- #1
Karrar
- 21
- 0
1-is electron orbit about the nucleus ?
2-is there is different between rotation and orbit?
thanks in advance
2-is there is different between rotation and orbit?
thanks in advance
Karrar said:1-is electron orbit about the nucleus ?
2-is there is different between rotation and orbit?
Civilized said:1. No, in physics we don't say that "electrons orbit the nucleus." The word "orbit" implies following a path through space, and electrons don't do that in standard QM.
2. Yes, something can rotate even when no forces are applied (imagine throwing a stick in outer space and having it flip around and rotate as it travels away). Orbits require an external attractive force to make the thing which is orbiting stay bound to the thing it is orbiting around.
mccoy1 said:Well if it doesn't orbit the nucleus,then how come electron has angular momentum?
Karrar said:1-is electron orbit about the nucleus ?
StandardsGuy said:I was taught that they did, but that was a loooong time ago. Modern explanations are vague, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital" is good "information".
mccoy1 said:Well if it doesn't orbit the nucleus,then how come electron has angular momentum?
Karrar said:3- what means Anglar moment then ? what thing that rotate to calculate it anglar monemt?
4- is electron rotate about it self(spin) ?
I need appointment to disscus on line by mail these questions
posters email
Karrar said:1-is electron orbit about the nucleus ?
2-is there is different between rotation and orbit?
Karrar said:3- what means Anglar moment then ? what thing that rotate to calculate it anglar monemt?
4- is electron rotate about it self(spin) ?
Karrar said:if you has the text.pdf supply me please
Karrar said:5- why electron not lost its energy and fall in nucleus ? i.e what source of energy for electron movement make it stand near nucleus?
Karrar said:5- why electron not lost its energy and fall in nucleus ? i.e what source of energy for electron movement make it stand near nucleus?
malawi_glenn said:Angular Momentum is due to rotational invariance of a system, so when we speak of angular momentum in QM (standard QM - Copenhagen interpretation) it reflects the shapes of the probability distribution functions.
mccoy1 said:what business do electrons get upto really inside the atom?
Tac-Tics said:More precisely, it's because of the nature of quantum mechanics. A rough argument of why this happens goes like this. The uncertainty principle says there is a lower limit to how well defined a particle's momentum and position can be. If you know where a particle is, it's momentum becomes almost random. If you know a particle's momentum, it's location is almost random.
If we try squeezing an electron to the size of the nucleus, we know its position very well. By the uncertainty principle, it's momentum becomes randomized. Very soon afterwards, it will end up (by simple chance) with a very high momentum, allowing it to break free of the electric field.
In other word,it's like asking why atom doesn't collapse.okay according to intro chemistry,when you have say 5 electrons atom,no more than two electrons can share a 'spot',so the filling will be 1s^2 2s^2 2p^1.lowest energy orbitals get filled first and the next electrons move to the next orbitals(i.e no one electron sitting on top of other electron).I guess this makes the atom 'stable'.I may be wrong!Karrar said:5- why electron not lost its energy and fall in nucleus ? i.e what source of energy for electron movement make it stand near nucleus?
malawi_glenn said:vague?
jtbell said:There is no generally accepted answer to this question. The mathematics of QM allows us to calculate the probabilities of getting various values for physical quantities when we measure/observe them, but it does not address the question of what is "really going on" when we don't measure/observe them. This is the subject of interpretations of QM, about which people argue vigorously (in this forum and elsewhere). We cannot as yet distinguish between these interpretations experimentally, even in principle, as far as I can tell.
sokrates said:Yes. Modern interpretations are vague when it comes to these issues. (angular momentum, electron "movement" in atom etc.)
Using buzzwords or writing down the mathematical theory doesn't make it clear.
DaveC426913 said:These things are not vague; they are exactly the opposite of vague.
You're up against something that needs a set of definitions beyond day-to-day language. In order to discuss these things meaningfully, you need to learn the language.
How do you suppose you would discuss the details of an integrated circuit with someone who thought that voltage and resistance were "buzzwords"?
Sure, that is arguably true. But nobody is pretending that.sokrates said:Using rotational invariance to explain electron's angular momentum and pretending (or naively believing) that mathematics of it is the reason behind the physics is misleading.
and incorrect.
You claimed, or at least implied, that terms such as 'angular momentum' are buzzwords. They're not. I was arguing your complaint of unclear terminology, not unclear theories.sokrates said:They want to believe that QM is well-understood and Copenhagen is the way to go, although much of the interpretation is still vague. Worse yet, the understanding and the MACHINERY can change depending on the interpretation.
Nice try. The fact that something cannot be expressed simply does not invalidate it. It is a matter of the listener's level of competence in the subject. Good luck explaining how a computer works to a caveman - in a form he finds acceptable - while using only his own vocabulary. To understand QM, you need to understand the math.sokrates said:Voltage and Resistance can be physically defined in day-to-day language, I'll give you one if you want a layman explanation. And that's what makes Voltage and Resistance CLEAR - that they can be expressed simply.
Yeah, that attitude will go far... "I don't understand all this. Obviously, I'm smarter than the rest of you delusional ones..."sokrates said:No. That's what some brilliant people around here want to believe.
DaveC426913 said:My argument was not about whether the theory was well-defined it was about whether the terminology was well-defined. You claimed, or at least implied, that terms such as 'angular momentum' are buzzwords. They're not.
DaveC426913 said:To understand QM, you need to understand the math.
DaveC426913 said:Yeah, that attitude will go far... "I don't understand all this. Obviously, I'm smarter than the rest of you delusional ones..."
sokrates said:No, I never implied terms "such as '''angular momentum''' are buzzwords" or not.
Modern interpretations are vague when it comes to these issues. (angular momentum, electron "movement" in atom etc.)
Using buzzwords or writing down the mathematical theory doesn't make it clear.
I read what you wrote. I caught it. I take issue with the implication.sokrates said:I specifically criticized a specific post that attempted to explain the angular momentum of an electron with rotational invariance (which is not wrong). If you had read what I wrote carefully, you'd have caught that!
DaveC426913 said:I'll give you a moment to finish retro-editing your posts...
Debunking? I'm not debunking anything. I'm taking issue with unsupported claims.sokrates said:I respect your "eager" wait for new material to debunk!
Coming, almost ready...
DaveC426913 said:Debunking? I'm not debunking anything. I'm taking issue with unsupported claims.
And I'm talking about editing posts that have already been in the discussion stream.
Nonsense. I read everything. I got what you were saying. I got that you were attacking the earlier argument. That does not change my objection.sokrates said:My claims are not unsupported. You just don't understand them. Because you don't read them carefully. Because you post too fast. Then you complain about the whole process.
QM has never been falsified, so discussing your emotions belongs to the philosophy forum, please.sokrates said:Understanding and calculating are two different things.
Phrak said:If this were universally enforced, all discussion of multiple world theories, and the Copenhagen interpretations, and notions concerning elements of physical reality would be moved from the quantum mechanics folder to philosophy, where they would die in the sesquipedalian world where conculsions are never meant to be found.
Understanding and calculating are two different things. But I have a feeling that you feel better when you think you understand QM...