Electons are only found on a surface (& on a nucleus). Probly only on metals. Or possibly on any conductor.
Nah. Electons are the magic particles that cause electronic voting machines to occasionally flip a vote to a candidate the voting machine provides prefers.
Or possibly they are the name of the species that have infiltrated our political systems, replacing our politicians. All hail electons!
All kidding aside, unless your model can describe and predict how an
STM microscope works and can image individuals atoms – really, their outermost electrons – (as they have been used for extensively since 1981), it is not a
realistic model at all.
STM results are basically in perfect agreement with current models on the structure of matter; so much so that simulators using current models of electrons (especially
DFT and
Hartree–Fock method, in software packages like
VASP and
Dalton) yield results that are basically in perfect agreement with STM images.
The only reason I have any trust in current electron models is exactly that even with quite crude approximations (especially the
Born–Oppenheimer one, which is heavily used in simulations), simulations produce extremely useful predictions of the structure and behaviour of physical matter, from noble gases to insulators to semiconductors to metals. (I
know, because I write such code myself, although I tend to the more classical side with large numbers of particles and models that only approximate the interactions, instead of the Ab Initio QM models.)
Since the very integrated circuits you use right now, reading this text, were developed only with the aid of these or very similar simulator software, it would be hilariously self-contradictory to completely reject current models of the structure of matter (including electrons) that have brought us these very devices we rely on.
Those models and theories brought us the devices we use right now.
(Side note: No, I'm not irritated at someone having a new theory. I'm just a bit irritated of people choosing to ignore the vast amount of hard work involved in getting us this far. It wasn't just these certain people having good ideas and others agreeing and going with that; it was countless hours of work, countless ideas and models tested and rejected, with the current ones being the ones among those that ended up best predicting the results of real world experiments, physical behaviour. Saying that they don't believe in that work is, well, irritating. Like someone reading a newspaper and saying they don't believe in reading. It is also important to realize that e.g. special relativity did not "replace" Newtonian mechanics. The two are the same at "human scale"; it is when velocities become a significant fraction of speed of light (in vacuum), or we have extremely heavy or dense objects, that special relativity starts differing from Newtonian mechanics. So, you don't just switch to something completely different that gives completely different answers! Just like special relativity can be used anywhere Newtonian mechanics can (producing basically the same answers), that new thing must also correctly predict the results of past experiments, with errors within the bounds of experimental errors. Otherwise, the theory or model is just not
suitable, as in useful or valid, at all.)