I don�t think that any of the 24 answers here really answered your question.

They
are mostly chastising you in different ways for using the term �revolve� as in a
planetary model of a quantum system.

We all know that the Schroedinger equation tells you the probability that you will
find an electron at a given location in the vicinity of a nucleus, but it doesn�t
give you an intuitive picture and it certainly doesn�t tell you how the different
interpretations of quantum mechanics will affect the way in which you imagine an
atom. So, lets start there:

probabilistic wave function collapse: the electrons don�t revolve, they exist as a
cloud of probabilities until something interacts with the cloud and collapses the
wavefunction, causing the particle to suddenly appear and the cloud to disappear

parallel worlds: the electron is in one location in our world and in another
location in another; we don�t know which world we are living in until we make a
measurement

pilot wave theory: there is an electron and it is rolling around in a potential

energy well shaped by waves which we can�t see. We can�t figure out where the
electron is because we can�t see the waves it is riding on without disturbing them.
(and yes, I know about Bell�s inequality; it does�t mean this interpretation is
wrong, it just means that you have to accept spooky action at a distance)

While most physicists and all of the 24 people who answered your question hold fast
to the first interpretation because it was the starting point for much of the
theoretical machinery which they have been trained to love, quantum computer people
often like the second interpretation, while those who study oil droplets really
like the third. This evolving picture is very eloquently described here: Have We
Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

It is important to note that the predictions from all of these interpretations are
the same, it is just that the language with which the predictions are made is
different. Because the language of the first interpretation has proven to be the
easiest to work with mathematically, it is the most commonly used interpretation.
This shouldn�t affect your personal interpretation.

In terms of pilot wave theory, you can certainly have electrons which revolve
around a nucleus and, due to the electrostatic attraction, you should wonder Why do
electrons in an atom keep a distance from the protons if opposite charges attract?
Why don't electrons crash into the nucleus? The standard answer to that question is
the Pauli Exclusion Principle and if you ask why that is the case, then they answer
Electron degeneracy pressure and if you ask why that is the case, they answer the
Pauli Exclusion Principle, and so on.

I think that a better answer to that question can be found in the answer to this
question: Why don't electrons emit radiations in stationary orbits while revolving
around the nucleus? The summary is that electrons don�t crash into the nucleus
because they are constantly exchanging photons (energy) with the nucleus and this
keeps them revolving around the nucleus (in a quantum sense, of course,.. whatever
your personal interpretation may be). Do protons exchange photons with electrons?

Using the a definition of mass from fluid dynamics, you can picture an electron
propagating around a nucleus like a boat with a wake.

The electron will go around in a circle and form a closed loop (or surface) with
the wake. If the speed with which the electron is travelling changes by a small
amount, the electron will be pushed down into a valley of the wake, but if it
changes by a large amount, then it will either jump ahead of or fall behind this
valley and this will lead to a discrete absorption or emission of energy tangential
to the trajectory of the electron. Meanwhile, perpendicular to the direction of the
electron�s travel, there are waves propagating back and forth between the electron
and the nucleus, keeping the electron from crashing into the nucleus.