How far does an electron venture from an atom?

[Obvious Leo]

It''s already known the electron spends most of its time in well-defined orbits about the nucleus.

What on earth does "well-defined" mean in the above statement. It certainly doesn't mean anything in the spatial sense you allude to in your question. There is a specialised form of geometry which deals with the valence shells, such as quantum chemical topology, which derives from the Pauli exclusion principle but this sort of mathematics can't be applied to Cartesian spaces. Your question is quite meaningless, Phil, and I would suggest a crash course in wave mechanics might give you a clearer picture of what atomic orbitals actually are. They are mathematical functions and nothing more.

[Philosophy Explorer]

It''s already known the electron spends most of its time in well-defined orbits about the nucleus.

What on earth does "well-defined" mean in the above statement. It certainly doesn't mean anything in the spatial sense you allude to in your question. There is a specialised form of geometry which deals with the valence shells, such as quantum chemical topology, which derives from the Pauli exclusion principle but this sort of mathematics can't be applied to Cartesian spaces. Your question is quite meaningless, Phil, and I would suggest a crash course in wave mechanics might give you a clearer picture of what atomic orbitals actually are. They are mathematical functions and nothing more.

Well-defined means with high probability (best of my memory around 80% - 85%). I'll doublecheck Wiki on this. In the meantime, where do you think the electron is doing most of its existing? (it is a lepton which is part of the SM).

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

In the meantime, where do you think the electron is doing most of its existing?

In my philosophy this is not a valid question any more than it's a valid question in spacetime physics. To speak of an electron as having a spatial location is meaningless according to both Werner Heisenberg and me, although we each give different reasons for our views. I know of no physicist in the entire world who rejects the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle so if you don't like it you'll have to take it up with them.

[Philosophy Explorer]

In the meantime, where do you think the electron is doing most of its existing?

In my philosophy this is not a valid question any more than it's a valid question in spacetime physics. To speak of an electron as having a spatial location is meaningless according to both Werner Heisenberg and me, although we each give different reasons for our views. I know of no physicist in the entire world who rejects the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle so if you don't like it you'll have to take it up with them.

All the principle is stating is that we can't specify with 100% accuracy the location of an object. This doesn't mean the object doesn't exist (which it must in order to have something to talk about) and it doesn't mean it doesn't have a specific location. It means that we can't measure its exact location. The question I'm asking is do we know to the limits of probability just how far can the
electron get from the nucleus? Trivial side issues don't pertain to this discussion.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

The question I'm asking is do we know to the limits of probability just how far can the
electron get from the nucleus?

I know perfectly well what you're asking but you're not taking any notice of the answer. The fucking question has no meaning because electrons don't have a spatial extension.

[surreptitious57]

It is already known the electron spends most of its time in well defined orbits about the nucleus

An electron does not orbit a nucleus in the same way that a planet orbits a star. A planets trajectory is uniform and
capable of detection at any time but the same cannot be said about electrons because of the Uncertainty Principle
For that states that both the speed and the direction of a sub atomic particle cannot be determined simultaneously

But to answer your question : electrons can leave one atom and enter another
So they are not necessarily in the same one for the entirety of their existence

[Philosophy Explorer]

The question I'm asking is do we know to the limits of probability just how far can the
electron get from the nucleus?

I know perfectly well what you're asking but you're not taking any notice of the answer. The fucking question has no meaning because electrons don't have a spatial extension.

Bollocks,

Electrons do occupy space as they have a size as indicated:

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ ... ucture.htm

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

It is already known the electron spends most of its time in well defined orbits about the nucleus

An electron does not orbit a nucleus in the same way that a planet orbits a star. A planets trajectory is uniform and
capable of detection at any time but the same cannot be said about electrons because of the Uncertainty Principle
For that states that both the speed and the direction of a sub atomic particle cannot be determined simultaneously

But to answer your question : electrons can leave one atom and enter another
So they are not necessarily in the same one for the entirety of their existence

Does this mean there must be another nucleus around for the electron to leave a nucleus?

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

Phil. Electrons are modelled in the SM as dimensionless point particles. Although the co-ordinate systems used in this modelling vary according to fashion I think the current flavour of the month is an anti-de Sitter space.

[Obvious Leo]

Does this mean there must be another nucleus around for the electron to leave a nucleus?

You're gonna love this answer. Yes and No

[Obvious Leo]

It's hard to imagine that you'd choose a philosophy forum for a tutorial in subatomic physics. The SM is easily the most complex mathematical theory ever devised in human history and you've got no hope of grasping it if you seriously expect such a simple answer to a question which truly has no meaning to a physicist. If you don't believe me then join a physics forum and you'll soon enough find this out for yourself.

[surreptitious57]

But to answer your question : electrons can leave one atom and enter another
So they are not necessarily in the same one for the entirety of their existence

Does this mean there must be another nucleus around for the electron to leave a nucleus

Protons and neutrons are the nucleus and electrons orbit that and so they are not part of it as such
Electrons can exist inside of an atom orbiting the nucleus and completely outside of it on their own

[Philosophy Explorer]

But to answer your question : electrons can leave one atom and enter another
So they are not necessarily in the same one for the entirety of their existence

Does this mean there must be another nucleus around for the electron to leave a nucleus

Protons and neutrons are the nucleus and electrons orbit that and so they are not part of it as such
Electrons can exist inside of an atom orbiting the nucleus and completely outside of it on their own

So you're saying that electrons don't depend on nuclei for their existence which is nice to know. Now how much distance would they have to put between themselves and nuclei to be considered separate and independent, otherwise they must depend on nuclei for their existence?

PhilX

[Melchior]

Avoiding the question. It''s already known the electron spends most of its time in well-defined orbits about the nucleus. I've already taken my chemistry courses. If you don't know the answer, then either say so or stay silent. Again the same question: how far can the electron stray from the nucleus and still be considered part of that atom?

PhilX

It doesn't 'stray' at all.

[Edited by iMod]

[Philosophy Explorer]

Avoiding the question. It''s already known the electron spends most of its time in well-defined orbits about the nucleus. I've already taken my chemistry courses. If you don't know the answer, then either say so or stay silent. Again the same question: how far can the electron stray from the nucleus and still be considered part of that atom?

PhilX

It doesn't 'stray' at all. Dumbass.

You don't understand the question, stupid.

PhilX