movement of electrons in an atom...?
824668
Yes it sort-of works for a hydrogen atom.\nYou do need to know about electric field attraction.\n\nthe attraction of charges pulls the electron in, the angular motion holds it from being pulled all the way.\n\nAlthough this model (planetary model) is wrong, it is amazing how close it comes considering that it is so far from what we believe to be true!!
697038
This is kinda hard to draw on here...\n......_\nK--Br|\n......_\n\nThe lines around Br represent 2 electrons, and the -- represents a bond...ignore the periods
689936
electron is Negatively charged particle that revolves around the nucleus of an atom.IT shows dual character i.e; it has both wave character and particle character...one electronic charge is 1.609 * 10^-19......the wave length of an electron can be found using the formula lamda= h/mv..where h is the plank's constant 6.626*10^-34...m is mass of an electron 9.1*10^-31...v is its velocity...when supplied energy it gets excited and moves to high enegry orbital...then slowly radiate the energy and then move to their position...these radiations araethe colours seen when we heat substances...the color is due the wavelength of the radiations....the energy of an electron at infinity is 0...when it is near the nuclues...it does some work and energy is spent therefore near the nucleus he charge of an electron is -ve...thats all i can  remember...hope you slect mine...thanks....
730175
As I understand it, the electrons are found where they are because of the interplay of the fundamental forces, and some random element.  Consider the possibility that asking where an electron is might be a silly question to "mother" nature, and she might give silly answers in response.\n\nthis is helpful:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#Electron_configuration\n\nlook up the Pauli exclusion principle, it's coo
83696
No, that's not the case.  It's not a question of the electron disappearing.  We know that it's in our spacetime.  We just can't determine it's position without stopping it, or it's velocity without changing it's position.
1052977
the movement of electrons along conductors like copper which have loosely bonded electrons from a place having mucho electrons (+) to a place that has less electrons (-)
705478
An ion differs from the original element in terms of the number of electrons.\n\nThe mass of an electron is about 1/1836 of a proton or a neutron.\n\nTherefore there would be a tiny difference in atomic mass, however in most cases it's fairly negligable.
924334
Well, in terms of classical physics, an electron orbits the nucleus due to the electrical force.  But the theory of electromagnetism tells us that accelerating charged particles lose energy, and anything which is orbiting something is accelerating.  So, put these two facts together and the electron should lose energy and spiral into the nucleus.  This obviously doesn't happen (if it did, there would be no atoms...), so this was a serious problem for physics in the first decade or so of the 20th century.\n\nThe semi-classical explanation, created by a physicist named Bohr to solve the problems with the classical explanation, proposed that electrons could only be in orbits where the quantity called angular momentum (which is numerically the momentum of a particle times the radius of its orbit, or formulaicly pr=mvr=m(r^2)w where w is the angular velocity [think of it as the frequency of the orbit]) was some integer number times a constant (called h-bar).  This theory prevented the electron from falling into the nucleus of an atom, and it explained the Hydrogen atom perfectly.  But it didn't work for any other kind of atom.\n\nFinally, there's the quantum explanation, which emerged about ten/fifteen years or so after Bohr did his work.  In quantum theory particles are represented by probability distributions called wavefunctions (which is, depending on how you approach it, either a result of or the reason for Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle; also, I'm playing a bit fast and loose with my terminology:  a wavefunction isn't a probability distribution, but if you basically square the wavefunction, that's the probability distribution).  Now, if you work out the wavefunction of an electron around a nucleus, it turns out to be constant in time, which means that it doesn't fall into the nucleus (or fly off into space or whatever else;  it stays around the nucleus as desribed by the wavefunction).  Of course, one thing which is interesting to note is that in many situations (incluing the simplest) the signle point (though not the radius) where the probability of finding the electron is the highest is actually in the nucleus.  :)  But if you found the electron there at one moment the next moment you could easily find it outside the nucleus.  It's random (as far as we know).\n\nNow, if this last confuses you or seems weird, well, it *is* quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics is renowned for being very weird and confusing.  As to why you can never just find the electron always sitting in the nucleus of an atom, it basically has to do with the Uncertainty Principle.  If you knew that the electron definitely had to be in the same place as the nucleus at any given point of time, you couldn't know how fast it was moving very well at all, so a moment later the electron could be very far away from the nucleus (but not separated from it, as the electrical attraction would still be there and would keep the electron from escaping the nucleus altogether).\n\nI hope I've shed some light on this subject for you.
946929
all the electrons are located in the electronic orbitals of the ion.\n\nYou may find this useful:\n\nhttp://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~chem251/documents/Vollhardt_1.ppt
914809
Not for an atom but it is for an electron.
880969
hey, when you have 2 electrons in the same orbital, you will always have one spinning up and one spinning down... its about balance, if both electrons were spinning the same direction, they could not stay in they're orbits...
725740
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
774465
An electron in an s orbital has zero angular momentum.\n\nViewed classically it is in Simple Harmonic Motion (SHM) passing through the nucleus of the atom.\n\nThe restoring force in the SHM is the electrical attraction between the electron and the positively charged nucleus.  The attraction is  an inverse square law which enables you to derive the equation of motion of the electron.\n\n  (Some "proton rich" isotopes undergo a type of radioactivity where this electron is captured by a proton in the nucleus which changes to a neutron which makes the atomic Number of the atom decrease by 1)
445231
It describes electron location in terms of probabilities.  The energy levels around a nucleus are not well-defined orbitals.  Rather, they are regions of space where an electron may be found.  Withing the orbitals, the electron's precise location can not be known.  According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the more accurately we measure an electron's location, the more imprecise the measurement of its velocity becomes, and vice-versa.\n\nSo, the best description of an electron's location is that of an "electron cloud", which represents the region in space where an electron has the highest probability of being.
369237
No. Protons don't flow. Electrons can be removed from the atom, but protons can't (well, unless nuclear reactions are taking place).\n\nI'm assuming you're talking about electricity flow? Instead of electron flow, you can use "space" flow, that gap that "travels" like a wave in the opposite direction of the electron flow.
1138753
This is a natural question if you think in terms of classical physics.  In fact, it's an even bigger problem than at first glance because, in classical physics, a charged object which accelerates will radiate energy.  So, in classical physics, all electrons would be expected to spiral in to the nucleus.  This puzzle cannot be addressed without quantum mechanics.\n\nHere's a very simple explanation.  It's not mathematically exact, but it carries the important concepts, and does give an answer fairly close to the mathematically correct one.\n\nFor simplicity, we'll consider hydrogen.  A single proton, no neutrons, and one electron.  There are no competing electrons to push each other apart, it really looks as if the best situation is for the electron to be squeezed right into the proton.\n\nRecall that in quantum mechanics, particles behave like waves.  Let's look at the electron that way.  What's the wavelength of this electron wave?  Well, we can't really say exactly, but a good approximation would be the wavelength is about the same as the width of the space in which you constrain the electron.  Put the electron in a large space, and it has a large wavelength.  Put it in a tiny space, and its wavelength is much smaller.  Ah, but remember, the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency, and the higher the frequency, the higher the energy.\n\nNow, you have two competing effects.  If the electron goes in very close to the proton, and stays there, then it will be lowering its electrostatic energy.  But to do that, it has to confine itself to an extremely small volume, which will give it a very high "wavelength energy".  It seems natural that there's a middle point somewhere such that if the electron got closer to the proton, its wavelength energy would increase faster than its electrostatic energy would decrease.  This sets a minimum distance for the electron from the proton.  It actually needs more energy to get closer to the proton after that.  So, the place the electron winds up is actually its lowest energy state, it's stable there, and doesn't require any injection of energy to maintain this position.\n\nAs I said, this is very non-mathematical, but it gives you an idea of what's happening in the quantum mechanics which explain the effect.
128025
This is a relativistic problem The answer depents on the viewpoint of the observer. oscillation is a factor of time-mass-energy all of which are distorted relativisticaly. you are probably looking at an inverse square solution.\n\nContrary to popular belief electrons do not travel at relativistic velocities only their electromagnetic wave. This problem is further out there than you think.