why doesnt an electron get pulled in toward the nucleus?
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.
178437
The ion has one ore more surplus electrons to fill the outer shell to 8 of them.\nElectrons repell each other, so they take a little bit more space.\nSo the negative ion is a bit bigger than the atom.
155786
For all elements found in nature, we can identify mainly 3 components: a nucleus formed by protons and neutrons (both of them nucleons), and a core of electrons orbiting around these nucleons. As you may know, protons have a positive electric charge, electrons have negative charge and neutrons are electrically neutral.\n\nThe thing here is that protons, neutrons and electrons are different types of particles: protons and neutrons are made out of quarks, making them susceptible to the influence of the Strong force, the Weak force and the Electromagnetic force; in the other hand, electrons only respond to the Electromagnetic force and the Weak force (Of course, Gravity is always present for all of them).\n\nThe Strong force, compared to the Electromagnetic, acts with a much higher strength; however, it is a very short-ranged force: it's effects fall much more rapidly with increasing distance compared to EM interactions.\n\nIn any type of nuclei, protons are all "put" together within very small distances. Because of these small distances, the Electromagnetic force reaches very high magnitudes, making these particles tending to fly away from each other. However, because of this small distances, the Strong force plays a major roll keeping these particles together. Neutrons also contribute to the total strong interaction, increasing the total magnitude of this attractive type of forces among the nucleons. For light nuclei, the ratio of protons to neutrons is about 1:1. This ratio keeps balanced the attractive forces against the EM repulsion, giving us a stable nucleus. \n\nWhen we have heavy nuclei, just putting the protons together creates a nucleus that is larger in size than the effective range of the Strong force; in other words, the strong interaction between two protons in opposite sides of the nucleus is much weaker compared with the Electromagnetic repulsion. Thus, a lot of neutrons have to be added to this nucleus, in order to build up an attractive force that would keep protons in the outer sections of the nucleus in place. \n\nThat's why, in order to get a stable heavy nucleus we need many more neutrons to get over the effect of Electromagnetic repulsion, compared to lighter nuclei.\n\nI hope it helps.
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)
347377
At the very basics it has to do with magnetic fields. When a conductor (ie copper wire) is move across (perpendicular to) a magnet-ic field it causes the electrons in the copper wire to move\n\nthis is very basic info and their are other ways like solar cells (due to electron excitment in a different manner)
24262
Like charges repel, right?\nA nucleus is full of like charges and it takes a lot of force to hold them together.  This is "the strong force".  If a nucleus is big enough, like uranium, that balance is pushed to the ragged edge so chunks break off.  Hence, radiation.\nThats the simple version, but you get the pic.
1184515
I think that your question concerns normal particles which are common objects (like a ball?) compared to quantum particles which are atoms...  \n\nIf that is the question:  the nano-particles themselves are bound to each other by electronic forces -- forces that are electron-based.  They are so very small that the tiny force pulls of the atmosphere around us can make a difference.  Think of the ocean -- not a good comparison, but you know that the tides are caused by the gravitational forces of the moon?  That is no force that you can see, but it is effective...\n\nPut simply, larger particles are not affected by the electro-magnetic forces as strongly as nano-particles.  The quantum properties come from that effect.
304768
The assembled nucleus has less energy than the collective nucleons. If it did not\n\na) it would not hold together with the collection of + charged protons, and\n\nb) it would not require added energy in the form of colliding particles to make it come apart.
944201
First off, the electrons aren't located in the nucleus, only protons and neutrons.  The electrons orbit the nucleus.\n\nThe electrons in the outer shell of an atom determine it's chemical and physical properties because they determine what other elements or ions they can react with.  The relative availability of electrons in one element enables it to donate some to another element that requires them to have a full outer shell (sometimes known as the octet rule, since the first few rows on the periodic table all require eight electrons in the outer shell to be stable)  The larger the element, the more electrons (and protons and neutrons), and this gets into electrostatic attraction and repulsion in addition to electron affinity.  Electrons are also involved in crystal structure of metals and alloys, and again, how they allow crystal cells to form determines how hard or ductile a crystalline structure can be, how conductive it is to heat or electrical current, etc.\n\nOf course, the number of electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom is only one factor affecting the physical and chemical properties.  The stability of the nucleus is another factor, which has to do with the number of protons and neutrons present as well.
462594
As you go down, the electrons occupy energy levels whose energy is greater. That is, they are farther away from the nucleus. For example an element in period 6 has its outtermost electrons in the n=6 energy level. These electrons have a greater potential energy than those in the n=2 level because they are farther away from the nucleus. This is similar to an object that is higher up: It has a greater gravitational potential energy. The size of the atom increases because as more electrons are present in an atom, the more energy levels they fill. The outtermost occupied energy level of an atom is what determines size.
231705
Electrons are not little hard balls circling the nucleus of the atom.  They are best thought of as a cloud (a field of probability).  Think of your question as asking “why does the atmosphere not collapse to the earth?”  This is close.  See the sites below for more details:
128210
mm very interesting, yes, you see the subatomic particle has a mediaotian nucleus, this way induced in the heat of the radius of the positive electron makes the velocity of the Radiupositivum acelerate to almost the same speed as the particle inverse. This way, when the sub-nucleus reaches a temperature equal to the electron, the magnetic implosion "jumps start (like in a car) " the particle to have strenght and velocity, and the thing that makes is rotate is because the weight of the electron is always opposing the subnucleus.\n\nYou can see this ilustriated in the 1986 issue of Sports and Physics Illustrated. page 45\n\nHope is useful.
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.
894776
According to quantum mechinics, an electron is not confined to an orbit as we know for satellites, it has a 'shell' of probability where it is most likely to be found. It also has the small but finite chance of being found inside the nucleus of the atom, so the anwer is 0.
834645
Hm.  Okay.  Here's some stuff about atoms to get you started:\n\nJust like all things are made of atoms, all atoms for the most part are made up of the same three parts.  Protons, neutrons, and electrons.\n\nProtons and neutrons are comparatively really heavy.  Pretty much all the weight of an atom comes from these guys.  Because they're heavy, they don't move around a lot unless the whole atom is moving.  Instead they stick together in the center of the atom (also called the nucleus).\n\nElectrons live very different lives.  Unlike protons and neutrons, they are not only light but comparatively large.  They buzz around the nucleus like planets around a star... or perhaps more like beach balls around a sack of marbles.  A lot of chemistry has to do with electrons zipping around, being attracted to one thing or another... or more likely to several things at once.\n\nAnother important thing to know about the parts of atoms is their charge.  The charge in these parts come from the electric force, which (if you can imagine it) is a billion billion billion billion billion billion times stronger than gravity (yes, that's a one followed by 36 zeroes).  The electric force is also involved with electricity that we use in our houses and the like.\n\nThe pro- in proton comes from its positive charge.  To make things easy for themselves scientists just decided to say a proton has a +1 charge.  The neu- in neutron comes from it being neutral.  It has zero charge.  Electrons have the opposite charge of protons, so they have a -1 charge.  Pretty straightforward.\n\nAnd here's where things get interesting.  The name we give an atom (like helium or uranium or whatever) depends ONLY on the number of protons it has.  So, for example, an atom with two protons is helium, no matter WHAT else its got.  Neutrons hang out in the nucleus with protons, where they add to the weight of an atom but don't do much else.  And the REASON all those electrons are buzzing around a boring nucleus instead of being off somewhere else is because all those negative charges like to be near all those positive charges.  And since the electric force is so incredibly strong, you can bet that just about everything you run into is going to have as close to a zero total charge as it can get.\n\nSo there you have it.  Atoms in a nutshell.  Hope that helps!
791870
The size of the atom decreases as you move right.  As you move across the period you fill up the s and p orbitals.  These are then pulled closer to the nucleus.
1177982
Very good question. When you get to the nano level you do not actually talk of objects touching one another, but rather interacting with one another. When two atoms get very close to one another the the electrons repel one another strongly as predicted by Coulomb's Law ( F=k(q1*q2)/r^2). This law also shows why this is only important a close range with atoms. This is because at distance fairly far away the atom is viewed as an electrically neutral particle be cause the protons counter act the electrons. At close distances however the electrons get much closer to one another than the protons do and so that r value is relatively much smaller for the electrons so the force repelling is great. The name given this particular phenomenon is Van Der Waal Forces. \n\nThis same types logic is followed even into the subatomic world.\n\nOh, I missed the real question. You are talking math not physics. Algebra can not effectively deal with infinite. To deal effectively with infinity it is best to deal with calculus where they get around the subject by saying the limit x approaches infinite, or the limit as x approaches zero.  Now it is best to realize that while math is a great tool for describing reality it is a man made invention that reality does not need in order to exist. Due to the above answer I have explained that in the real world objects do not actually touch. There are however mathematics available that get around your problem. One area of math is called infinite series usually studied in Calculus II. Note: my only real interest in math is to solve physical problems, so a true math person would probably be able to give you a better answer on the math end of the question.