Do electrons really exist as explained?
I have been witnessing all sorts of explanations and scientific theories to pinpoint an electron that is presumed to orbit around the nucleus of an atom. Schrodinger's equation tries to do exactly that. It is also modeled as an electron cloud forming the outer section of the atom due to the multiple locations electrons occupy at the same time, making it look like a cloud.
Relating to the fact that Schrodinger's wave equation also works for the wave energy state of an electron, my hunch, which is unscientific tells me something must be leading to a clue that I think may be the answer for this dilemma.
So far, I know of no conclusive fact that shows electrons in real time orbiting the nucleus. But scientists have gone as far as estimating the charge and mass of an electron. We need to make note of the fact that the number of electrons in each oil drop in the experiment is not determined. This may lead to an obvious conclusion that each oil drop holds as many 'electrons' as its size permits. If we replace an electron with a single charge, then Millikan's experiment may have discovered a charge density of an atom's electromagnetic field. This can be confirmed by the fact that the charge density is the same for all atoms, the only difference being the strength of the field that determines the atomic properties of elements on the periodic table. Talking about the mass at a quantum state, energy and mass of an electron are not distinguishable, so it may be the measure of the energy as well.
What I think is simple. I think what we try to call an electron may simply be the density of electromagnetic field around the nucleus of an atom. It can also be extended to regarding it as an antimatter to the real matter, the nucleus. The field represents the energy of formation of an atom, matter, sometime during or after the big bang. By energy of formation of matter, I mean the initial energy that is required to pack certain numbers of protons and neutrons into the nucleus, hence the different packages representing matter in the form of the elements of the periodic table and beyond.
So why is it that the energy of formation extends as a field around the nucleus of an atom? I believe the existence of the field may be because of the release of energy, due to some undefined state inside of the nucleus, created during its formation. In other words, there are interactions among the subatomic particles in the nucleus that are crucial for the stability of an atom as we know it. Just as electric field around a charge is the strongest closest to the charge, the energy state near the nucleus of an atom is the strongest and hardest to create a bond during a chemical reaction.
What we learn in schools about the outermost electrons enabling the creation of chemical reactions is, to my belief, a convenient way of making up a model to explain in real time, what is otherwise an overly complex natural phenomenon that is a calculated bonding of energy between atoms. For example, a water molecule is made of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms, making a perfect requirement for bonding to make water possible. The same is true for all other compounds known on the planet Earth and the universe.
It's my opinion that I needed to put in writing before I forget. What do you think?
So far, I know of no conclusive fact that shows electrons in real time orbiting the nucleus. But scientists have gone as far as estimating the charge and mass of an electron. We need to make note of the fact that the number of electrons in each oil drop in the experiment is not determined. This may lead to an obvious conclusion that each oil drop holds as many 'electrons' as its size permits. If we replace an electron with a single charge, then Millikan's experiment may have discovered a charge density of an atom's electromagnetic field. This can be confirmed by the fact that the charge density is the same for all atoms, the only difference being the strength of the field that determines the atomic properties of elements on the periodic table. Talking about the mass at a quantum state, energy and mass of an electron are not distinguishable, so it may be the measure of the energy as well.
What I think is simple. I think what we try to call an electron may simply be the density of electromagnetic field around the nucleus of an atom. It can also be extended to regarding it as an antimatter to the real matter, the nucleus. The field represents the energy of formation of an atom, matter, sometime during or after the big bang. By energy of formation of matter, I mean the initial energy that is required to pack certain numbers of protons and neutrons into the nucleus, hence the different packages representing matter in the form of the elements of the periodic table and beyond.
So why is it that the energy of formation extends as a field around the nucleus of an atom? I believe the existence of the field may be because of the release of energy, due to some undefined state inside of the nucleus, created during its formation. In other words, there are interactions among the subatomic particles in the nucleus that are crucial for the stability of an atom as we know it. Just as electric field around a charge is the strongest closest to the charge, the energy state near the nucleus of an atom is the strongest and hardest to create a bond during a chemical reaction.
What we learn in schools about the outermost electrons enabling the creation of chemical reactions is, to my belief, a convenient way of making up a model to explain in real time, what is otherwise an overly complex natural phenomenon that is a calculated bonding of energy between atoms. For example, a water molecule is made of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms, making a perfect requirement for bonding to make water possible. The same is true for all other compounds known on the planet Earth and the universe.
It's my opinion that I needed to put in writing before I forget. What do you think?
