FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 6 [81 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:37 am    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

Bilge wrote:
Quote:
GSS:
Current state of Quantum Mechanics does not help us visualize the
instant to instant orbital motion of the electron in Hydrogen atom.


What does your model predict for the decay rate of the 2s -> 1s
transition and why? Even simpler, what does your model predict for
selection rules in general and why?

--------------------------
----------------------------

what does your QM model predict for decay rate of 2p------. 1p
transition (and why ) -- of the Lead Atom ???


----------------------

Y.Porat
-----------------------
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:06 am    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

"tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1150601677.579444.325600@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote,
and little Tommy was stymied by what Sorcerer wrote and so little
Tommy snipped, which is typical behaviour of all moron contributors
to the newsgroups.
What's up, little Tommy, can't take the heat? Stay out of the kitchen.
You are *not* a sensible or reasonable human being.
You need to think outside your little box.
Androcles.
Back to top
Jan Panteltje
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 295

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:56 am    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

On a sunny day (17 Jun 2006 15:39:35 -0700) it happened "tadchem"
<tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in
<1150583975.568267.55110@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:


Quote:
Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we know that
it is not a wave.

I know you mean well, but this is logically false, because:
A cat may sometimes look like a rat (in the dark), that does not change the
fact it is a cat.
'seem'.



Quote:
Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know that it
is not a particle.

and vice versa
Back to top
Richard Schultz
science forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 339

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:11 am    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:

: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we know that
: it is not a wave.
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know that it
: is not a particle.

Your "logic" is faulty here. Read Feynman's book _QED_ for an explanation
of why photons are particles -- the same argument applies to electrons.

Or to put it another way, what is wrong with the following argument:

Because the piece of furniture in my living room can sometimes seem to be a
bed, we know that it cannot be a sofa.
Because the piece of furniture in my living room can sometimes seem to be a
sofa, we know that it cannot be a bed.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Back to top
Bilge
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:25 am    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

Y.Porat, after replacing his brain with a nerf ball:

Quote:
Bilge wrote:
GSS:
Current state of Quantum Mechanics does not help us visualize the
instant to instant orbital motion of the electron in Hydrogen atom.


What does your model predict for the decay rate of the 2s -> 1s
transition and why? Even simpler, what does your model predict for
selection rules in general and why?

--------------------------
----------------------------

what does your QM model predict for decay rate of 2p------. 1p
transition (and why ) -- of the Lead Atom ???

There is no 1p state, you idiot. Few things in life are certain,
but your consistent stupidity is a sure thing.
Back to top
tadchem
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 1348

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

Richard Schultz wrote:
Quote:
In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:

: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we know that
: it is not a wave.
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know that it
: is not a particle.

Your "logic" is faulty here. Read Feynman's book _QED_ for an explanation
of why photons are particles -- the same argument applies to electrons.

Or to put it another way, what is wrong with the following argument:

Because the piece of furniture in my living room can sometimes seem to be a
bed, we know that it cannot be a sofa.
Because the piece of furniture in my living room can sometimes seem to be a
sofa, we know that it cannot be a bed.

Your argument is a false analogy.

A sofa *can* seem to be a bed, and a bed can *seem* to be a sofa
(dependent upon accoutrements). The basic characteristics are similar.

However, a particle cannot seem to be a wave, nor can a wave seem to be
a particle. There are basic characteristics which are essential to one
and which are excluded from the other.

We are comparing particles which are completely localizable with waves
which are completely non-localizable. A better comparison than 'sofa
and bed' would be 'sofa and wind'.

Can a sofa seem to be the wind, or the wind seem to be a sofa?

My point about electrons is that they exhibit characteristics that they
share with members of two mutually exclusive sets, they must belong to
some larger set which includes both subsets, but is not *restricted* to
only members of those subsets.

There is a class of entities which we do not yet fully understand which
include both 'waves' and 'particles' as mutually exclusive subsets, and
there are entities within this class which are free to migrate into and
out of these subsets. However, all members of this class are
restricted by both General Relativity and by Quantum Mechanics.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Back to top
tadchem
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 1348

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1150601677.579444.325600@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote,
and little Tommy was stymied by what Sorcerer wrote and so little
Tommy snipped, which is typical behaviour of all moron contributors
to the newsgroups.
What's up, little Tommy, can't take the heat? Stay out of the kitchen.
You are *not* a sensible or reasonable human being.

I choose to no longer take your bait, Andy.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Back to top
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

tadchem wrote:
Quote:
GSS wrote:

snip

Kindly specify clearly, what exactly is your objection to this model?

Your model reprises the failed Rutherford model, aka the "naive
planetary model"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford

which was briefly replaced by the Bohr model,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
because "an accelerating electric charge emits electromagnetic waves
which carry energy; thus, with each orbit around the nucleus, the
electron would radiate away a bit of its orbital energy, gradually
spiralling inwards to the nucleus until the atom was no more. A quick
calculation shows that this would happen almost instantly; thus, the
naive planetary theory cannot explain why atoms are extremely
long-lived."

The "naive planetary model" also totally fails to explain atomic
spectra. Does *your* model predict the relatively simple atomic
spectrum of hydrogen?

For various reasons the Bohr model was also found to be inadequate as
was further refined, but the key concept of quantization of angular
momentum remained.

Tom Davidson

I would like to discuss your observations in detail.
Before that Kindly confirm that you have actually read and understood
the article at the link quoted in the original post.

GSS
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

In article <1150650829.191176.67030@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
I would like to discuss your observations in detail.
Before that Kindly confirm that you have actually read and understood
the article at the link quoted in the original post.

GSS

Why not prove you understand the existing model first?

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

"tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1150636937.550841.25920@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
| > news:1150601677.579444.325600@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote,
| > and little Tommy was stymied by what Sorcerer wrote and so little
| > Tommy snipped, which is typical behaviour of all moron contributors
| > to the newsgroups.
| > What's up, little Tommy, can't take the heat? Stay out of the kitchen.
| > You are *not* a sensible or reasonable human being.
|
| I choose to no longer take your bait, Andy.
|

That's called chickening out, little Tommy.
You don't learn anything that way, but if you choose to live in ignorance...
<shrug>
Androcles.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

"tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1150636260.925392.207410@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
|
| Richard Schultz wrote:
| > In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
| >
| > : Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we know that
| > : it is not a wave.
| > : Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know that it
| > : is not a particle.
| >
| > Your "logic" is faulty here. Read Feynman's book _QED_ for an
explanation
| > of why photons are particles -- the same argument applies to electrons.
| >
| > Or to put it another way, what is wrong with the following argument:
| >
| > Because the piece of furniture in my living room can sometimes seem to
be a
| > bed, we know that it cannot be a sofa.
| > Because the piece of furniture in my living room can sometimes seem to
be a
| > sofa, we know that it cannot be a bed.
|
| Your argument is a false analogy.
|
| A sofa *can* seem to be a bed, and a bed can *seem* to be a sofa
| (dependent upon accoutrements). The basic characteristics are similar.
|
| However, a particle cannot seem to be a wave, nor can a wave seem to be
| a particle. There are basic characteristics which are essential to one
| and which are excluded from the other.
|
| We are comparing particles which are completely localizable with waves
| which are completely non-localizable. A better comparison than 'sofa
| and bed' would be 'sofa and wind'.
|
| Can a sofa seem to be the wind, or the wind seem to be a sofa?
|
| My point about electrons is that they exhibit characteristics that they
| share with members of two mutually exclusive sets, they must belong to
| some larger set which includes both subsets, but is not *restricted* to
| only members of those subsets.
|
| There is a class of entities which we do not yet fully understand which
| include both 'waves' and 'particles' as mutually exclusive subsets, and
| there are entities within this class which are free to migrate into and
| out of these subsets. However, all members of this class are
| restricted by both General Relativity and by Quantum Mechanics.
|
| Tom Davidson
| Richmond, VA

Nobody chose to take your bait, little Tommy. Smile
Point particles do not have wavelength, even if they seem to, to you.
They do not seem to to me, whatever your point is.
Androcles.
Back to top
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru


Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

In article <e738sc$2iv$2@news.iucc.ac.il>, schultr@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) writes:
Quote:
In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:

: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we know that
: it is not a wave.
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know that it
: is not a particle.

Your "logic" is faulty here. Read Feynman's book _QED_ for an explanation
of why photons are particles -- the same argument applies to electrons.

With all due respect to Feynman, said "explanation" is more a matter
of personal preferences than anything solid. In fact, any such
explanation is mostly a matter of semantics unless we've at our
disposal the following:

1) A *rigorous* definition of the properties of "particle", and ditto
for "wave".

2) The two definitions above being mutually exclusive.

Absent this, any "particle versus wave" argument degenerates into
nonconclusive semantics.
Quote:

Or to put it another way, what is wrong with the following argument:

Because the piece of furniture in my living room can sometimes seem to be a
bed, we know that it cannot be a sofa.
Because the piece of furniture in my living room can sometimes seem to be a
sofa, we know that it cannot be a bed.

The "sometimes" here is mostly confusion resulting from attempts to

use classical notions where they don't belong.

Within classical physics we've the notions of "classical particle" and
"classical wave". A classical particle is a localised entity which
behaves, in all its interactions, as a single entity interacting as a
whole. Its dynamics is governed by Newton's laws. A classical wave
is an entity the dynamics of which is governed by a wave equation.
Note that no attempt was ever made to make those classes mutually
exclusive as it was intuitively understood that it can be one or the
other, never both (and within classical physics that's indeed the
situation).

IN QM the situation is different. So, when you see in whatever book
the statement "An electron (or photon, or whatever) behaves sometimes
like a particle and sometimes like a wave", the statement is wrong, or
at least quite inaccurate, as it stands. It should say "In some
respects the behavior of X resembles this of a *classical* particle,
in some other respects it resembles this of a *classical* wave". This
is correct but doesn't mean much. Ultimately it is *neither*. All
you've here is an attempt of decribing the happenings within the
domain of QM by analogies to a previously studied and more familiar
domain and analogies, while useful at times, are never precise.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Back to top
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:e738sc$2iv$2@news.iucc.ac.il...
Quote:
In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:

: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we know
that
: it is not a wave.
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know that
it
: is not a particle.

Your "logic" is faulty here. Read Feynman's book _QED_ for an
explanation
of why photons are particles -- the same argument applies to
electrons.


Except he couldn't explain it to his father... ;-)

"[My father] said, 'I understand that they say that light is emitted
from an atom when it goes from one state to another, from an excited
state to a state of lower energy.'
I said, 'That's right.'
'And light is a kind of particle, a photon, I think they call it.'
'Yes.'
'So if the photon comes out of the atom when it goes from the
excited to the lower state, the photon must have been in the atom in the
excited state.'
I said, 'Well, no.'
He said, 'Well, how do you look at it so you can think of a particle
photon coming out without it having been there in the excited state?'
I though a few minutes, and I said, 'I'm sorry; I don't know. I
can't explain it to you."

--Richard P. Feynman, "The Physics Teacher" (September 1969)
[quoted from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to QED"]

For me, the explanation is not all that difficult to comprehend.
Quantum objects are both particle-like and wave-like due to relativistic
and quantum "vacuum" effects. And by "waves" here, I don't mean
probability waves. Although they are connected. I'll explain more if
anyone is interested. The basic idea is actually fairly simple.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Back to top
srp
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 198

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

FrediFizzx a écrit :
Quote:
"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:e738sc$2iv$2@news.iucc.ac.il...
In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:

: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we know
that
: it is not a wave.
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know that
it
: is not a particle.

Your "logic" is faulty here. Read Feynman's book _QED_ for an
explanation
of why photons are particles -- the same argument applies to
electrons.

Except he couldn't explain it to his father... ;-)

"[My father] said, 'I understand that they say that light is emitted
from an atom when it goes from one state to another, from an excited
state to a state of lower energy.'
I said, 'That's right.'
'And light is a kind of particle, a photon, I think they call it.'
'Yes.'
'So if the photon comes out of the atom when it goes from the
excited to the lower state, the photon must have been in the atom in the
excited state.'
I said, 'Well, no.'
He said, 'Well, how do you look at it so you can think of a particle
photon coming out without it having been there in the excited state?'
I though a few minutes, and I said, 'I'm sorry; I don't know. I
can't explain it to you."

--Richard P. Feynman, "The Physics Teacher" (September 1969)
[quoted from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to QED"]

Can't see what his understanding problem was really. If the photon
came out as the electron went from excited state to lower state.
it obviously was related to the electron being in that excited
state. There is no way the energy leaving as a photon would not
have been there in the excited state.

Maybe Feynman should have taken logics lessons from his father.

Quote:
For me, the explanation is not all that difficult to comprehend.
Quantum objects are both particle-like and wave-like due to relativistic
and quantum "vacuum" effects. And by "waves" here, I don't mean
probability waves. Although they are connected. I'll explain more if
anyone is interested. The basic idea is actually fairly simple.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com


André Michaud
Back to top
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom Reply with quote

"srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:4495C077.8090406@globetrotter.net...
Quote:
FrediFizzx a écrit :
"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:e738sc$2iv$2@news.iucc.ac.il...
In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:

: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we know
that
: it is not a wave.
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know
that
it
: is not a particle.

Your "logic" is faulty here. Read Feynman's book _QED_ for an
explanation
of why photons are particles -- the same argument applies to
electrons.

Except he couldn't explain it to his father... ;-)

"[My father] said, 'I understand that they say that light is
emitted
from an atom when it goes from one state to another, from an excited
state to a state of lower energy.'
I said, 'That's right.'
'And light is a kind of particle, a photon, I think they call
it.'
'Yes.'
'So if the photon comes out of the atom when it goes from the
excited to the lower state, the photon must have been in the atom in
the
excited state.'
I said, 'Well, no.'
He said, 'Well, how do you look at it so you can think of a
particle
photon coming out without it having been there in the excited
state?'
I though a few minutes, and I said, 'I'm sorry; I don't know. I
can't explain it to you."

--Richard P. Feynman, "The Physics Teacher" (September 1969)
[quoted from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to
QED"]

Can't see what his understanding problem was really. If the photon
came out as the electron went from excited state to lower state.
it obviously was related to the electron being in that excited
state. There is no way the energy leaving as a photon would not
have been there in the excited state.

Well, the energy is there but can we call it a photon when it is "in"
the atom? We can't. And it is not. I do believe the energy is
involved with the motion of the electron. That is why there are
creation and annihilation operators in quantum theory. I suppose
Feynman couldn't figure out how to simply explain creation and
annihilation operators to his father so that he would understand it.
Since Dirac first proposed them in 1927, he for sure knew about them.
;-)

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 6 [81 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:28 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts What are the obstacles to building a pen-sized free-elect... Radium Research 0 Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:48 pm
No new posts Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Radium Physics 30 Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:55 pm
No new posts New Atom Euler Cheung Physics 2 Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:46 am
No new posts How to build a homemade nuclear hydrogen bomb. Lloyd Fusion 3 Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:09 pm
No new posts Hydrogen in PWR cooling circuit? <macfanaatVERWIJDER@DI Chemical 0 Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:11 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0474s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0177s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]