Because of the significant difference between the masses of electrons and nuclei, one assumes that the center of mass is at the nucleus, and the electrons have orbitals around it. This can be the probable reason the protons and neutrons don't have their own orbital like electrons.

The primary reason is that the force responsible for holding neutrons and protons together in nuclei is very different from the force holding electrons in atoms. The electric force (Coulomb force) between the nucleus and electrons is what holds electrons in an atom and it is attractive and its strength depends on distance like 1/r^2 (inverse square force law). The nuclear force between protons and neutrons is completely different: it is very short range, dropping essentially to zero after about 1E-15 m and is has a repulsive core. Working out the dynamics of these two forces gives the behavior differences we see.

There are two wrong assumptions in your question.

A. It is impossible to assign a certain distance from the nucleus to electrons in their orbitals. Orbitals are not orbits, they are the probability distribution of the presence of the electron. Each with its own shape, they extend in 3 dimensions in the volume of the atom. In any orbital, the distance between the electron and the nucleus varies randomly, it is impossible to assign a precise value to this distance.

B. Neutrons and protons occupy orbitals in the nucleus, very similar to those of electrons in the atom, with some differences due to the difference between the Coulomb field in the atom and the nuclear field in the nucleus. Like electrons, nucleons move randomly , each in its own orbital.

The main reason is that the force responsible for holding neutrons and protons together in nucleus is very different from the force that holds electrons in atoms.

Dear François Tondeur, thank you for your valuable suggestions and comments. What I have assumed is based on Bohr's assumption. According to his assumption, energy of electron can be calculated since electrons can be exited or emitted from one energy level to the other. In addition to this, as you said, according to Schrödinger, orbits are the probability distribution of the presence of the electron. But if it is impossible to assign a precise value to the distance between the electron and the nucleus, how we can calculate energy of exited or emitted electron? since both of them assumed that the energy is dependent on principal quantum number (n).

Secondly, you have said that 'Neutrons and protons occupy orbitals in the nucleus.' If that is so, how we can assign them like that of orbitals in terms of probability distribution? Please give me a clear information.

The Bohr model is a semiclassical approximation that assumes that waves propagate along orbits. But this is a wrong description of the electronic cloud, even if is quite good for calculating the energies in the hydrogen atom.. Waves are never "confined" on an orbit in the real world.

Schrödinger equation gives a true quantum description. It is also approximate because it is not relativistic, but this is a minor approximation.

(T+V)Y = EY where Y=wave function and T = kinetic energy operator .

Its solution simultaneously gives the wave function Y and the energy E: like in a string, standing waves are possible only for well-defined frequencies f, i.e. well-defined energies E=h.f.

The input is the potential V. In the hydrogen atom, this is the Coulomb potential energy of the electron-propton system. In heavier atoms, the problem is complex, as each electron not only interacts with the nucleus, but also with other electrons, and the potential depends on the wave functions. Then the potential is often calculated with an iterative method (Hartee-Fock method) .

In the nucleus, the potential V acting on a nucleon is the sum of the potentials created by the other nucleons. The question is complex, because the nucleon-nucleon potential is not described by a simple formula, and approximate formulas are generally used. The Hartee-Fock iterative method can also be applied.

For a detailed answer you should refer to textbooks of atomic and nuclear physics. Do not expect a simple answer, and be sure first of your knowledge of basic quantum mechanics.

The reason is that the electrons have the same charge and mass and are affected by the repulsive Coulomb force between them, while the nucleus contains protons whose mass is different from the mass of neutrons and have a positive charge which is affected by the repulsive Coulomb force, while neutrons do not carry any charge and all are affected by the strong nuclear force, which differs approximately between the proton proton and neutron neutron between a proton and a neutron

Because the protons( positive charge)and neutrons( natural charge) are located inside the nucleus and are affected by the strong nuclear force, while the electrons are located outside the nucleus and rotate in their orbits according to the arrangement of their orbitare and affected by the repulsive Coulomb force between them(negative charge)

Protons and neutrons do not have their own orbital because they are much larger than electrons. Protons and neutrons form a nucleus that is held together by the strong nuclear force. Electrons, on the other hand, exist in separate energy levels or orbitals outside of the nucleus.

I do not understand most of the answers given to the question

"Why not protons and neutrons accommodate their own orbital like that of electrons?"

The answer is definitely

YES, protons and neutrons accommodate their own orbital .

This is known in nuclear physics as "the shell model of the nucleus" developed in 1949 by Mayer and Jensen, who received the Nobel price 1963 for it.

All textbooks of nuclear physics describe it.

Ah, I see. That's a great explanation. The shell model of the nucleus states that protons and neutrons can occupy their own orbitals within the nucleus, just like electrons. This helps to explain why some elements have more stability than others and why certain elements react differently than others.

My dear sagayaraj:the nucleons distributed according to the shell model as shown in the figure

Also My dear Dibabe nucleons distributed according to the shell model as shown in the figure

“Why not protons and neutrons accommodate their own orbital like that of electrons?”

- the correct answer to this question, i.e. that really protons and neutrons accommodate their own orbital in nuclei like that of electrons, is given in a few posts above, however in this case the other question – why that is so? - remains being non-answered.

The last question is essentially answered in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2023 initial model of the fundamental Nature Nuclear force that acts between nucleons in atomic nuclei, see the paper “The Informational Model — Nuclear Force” in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force;

- while what are the fundamental Nature Gravity and Electric forces see the 2007 initial models of these Forces in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces

- all these 3 Forces act in accordance with one general model by the same scheme. So it is nothing surprising in that quantum systems of electrons and nuclei “atoms” are like quantum system of nucleons “nuclei”.

Cheers

Dear Yibrehu Bogale Dibabe

First note that contrary to electrons, protons and neutrons are not elementary charged particles such as the electron, but "systems of charged particles", just like the solar system is not a heavenly body, but a "system of heavenly bodies".

This was confirmed after long experiments at the SLAC accelerators in 1966-1968 by a team led by M. Breidenbach that revealed highly inelastic rebounds of electrons that were sent towards protons and neutrons with enough energy to penetrate inside the volume of space protons and neutrons are known to occupy. This revealed the presence of 3 scatterable charged sub components in protons and neutrons that were named up quark and down quark, in agreement with the predictions of a theory of Gell-man and Zweig.

Breidenbach, M. et al. (1969) Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-ProtonScattering, Phys. Rev. Let., Vol. 23, No. 16, 935-939.

https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/0500/slac-pub-0650.pdf

Note also that protons and neutrons are way more massive than electrons.

These highly inelastic collisions revealed that up quarks and down quarks are only slightly more massive than electrons, and amount for only a small percentage of the total mass of protons and neutrons (uud – 2% for the proton, and udd – 2.4% for the electron)

Ref: Particle Data Group. (2000) Review of Particle Physics. Volume 15 – Number 10-4

And

David R. Lide, Editor-in-chief. (2003) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 84thEdition 2003-2004, CRC Press, New York. 2003

The rest of their mass can be assumed to be relativistic in nature.

The Bohr model provides the mean distance of each allowed stationary resonance orbital in the hydrogen atom, which is why the Coulomb equation allows calculating the exact mean energy of each orbitals defined by the Schrödinger wave equation, that was inspired by de Broglie's 1924 thesis hypothesis that all orbits in the theoretical Bohr atom are in resonance according to an integer sequence.

Best Regards, André

Since the last post in the thread looks as it too strangely relates to the thread question, it looks as worthwhile to remind here that the scientific answers to then question are above, first of all in Ali Kalaf Aobaid and SS posts.

Cheers

They ,too ,have orbitals .............Unspoken of . .. . . non-delved into . . . .