What exists in the vast space between the nucleus and the electron?
Is it an absolute vacuum?
Atoms were once thought to be the basic particles of everything in the world, but it has since been discovered that atoms are composed of nuclei and electrons and that there is still a vast space between the nucleus and the electrons - just how vast? We may take the simplest atom in the universe - the hydrogen atom to illustrate.
The nucleus of a hydrogen atom is a proton with a radius of about 0.833 x 10^-15 m. When a hydrogen atom is in its ground state it has the smallest volume, with a radius of about 0.528 x 10^-10 m. That is, the radius of a hydrogen atom in its ground state is about 63385 times that of its nucleus.
This means that if we scale up the radius of a hydrogen atom in the ground state to 500 meters, the radius of its nucleus would be about 0.79 centimetres, which is roughly the size of a common glass marble, after the same scale.
Of course, the hydrogen atom has an electron, and although scientists are not yet able to measure the radius of the electron accurately, certainly, the radius of the electron is not more than 10^-18 meters in order of magnitude, which means that the radius of the electron is only 0.01 mm at most after the same scale of magnification, still as small as a grain of dust.
In a sphere with a radius of 500 meters, there is only a small "glass marble" at its center, and "dust" orbiting around this "glass marble". "The degree of emptiness inside the atom can be imagined. Compared to the size of the nucleus and the electron, the space inside the atom is very large.
For this question, you may think of air at first, but if you think about it a little, you will find that it is impossible. Since air itself is a mixture of a large number of atoms, and most of them are also combined into gas molecules (e.g. oxygen, nitrogen), air can't exist inside an atom.
Since there is no air, is the space between the nucleus and the electron an absolute vacuum? The answer is of course no.
First of all, in the space between the nucleus and the electron, there may be some "passing" particles, such as photons, modern physics, photons are the fundamental particles that transmit electromagnetic interactions, so if an atom exists in the electromagnetic field, then in its internal space, there will be photons.
Neutrinos, for example, although the size and mass of this elementary particle are extremely small (it is generally believed that the diameter of neutrinos is less than 10^-20 meters and their mass can be less than 1 part per million of the mass of an electron), they are extremely numerous in the universe, for example, the Sun produces on average about 1.7 x 10^38 neutrinos every second, so much so that on the surface of the Earth, the average flux of neutrinos can reach 600 trillion per square meter per second.
Neutrinos are so much smaller than atoms and so numerous that there is reason to believe that they are often found in the space between the nucleus and the electron, and since neutrinos do not participate in strong and electromagnetic interactions, they are in most cases just "passing through" the interior of the atom.
On the other hand, when some unstable atoms decay, their nuclei release different kinds of particles, such as alpha particles, electrons, positrons, neutrinos, antineutrinos, etc. These particles also exist for a short time in the vast space between the nucleus and the electron.
In addition to the "passing" particles, there is also a "Riggs field" in the space between the nucleus and the electron.
The concept of the "Riggs field" was first proposed by physicist Peter Riggs in the 1960s, who believed that there is a ubiquitous quantum field in the universe, and that an elementary particle has mass when it interacts with this quantum field.
According to Peter Riggs' theory, at very high energy, the "Riggs field" will excite an elementary particle called the "Riggs bison "According to Peter Riggs' theory, at very high energies, the Riggs field excites an elementary particle called the Riggs bison.
In 2013, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) discovered the existence of the Riggs bison for the first time, which means that the "Riggs field" is real. Since the Riggs field is "ubiquitous" in the universe, it must also exist in the space inside the atom (otherwise, the nucleus and electron would not have mass).
It is worth mentioning that among the four fundamental forces in the universe, electromagnetic interaction, strong interaction, and weak interaction are transmitted by specific elementary particles, so it is reasonable speculation that gravity may also be transmitted by some elementary particles, scientists call this possible elementary particularization". The scientists call this elementary particle "gravitation".
If "gravitation" really existed, they would be found in the vast space between the nucleus and the electron, which both have mass, and matter with mass produces gravity.
About the Creator
Baudamolova
Science is the graveyard of buried faded the various ideas。
Keep reading
More stories from Baudamolova and writers in Earth and other communities.
Since the universe was born at the singularity, what is outside the singularity?
I believe that everyone is familiar with the "big bang theory of the universe", after all, this is the mainstream theory to explain the origin of the universe, we usually understand the theory that the universe was born in a very small, very dense, extremely high-temperature singularity, about 13.8 billion years ago, this singularity exploded, and then gradually evolved into what we now The universe as we see it now. But the question is, since the universe was born in a singularity, what is outside the singularity?
By Baudamolova3 years ago in Earth
Storm Goretti Wreaks Havoc Across the UK — As It Happened
The United Kingdom faced one of its most disruptive winter storms in recent years as Storm Goretti swept across the nation, bringing heavy rain, strong winds, and freezing conditions. From northern Scotland to southern England, communities grappled with transport chaos, power outages, and warnings from authorities urging people to stay indoors. Here’s a detailed look at the storm’s impact as it unfolded.
By Fiaz Ahmed 7 days ago in Earth
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.