Talk:Electron cloud

Wait, what!?
"Electron cloud is not a term used by the Nobel Prize laureate and acclaimed educator Richard Feynman" .... It's not? OK, what is it then? This article is a bit hard to read and I gently encourage integrating it with the electron orbitals article (because improving this one would mean duplicating content), however for today I'm linking to it so that my "friend" can get all the available Wikipeformation. 125.236.211.165 (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

HELP
It need's to be put into layman's terms so that everyone can understand. - Can someone give me a brief description of an electron cloud? -

An electron cloud is an area of negative charge surrounding a nucleus of an atom that is linked with an atomic orbital.

Whould someone please figure out wut an electron cloud is i need to know but maybe im not the only one that doesn't, i dont think any body does.
 * Electron cloud is a nice word for an abstract mathematical object. Karol 10:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That, but what the math describes is an electron that acts randomly. The issue is whether something beyond our current observation abilities is interacting with the electron as Einstein believed, or whether the universe has some inherent randomness build into it. A real advance on this question may be the greatest physics breakthough of all time. Most of the physicists who first appreciated it unfortunately did not live to see an advance. I edited this article because I'm hoping the importance will help inspire someone to drive progress. Then importance gets lost in the math, we really need observations beyond what we're capable of now. -Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffTowers (talk • contribs) 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

- personal definition based on own understanding
 * An electron cloud is the statistical probability of an electron existing within a given area around an atom or molecule; where bonds are the areas of the electron cloud where electron exist between atoms of a molecule.


 * this is derived from an understanding of quantum concepts and chemical mechanisms — Preceding unsigned comment added by N-Ivaschenko (talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete, and merge any unique material into atomic orbital?
I'm going to propose this article be deleted, as it's a somewhat inferior version of atomic orbital. Anything here which isn't already in atomic orbital (I can't find much) can always be added over there as summary, if anybody needs to. S B Harris 23:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - agreed, this should just be a redirect to atomic orbital. Polyamorph (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagreed. Instead of merging someone should rewrite this article to correspond term Electron cloud used in article Atom. All electrons surrounding atom form an electron cloud. Electron cloud can be divided into electron shells, subshells and atomic orbitals. Electron cloud is not the same term as atomic orbital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.175.192 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain (because I do not known enough) — but I would like to point out that atom also has a section on electron cloud, which might be a better place than atomic orbital for this material. The question to ask is surely "How should information about atomic structure be organised?". Also, this material is more a description of the history and possibilities of a theory than a formulation of its current state. PJTraill (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I have the impression that there is a lot of duplication between Atomic orbital and Electron configuration PJTraill (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

This merge proposal was not tagged on the target article, atomic orbital. I have now done that, but I have left the discussion here which is unusual. This merge has become part of a wider concern discussed at Talk:Electron configuration, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and, I think more appropriately at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry.
 * Disagree on the merge itself. The term "electron cloud" does not refer only to atoms and indeed the article does not say it does. It does not see like an appropriate merge to me. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we can have a stub with and so on. The electron cloud of an atom or molecule is just one giant multielectron wavefunction. It is usually described as linear or other combinations of bits with simplified interaction assumptions (these being the single electron wavefunctions) which themselves don't really exist, but are helpfully simplifying sub-models. And which, even if they did exist, would have to be evaluated numerically.  S  B Harris 05:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While "electron cloud" might be a somewhat nebulous concept, I don' see what is to be gained from merging it anywhere. If the link goes to atomic orbital, it will be incorrect and will set the kids off on the wrong foot. The link should be to uncertainty principle, but are we really asking people to start their voyage into the world of quantum mechanics by a point which is so misunderstood? 88.24.235.69 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - Although electron clouds may differ slightly from atomic orbitals, I think that this article should be included in some part of the other article, explaining the relation of electron clouds to atomic orbitals and how they differ. If there is already such a section or explanation in "atomic orbital" than I think this article should just be deleted. G man yo (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bohr or Rutherford model
Is this statement misleading. "The model evolved from the earlier Bohr model, which likened an electron orbiting an atomic nucleus to a planet orbiting the sun." That sounds like the Rutherford model. Bohr deviates from this by stating that orbits can only be of fixed/set energy levels.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.246.27 (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the quantum model evolved from the Bohr model which was later than the Rutherford model, but the whole article is a mess, confusing asnd incorrect in parts. I'll try to look at it soon. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)