Why don't electrons fall into the nucleus?

Okay then.... Maybe when you get to that level you'll realise that even the most brilliant of scientists haven't cracked the fundamentals.

I'm being sop serious... I just don't get physics, it makes no sense but chemistry is beautiful....

What is the concentration of Ag+ in a solution if it takes 2.30 mins using a current of 2.00A to plate all the silver from 0.25L of a solution containing Ag+?

Work out the answer to that and then get back to me on chemistry being simple.

I saw the word current... I swear that's physics.....

All chemistry is kind of simple....

I saw the word current... I swear that's physics.....

Electrolysis? Have you never covered that in Chemistry?

Lol a few kids doing GCSE trying to explain sub atomic nuclear physics.

Electrolysis.

Edit: Maj has already answered

Yeah I have but I don't like it, it's too physicsy

Trying is the operative word... -_-

I just wanted an answer to my question and it turned into a massive science snobbery argument

Take the unrelated stuff to PM/VM and stop derailing my thread.

Electrons have a charge and thus attract to that of the opposite charge and are fixed in motion and position on an axis?

I don't understand what you're trying to say. -_-

I thought the orbit of an electron was irregular (that is, assuming we are considering it as a particle)?

The orbiting electron analogy evolved into the more accurate Bohr-Rutherford model, but even this model falls apart exactly because it does not predict the behaviour of the atom for the reasons you have identified.

In other words it's simply wrong and no planetary-orbital model can predict the behaviour of the electron.

To get a better model one has to embrace quantum mechanics (which was developed to answer this paradox) and at a simple level of abstraction, you have to completely disregard the idea that electrons have a defined trajectory.

It's also more appropriate to think of the electron not as a particle but as a wave and a representation of energy.

In quantum mechanics, electrons are defined as having discreet energy levels constraining the space they are allowed to occupy around the nucleus. It also predicts that electrons cannot occupy the same space as the proton. Quantum theory is wierd in the extreme and the classical definition of causality for every event does not apply.

In essence, when you get down to physics at the sub-atomic level the 'why' question cannot be answered because it's the limit of physics knowledge.

The mathematics describes the observations of the atoms behaviour to a high degree of precision. But it does not explain why they happen.

Richard Feynman quotation:

"What keeps the electrons from simply falling in? The uncertainty principle: If they were in the nucleus, we would know their position precisely, which would require them to have a very large, but uncertain, momentum, i.e., a very large kinetic energy. This would cause them to break away from the nucleus. They make a compromise: they leave themselves a little room for this uncertainty and then jiggle with a certain amount of minimum motion in accordance with this rule."

Still a lot more Nobel prizes to be had if you can get closer to the answer!

Seen as the movement of the electron is random and its displacement changes every second, isn't there a centrifugal force involved?

Well one of the main reasons why the nucleus does not collide is due to the strong nuclear force.
At certain distances it attracts and brings things closer but when it's too close it starts to repel hence no collision occurs.