Hi
Dear member
Myself pramod awasthi and newly be member so due to formality I think ASK ONE QUESTION RELATED TO CHEMISTRY

WHY STRICTLY PROTON PRESENT IN NUCLEUS NOT ELECTRONS IN ALL ATOMS?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Atomic Nuclei contain Protons and Neutrons. (The hydrogen atom contains no neutrons -- all other nuclei have neutrons). The protons are positively charged (+); the neutrons are not. Electrons are always present in "clouds" surrounding the nuclei. Electrons are negatively charged (-). If protons were not surrounded by electrons, there would be a very large electric force that would not be stable. In a neutral atom, the number of electrons equals the number of protons, so the molecule is electrically neutral.

Does this answer your question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perito

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Atomic Nuclei contain Protons and Neutrons. (The hydrogen atom contains no neutrons -- all other nuclei have neutrons). The protons are positively charged (+); the neutrons are not. Electrons are always present in "clouds" surrounding the nuclei. Electrons are negatively charged (-). If protons were not surrounded by electrons, there would be a very large electric force that would not be stable. In a neutral atom, the number of electrons equals the number of protons, so the molecule is electrically neutral.

Does this answer your question?

---

Nope question was not what happen if e found in nuleus but it is why? Also for H,

Well, I don't know the why, but I know the how. The scientists Rutherford with his assistants Geiger and Marsden were the ones to show that. They fired alpha particles in a thin gold foil. Most of the particles passed through it, but some even bounced completely back, with others being deflected.

This brings the conclusion that the atoms consisted of a positively charged nucleus, very small in comparison to the size of the atom itself. However, an atom is neutral, so they couldn't be in the nucleus.

And that is a fact.

EDIT: changed 'nucleus' to 'atom'.

Quote:

---

This brings the conclusion that the atoms consisted of a positively charged nucleus, very small in comparison to the size of the atom itself.

However, a nucleus is neutral, so they couldn't be in the nucleus.

And that is a fact.

---

Jerry, I think you misspoke yourself by saying "However, a nucleus is neutral..." You did say, earlier, "a positively charged nucleus".

I'm going to reiterate that since the nucleus is positively charged, the electron clouds exist to counteract the positive charge.

There are cases where electrons are fired at protons in accelerators. The result is a neutron -- plus some lost matter that leaves as photon energy. If an electron could find the nucleus, and if there were sufficient activation energy to overcome the energy barrier, neutrons would be formed and the nature of the atom would change. Of course, if it were a hydrogen atom, and if you formed only a neutron, it would be a free neutron. But that is another story.

Oops, sorry, I meant 'atom' and not 'nucleus' :o I'll edit my post. Thanks for pointing that out Perito :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unknown008

Well, I don't know the why, but I know the how. The scientists Rutherford with his assistants Geiger and Marsden were the ones to show that. Then fired alpha particles in a thin gold foil. Most of the particles passed through it, but some even bounced completely back, with others being deflected.

This brings the conclusion that the atoms consisted of a positively charged nucleus, very small in comparison to the size of the atom itself. However, an atom is neutral, so they couldn't be in the nucleus.

And that is a fact.

EDIT: changed 'nucleus' to 'atom'.

---

Thanks and good