@Curtmungus your honor of being more famous than me is quite deserved. I salute you.
Infinity….
-
They do not need to be sperical, they only need to have a curve somewhere in their design, a cylinder is’nt a sphere it still got an infinity of sides. Any curse is made of an infinity of side, if you take a sphere, or a cylinder, well any kind of geometric form with curve; you well get an infinity of side.
If we look at the geometric form composign the mouvement of an electron around the atom, what would we get ? 4 sides ? 6 sides ? or an infinity of sides because it is a curve ?
-
No because this topic :lol:
Spock!..…Spock! -
They do not need to be sperical, they only need to have a curve somewhere in their design, a cylinder is’nt a sphere it still got an infinity of sides. Any curse is made of an infinity of side, if you take a sphere, or a cylinder, well any kind of geometric form with curve; you well get an infinity of side.
If we look at the geometric form composign the mouvement of an electron around the atom, what would we get ? 4 sides ? 6 sides ? or an infinity of sides because it is a curve ?
fair enough.
the orbit of the electron does tend to be circular, and the atoms tend to be represented as spherical (although i’m not sure they exactly are that).And Ghoul - that’s enough “logic-seeking” out of you. You know this is an illogical series (although based on a pseudo-logic given imaginary circumstances . . . ).
-
@cystic:
They do not need to be sperical, they only need to have a curve somewhere in their design, a cylinder is’nt a sphere it still got an infinity of sides. Any curse is made of an infinity of side, if you take a sphere, or a cylinder, well any kind of geometric form with curve; you well get an infinity of side.
If we look at the geometric form composign the mouvement of an electron around the atom, what would we get ? 4 sides ? 6 sides ? or an infinity of sides because it is a curve ?
fair enough.
the orbit of the electron does tend to be circular, and the atoms tend to be represented as spherical (although i’m not sure they exactly are that).And Ghoul - that’s enough “logic-seeking” out of you. You know this is an illogical series (although based on a pseudo-logic given imaginary circumstances . . . ).
Hehe :lol:
-
@cystic:
the orbit of the electron does tend to be circular, and the atoms tend to be represented as spherical (although i’m not sure they exactly are that).
Not really :)
The “orbit” idea is the so called Bohr-model of atoms. It is the very very first quantum model.
And it’s wrong :)
if the electrons really orbited the nucleus like planets the sun, then we would have a lot of trouble, explaining why this constantly accelerated charge does not emit em-waves all the time, lose energy by that and drop into the nucleus.
As well: There are many states for electrons, where they don’t have any angular momentum: they don’t “fly around”.Bohr’s picture is nice, for a first understanding, but you should always remember that it is actually wrong (even if you can explain some things through it).
-
@F_alk:
@cystic:
the orbit of the electron does tend to be circular, and the atoms tend to be represented as spherical (although i’m not sure they exactly are that).
Not really :)
The “orbit” idea is the so called Bohr-model of atoms. It is the very very first quantum model.
And it’s wrong :)
if the electrons really orbited the nucleus like planets the sun, then we would have a lot of trouble, explaining why this constantly accelerated charge does not emit em-waves all the time, lose energy by that and drop into the nucleus.
As well: There are many states for electrons, where they don’t have any angular momentum: they don’t “fly around”.Bohr’s picture is nice, for a first understanding, but you should always remember that it is actually wrong (even if you can explain some things through it).
yeah, that’s what i thought.
also different electrons in different shells have different patterns, etc. -
Bohr was overrated
-
@cystic:
also different electrons in different shells have different patterns, etc.
That’s true. But nicely enough: any filled shell will have perfect rotational symmetry
@TG:
Bohr was overrated
No, i have to disagree strongly here.
Bohr was the one who “invented” the first quantum theory.
Rough and ad hoc, but imagine how much suffer and pain it must have been to throw over board the old, accepted and loved paradigm that there are no “jumps” in nature.
That’s what i most respect him for.
(and you can see, really noone on this board has done that so far :) ) -
Einstein was overrated, he was a big exemple of conformism. He never accept the random part of quamtum physic and it take some time before he accept the idea of a dynamic universe.
-
No, i have to disagree strongly here.
Bohr was the one who “invented” the first quantum theory.
Rough and ad hoc, but imagine how much suffer and pain it must have been to throw over board the old, accepted and loved paradigm that there are no “jumps” in nature.
That’s what i most respect him for.
(and you can see, really noone on this board has done that so far)Nah, can’t really respect anybody who has theory named after him.
Suggested Topics
