem more like a field of electrons rather than particles spinning, a field that has little concentrations of electrons. More like bubbles on a pool of magma. Which of these sound better in the surface?

None, really. The electrons are distributed around the nucleus. This can be represented in terms of "orbitals" that show the most probably positions for an electron to be found.

(I can't comment on the vague description of that experiment without a proper reference.)

One of the "particle like" properties of the electrons is that when it is detected or interacts with another particle, that interaction is localised to a specific place. The location of the electron is only defined as a probability, by the wave function (because electrons also have wavelike properties, such as wavelength) until it interacts with something, at which points its position becomes "definite".

[swansont]

2 hours ago, DARK0717 said:

based on an experiment i saw a few months back, bombarding an atom with some particle shows the position of electrons as it spins.

With no link to it, I can't evaluate the information you got. It's quite likely there was misinformation in the pipeline.

2 hours ago, DARK0717 said:

But to me, it seem more like a field of electrons rather than particles spinning, a field that has little concentrations of electrons. More like bubbles on a pool of magma. Which of these sound better in the surface?

Electrons aren't localized unless you measure them, so they aren't like bubbles. And they definitely have spin. (But spin has a precise definition, and your usage suggests you may not be using it correctly)

[DARK0717]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

With no link to it, I can't evaluate the information you got. It's quite likely there was misinformation in the pipeline.

Electrons aren't localized unless you measure them, so they aren't like bubbles. And they definitely have spin. (But spin has a precise definition, and your usage suggests you may not be using it correctly)

i see, It was bohr who did the experiment I think. Electrons orbitting a nucleus is a theory by bohr. But how would today's science hold up if all of a sudden, what we thought of electrons orbitting a nucleus is actually a field around a nucleus? Would calculations still be the same but simply instead of thinking that electrons are particle/wave that orbit, theyr just fields with "field levels" (energy levels)???

 

also, have scientists looked at an atom in a different angle? or like in 3 dimensions?

Edited April 15, 2019 by DARK0717

[swansont]

6 hours ago, DARK0717 said:

i see, It was bohr who did the experiment I think. Electrons orbitting a nucleus is a theory by bohr. But how would today's science hold up if all of a sudden, what we thought of electrons orbitting a nucleus is actually a field around a nucleus? Would calculations still be the same but simply instead of thinking that electrons are particle/wave that orbit, theyr just fields with "field levels" (energy levels)???

Bohr’s model isn’t correct, though parts of it give the right answers. It’s important, though, because of the thought process involved in developing it.

 

6 hours ago, DARK0717 said:

also, have scientists looked at an atom in a different angle? or like in 3 dimensions?

Yes. There are electron cloud images that have been constructed. (Though the pictures wii be 2D, of course)

[DARK0717]

On 4/15/2019 at 8:40 PM, swansont said:

Bohr’s model isn’t correct, though parts of it give the right answers. It’s important, though, because of the thought process involved in developing it.

 

Yes. There are electron cloud images that have been constructed. (Though the pictures wii be 2D, of course)

yes, constructed, but have they ever looked around an atom in real time, similar to how we rotate a ball when we examine it.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, DARK0717 said:

yes, constructed, but have they ever looked around an atom in real time, similar to how we rotate a ball when we examine it.

You rotate a ball because you have one sensor. If you have multiple sensors, or multiple balls with different orientations, you don’t need to rotate.

[DARK0717]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You rotate a ball because you have one sensor. If you have multiple sensors, or multiple balls with different orientations, you don’t need to rotate.

yea, i see