Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: jeffreyH on 11/10/2015 01:54:23
-
The symbol for hbar should really have been just h. It is used extensively in quantum mechanics. It is used when dealing with angular frequencies. This begs the question of what really happens when two particles collide? Does it depend upon the orientation of a particles wave? If we consider this to be like billiard balls then the answer has to be no. You can't put back spin or stun on a particle. So then how does a particle wave exactly?
-
So then how does a particle wave exactly?
Here’s a hitch-hiker level thought.
Particles don’t wave. Waves are not particles. What we consider as a wave/particle duality is something to which we have no direct access. (No, I’m not going to mention inf….. [:)]) The best we can do is to measure it as something that behaves like a wave or a particle, depending on how we look at it.
-
I think that is on the right track.
-
Particle dynamics and wave equations are the ways we describe our observations. Particles don't wave, and waves don't behave like billiard balls, but they are useful mathematical models of what actually happens.
-
Particle dynamics and wave equations are the ways we describe our observations. Particles don't wave, and waves don't behave like billiard balls, but they are useful mathematical models of what actually happens.
What if it gives the right answers for the wrong reasons?
-
What if it gives the right answers for the wrong reasons?
According to Hans Ohanian, that put it on a par with much of Einstein's work. [:)]
-
The symbol for hbar should really have been just h.
... or any other symbol in the universe, as for any other constant used in physics. So?It is used extensively in quantum mechanics. It is used when dealing with angular frequencies.
Maybe you intended "when dealing with energy and angular frequencies". This begs the question of what really happens when two particles collide?
And what does it have to do with the symbol "ħ"?Does it depend upon the orientation of a particles wave?
What are you talking about? Wavefunctions, if you referred to these, don't have "orientation".If we consider this to be like billiard balls then the answer has to be no. You can't put back spin or stun on a particle. So then how does a particle wave exactly?
It doesn't. The "wavefunction" ψ is not a physical wave of the particle, just a mathematical description of its behaviour.
--
lightarrow
-
Is a wave not particles, plural, rather than particle, that can not wave by itself but can be a part of a wave pattern of particles?
-
The symbol for hbar should really have been just h.
No it shouldn't. The term hbar comes up more often in quantum mechanics calculation than does h.
It is used extensively in quantum mechanics.
When you decide to start studying quantum mechanics at the upper graduate level then you'll come to realized that hbar comes up more often. If you need just h then that's all you put in. It's as simple as that.
It is used when dealing with angular frequencies. This begs the question of what really happens when two particles collide?
The solution does not depend on how constants of nature are expressed.
-
Is a wave not particles, plural, rather than particle, that can not wave by itself but can be a part of a wave pattern of particles?
Sorry, to (try to) understand your question I would need too much caffeine [:)]
--
lightarrow
-
Consider the hydrogen atom. The charge distribution of the electron has to create an effect where the charge of the electron at all radial distances from its centre has to appear to be centred within the proton. Otherwise there is a charge imbalance in the field. There is no neutralization of charge. This then gives a relationship between the angular kinetic energy of the electron and charge distribution. This is not taking into account any change in relativistic mass. This is a simple system. More complex atoms have more complex interactions between participating particles. The neutron being very important in the balancing act.
EDIT: The single electron in a hydrogen atom should actually equal 1/2 of the proton charge at all points. Needing a shared electron to complete neutralization of charge.
-
A further remark upon this. The argument between Schrodinger and Born was about the instantaneous jumps between energy states. This was a debate about wave mechanics over matrix mechanics. While the outcomes are probabilistic there may be an alternative mechanism at work. The road to string theory may well be a wrongs turn caused by result of this debate. The right result for the wrong reasons.
-
Consider the hydrogen atom. The charge distribution of the electron has to create an effect where the charge of the electron at all radial distances from its centre has to appear to be centred within the proton. Otherwise there is a charge imbalance in the field.
Are you considering the H atom in its fundamental level then?There is no neutralization of charge. This then gives a relationship between the angular kinetic energy of the electron and charge distribution.
Do you refer to the electron's "orbital" angular momentum? It's zero, in that state, just because the distribution is spherical; if you refer to "rotational kinetic energy" it's zero because the electron doesn't "go around" the nucleus.This is not taking into account any change in relativistic mass. This is a simple system. More complex atoms have more complex interactions between participating particles. The neutron being very important in the balancing act.
[?]EDIT: The single electron in a hydrogen atom should actually equal 1/2 of the proton charge at all points. Needing a shared electron to complete neutralization of charge.
[?]
--
lightarrow
-
Consider the hydrogen atom. The charge distribution of the electron has to create an effect where the charge of the electron at all radial distances from its centre has to appear to be centred within the proton. Otherwise there is a charge imbalance in the field.
Are you considering the H atom in its fundamental level then?There is no neutralization of charge. This then gives a relationship between the angular kinetic energy of the electron and charge distribution.
Do you refer to the electron's "orbital" angular momentum? It's zero, in that state, just because the distribution is spherical; if you refer to "rotational kinetic energy" it's zero because the electron doesn't "go around" the nucleus.This is not taking into account any change in relativistic mass. This is a simple system. More complex atoms have more complex interactions between participating particles. The neutron being very important in the balancing act.
[?]EDIT: The single electron in a hydrogen atom should actually equal 1/2 of the proton charge at all points. Needing a shared electron to complete neutralization of charge.
[?]
--
lightarrow
If we have two stationary particles. One a proton and another an electron that are spatially separated then the fields will not have equivalence at all points in three dimensional space. If it were possible to have the two particles centred at the same point in space then the fields would be equivalent as the charges are equal and opposite. Since that is impossible a shell of electrons has to be distributed in such a way that the fields ARE equivalent at all exterior points in three dimensional space. Otherwise there will be a bias towards either a positive or negative charge. This does arise in ions but because of an imbalance in the ratio of protons to electrons. An imbalance in the combined fields. Does having a spherically stationary electron balance the charge? If you think so then show me the proof.
-
Since the electron in the H atom have no nodes which pass through zero shouldn't this be thought of as a hemisphere rather than a sphere? Maybe not literally but as a conceptualization of the balance of charge.
-
If we have two stationary particles. One a proton and another an electron that are spatially separated then the fields will not have equivalence at all points in three dimensional space. If it were possible to have the two particles centred at the same point in space then the fields would be equivalent as the charges are equal and opposite. Since that is impossible a shell of electrons has to be distributed in such a way that the fields ARE equivalent at all exterior points in three dimensional space. Otherwise there will be a bias towards either a positive or negative charge. This does arise in ions but because of an imbalance in the ratio of protons to electrons. An imbalance in the combined fields. Does having a spherically stationary electron balance the charge? If you think so then show me the proof.
Proof? Have ever heard of "Gauss law"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law
If the proton is at the centre of the electron's spherical shell there is no "imbalance".
If this is what you mean.
--
lightarrow
-
Since the electron in the H atom have no nodes which pass through zero shouldn't this be thought of as a hemisphere rather than a sphere? Maybe not literally but as a conceptualization of the balance of charge.
But what are you talking about? You say really strange things [:)]
--
lightarrow
-
So what exactly does Gauss' Law to do with situation. This doesn't concern a material made up of particles but the particles themselves. Is this law even applicable to quantum mechanics? I thought it was a classical concept.
-
Since the electron in the H atom have no nodes which pass through zero shouldn't this be thought of as a hemisphere rather than a sphere? Maybe not literally but as a conceptualization of the balance of charge.
But what are you talking about? You say really strange things [:)]
--
lightarrow
I have been told that.
-
Due to the inverse square nature of the fields of both proton and electron, if both are centred on the same point in space then how can we have a net charge imbalance? It would be like having the earth with a shell surrounding it with the same mass as the earth and saying that all points exterior to the system do not produce 2g. Double the mass and double the force. I may be incorrect upon this point. Maybe Pete will correct me. If I am not then the spherical electron must neutralise the the proton charge all on its own. So how do we get molecular bonding?