Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 148 KB, 1404x824, fea.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10888165 No.10888165 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

How can two atoms bond by "sharing" or "stealing" an electron if electrons don't exist as physical objects around atoms but as probability clouds?

Shit makes no sense.

>> No.10888192

literally nobody knows

>> No.10888208

>>10888165
The probability becomes higher around one atom and lower around the other, representing the "movement" of the electron between atoms, or becomes highest between the two atoms, representing the sharing of electrons, so the probability clouds would appear to shift as if a physical object were moving within it. That's my guess anyways

>> No.10888217

>>10888165
Because they do exist as physical objects though?
The fact that we don’t know where they are doesn’t mean they’re not still tangible.
Am I missing something?

>> No.10888232

>>10888192
/thread, unironically
What you are referring to, OP, is an empirical model justified by expirement. Chemistry and physics has no requirement to be logical.

>> No.10888246

>>10888217
so electrons exist as physical objects moving around atoms? The probability cloud is just an area around which you're likely to find an electron. If electrons are physical objects moving within this cloud then shouldn't they continually emit em radiation?

>> No.10888255

>>10888165
>probability clouds
That's just representing their, "location."

>> No.10888259

>>10888246
>shouldn't they continually emit em radiation
I was taught they do.

>> No.10888275

>>10888165
Atoms are probability clouds too.

>> No.10888276

>>10888259
i remember reading somewhere that that should cause the electron to lose energy and collapse into the nucleus.

>> No.10888278

>>10888165
ugh brainlets ITT. one way to think about it is by thinking about how the electron orbitals correspond to energy states. just like a ball chooses to roll to the lowest place and stay there because it is the lowest energy.

the electron “clouds”/orbitals attract the atomic nuclei and repel each other and quantum mechanics means they have to be spread out in space like a cloud with a particular shape. the attraction and repulsions try to find the configuration with the lowest energy just like a ball rolling to the lowest spot, or a bunch of rubber bands and slinkies connected can form interesting shapes if you hook them up in weird ways.

do you have a problem with the idea that the moon is stuck in its orbit because that balances the gravitational attraction with its centrifugal force? or saturn’s rings? or the atmosphere using pressure vs gravity?

molecules are analogous to those of you can into quantum

>> No.10888280

>>10888246
>shouldn't they continually emit em radiation?
This was the reason for the 1st postulate of Bohr.
There isn't a circular orbit in QM, but you have bound states.

>> No.10888283

>>10888165
Probability cloud is a tool to explain the copenhagen interpretation. Its a dumb model.

>> No.10888430
File: 126 KB, 1131x622, 1560578891066.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10888430

>>10888283
Can't spell Copenhagen without cope

>> No.10888491

It's not really "stealing/sharing," what happens is that the atomic orbital (the "probability cloud") becomes a molecular orbital because it's lower in energy levels

>> No.10888802

>>10888165
Think of it similar to a quantized field of potential around an atom. They can produce high and low probability areas, altering the total potential energy in different configurations. You end up making a well of potential energy that essentially "traps" the atoms in a bond.

>> No.10889439

>>10888165
>>10888192

it just works

that's literally the argument

>> No.10889450

how do they form parts of a lattice too?

>> No.10890030
File: 3 KB, 124x124, citation-needed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10890030

>>10888165
>electrons don't exist as physical objects
[citation needed]

>> No.10890095

two overlapping orbitals means more high probability space, hence less localization energy. the rest is mostly just electrostatics. electronegativity depends on the effective nuclear charge and full or half full shell means electrons are more spread out and closer to the nucleus. am i getting this wrong?

>> No.10890124

>>10888165
Electrons exist as physical objects, nigger.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action