The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Compton Scattering .... Seriously?  (Read 7656 times)

Offline 5nutjob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« on: 21/11/2010 09:49:04 »
Just a thought;- if indeed electrons transit around the nucleus, shouldn't we see relativistic doppler shifting of their emission/absorption spectra, as their orbits will have them either receding or moving towards us (detector)?

Shouldn't spectral lines be spectral bars of measurable bandwidth, due to this affect?

Finally, with some atoms this should be blatantly obvious i.e Gold atoms possess electrons that move @ around half the speed of light; :o therefore, their spectral Ab'/Emission lines should be particularly broad - and not surprizingly, this is actually the case. :)

Although, years ago, there was this guy called Compton, who viewed the whole thing as an insane billiards-ball type of job involving massless photons?;- and we're still expected to believe this total codswallop scenario.

What say you?
« Last Edit: 21/11/2010 12:49:07 by 5nutjob »


 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #1 on: 21/11/2010 13:02:41 »
"if indeed electrons transit around the nucleus,"
They don't.
If they did they would emit radiation and fall into the nucleus.
 

Offline 5nutjob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #2 on: 21/11/2010 13:27:13 »
"if indeed electrons transit around the nucleus,"
They don't.
If they did they would emit radiation and fall into the nucleus.

Er? totally erroneous .... in the extreme.

Have you ever bothered reading stuff?  [:o)]

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/ [nofollow]   

ps;- Incidentally, I reckon all components of an atomic system auto-absorb/recycle your posited energy loss in wave-state.  [:I]
« Last Edit: 21/11/2010 14:17:16 by 5nutjob »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #3 on: 21/11/2010 21:14:24 »
Perhaps it's you who needs to do some reading.
Accelerated charged particles produce em radiation.
The most commonly noted forms are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation

The latter is exactly the radiation you get from an electron running round in circles.
I think you need to get to grips with quantum mechanics.


As for "Have you ever bothered reading stuff? "
Yes, I have, quite a lot. That's how come I know enough to earn a living as a chemist specialising in spectroscopy.
May I ask what you do?
 

Offline 5nutjob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #4 on: 21/11/2010 21:38:16 »
I know enough to earn a living as a chemist specialising in spectroscopy.
May I ask what you do?
 

I load pig faeces into dumpsters, but have burning aspirations to elevate myself into the giddy world of litter management. [:I]

 

Offline 5nutjob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #5 on: 21/11/2010 22:13:47 »
Perhaps it's you who needs to do some reading.
Ooof! [B)]
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation [nofollow]
The latter is exactly the radiation you get from an electron running round in circles.
I think you need to get to grips with quantum mechanics.
Ooof! [B)]

Yeah, but I suggested this may not be the case within an atomic system.

So, what you're saying, is;- the properties of Gold has nothing to do with relativistic velocity electrons? ..... something which is most stunningly incorrect.

As you're a spectroscopist, and clearly quite full of it - may I prescribe you an 'NMR'. :D
« Last Edit: 22/11/2010 00:11:35 by 5nutjob »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #6 on: 21/11/2010 23:56:46 »
The article about the golden glow is oversimplified and doesn't take in account quantum mechanics. Though, the standard model of particles explanation involve relativistic movement, it is more about an oscillating wave than a true particle moving...
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #7 on: 22/11/2010 06:57:13 »
"So, what you're saying, is;- the properties of Gold has nothing to do with relativistic velocity electrons? ..... something which is most stunningly incorrect. "

If you look really closely, you will see I never said that.
Why are you making up stuff like that?

Anyway, As CPT A  says, the interaction of QM and relativity is a lot more complicated than the article makes it seem.
 

Offline 5nutjob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #8 on: 22/11/2010 18:43:08 »
If you look really closely, you will see I never said that.

Why are you making up stuff like that?

Fibber :D;- your response to my "if indeed electrons transit around the nucleus," - was a stupendously emphatic "They don't" ...... they're either travelling @ relativistic velocities, or not;- obvious clueless, dishonest hogwashingly cretinous waffle on your part. [:I]

 
« Last Edit: 22/11/2010 20:00:25 by 5nutjob »
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #9 on: 22/11/2010 18:55:54 »
Quote
obvious clueless, dishonest hogwashingly cretinous waffle on your part.
Enough with the personal abuse. Play nicely, or don't play at all.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #10 on: 22/11/2010 19:06:09 »
"Lair;- your response to my "if indeed electrons transit around the nucleus," - was a stupendously emphatic "They don't" ...... they're either travelling @ relativistic velocities, or not;- obvious clueless, dishonest hogwashingly cretinous waffle on your part"

LOL

You would benefit from studying a couple of things.
The first is the correct spelling of "liar" (and, while you are at it, the meaning).
The second is any good text book on QM.
The electrons don't orbit the nucleus.
They have a position near the nucleus which isn't very well defined.

You need to stop thinking in terms of Bohr's model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
and catch up with the newer version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
which has been round since roughly 1925.

Anyway, the energy levels are not those of the electron alone. They are the energy levels of the combination of the electron(s) and the nucleus.
The nucleus isn't generally moving relativistically.
Where it is moving, the Doppler effect on the line-width is perfectly apparent and well documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_broadening

 

Offline 5nutjob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #11 on: 22/11/2010 20:25:10 »
"Lair"

LOL

You would benefit from studying a couple of things.
The first is the correct spelling of "liar" (and, while you are at it, the meaning).
Nonesense, I called you a "lair" ..... you know, a hole in the ground where animals retreat. [:I]

The second is any good text book on QM.

The electrons don't orbit the nucleus. They have a position near the nucleus which isn't very well defined.

So, in other words;- you've not the slightest merest hint of a whispered ghostly inkling of an idea with regards to what the hell's going on.  [:I]





 
 

Offline 5nutjob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #12 on: 22/11/2010 20:30:50 »
Quote
obvious clueless, dishonest hogwashingly cretinous waffle on your part.
Enough with the personal abuse. Play nicely, or don't play at all.

Hey, dreadfully sorry, and stuff;- but this is me toying, ever-so, ever-so pleasantly.   [:I]
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #13 on: 22/11/2010 20:34:38 »
"you've not the slightest merest hint of a whispered ghostly inkling of an idea with regards to what the hell's going on."

Yes, which puts me in a better position than you. You haven't yet realised that, due to the uncertainty principle, nobody can simultaneously know the position and momentum of anything so we really don't know what's going on.

One thing that we can be certain of is that electrons don't orbit the nucleus as they did in Bohr's model.
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #14 on: 22/11/2010 20:36:08 »
Quote
So, in other words;- you've not the slightest merest hint of a whispered ghostly inkling of an idea with regards to what the hell's going on.

No. But he's in good company... nor has the electron.

The best understanding of the location of the electron really is a probabilistic picture, described on wikipedia here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
(and in more depth in undergraduate chemistry texts)

At the atomic scale, trying to apply the "common sense" you've learnt in the macro-scale world is a hiding to nothing. Just get over it and find out about what the experimental evidence really says.. starting with, as BC says, ditching the Bohr model (which, although it is a useful teaching aid at school level, is basically bunk).


(Ed. Oh look, BC's beaten me to it. Oh well.)
 

Offline 5nutjob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #15 on: 22/11/2010 20:48:06 »
Quote
So, in other words;- you've not the slightest merest hint of a whispered ghostly inkling of an idea with regards to what the hell's going on.

No. But he's in good company... nor has the electron.

The best understanding of the location of the electron really is a probabilistic picture, described on wikipedia here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital [nofollow]
(and in more depth in undergraduate chemistry texts)

At the atomic scale, trying to apply the "common sense" you've learnt in the macro-scale world is a hiding to nothing. Just get over it and find out about what the experimental evidence really says.. starting with, as BC says, ditching the Bohr model (which, although it is a useful teaching aid at school level, is basically bunk).


(Ed. Oh look, BC's beaten me to it. Oh well.)

Righty ho;- so why's Gold the properties that it has, if you totally dismiss the concept of relativistic velocity electrons? ...... void assertion, or what?  [:I]
« Last Edit: 22/11/2010 21:02:30 by 5nutjob »
 

Offline 5nutjob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #16 on: 22/11/2010 21:00:20 »
"you've not the slightest merest hint of a whispered ghostly inkling of an idea with regards to what the hell's going on."

Yes, which puts me in a better position than you. You haven't yet realised that, due to the uncertainty principle, nobody can simultaneously know the position and momentum of anything so we really don't know what's going on.

One thing that we can be certain of is that electrons don't orbit the nucleus as they did in Bohr's model.

I know QM is a stunningly great model, accurate to shockingly savage decimal places;- my arguement is, that despite it being a marvellous predictive tool, there simply must be a greater underlying reality in which god playing with a roulette wheel has no place.

That Einstein chap knew it all too well.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #17 on: 22/11/2010 21:15:39 »
"Righty ho;- so why's Gold the properties that it has if you totally dismiss the concept of relativistic velocity electrons? "
Once again your ability to read seems to have been overtaken by your ability to make stuff up.
That's not what I said; it's a straw man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I didn't dismiss relativity.

I actually said "the interaction of QM and relativity is a lot more complicated than the article makes it seem."
I also tacitly included it when I said the nucleus generally isn't moving relativistically.

If you continue to ignore reality and pretend that I said things which anyone who reads the thread will realise I did not say then I, and others, will come rapidly to the conclusion you are trolling.
For what it's worth the nice colour of gold is due to relativistic effects- but brass is pretty much the same colour without them.

The so called "lone pair effect" and the low melting point of mercury, among others. are also due to relativistic effects.

However your simplistic model of electrons "orbits" is plain wrong.

And, btw,
"my arguement is, that despite it being a marvellous predictive tool, there simply must be a greater underlying reality in which god playing with a roulette wheel has no place."
is a different logical fallacy,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity_.2F_Lack_of_imagination
 and
"That Einstein chap knew it all too well." is an argument by authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

"so why's Gold the properties that it has if you totally dismiss the concept of relativistic velocity electrons"
If I were dismissing relativity I could answer "for the same reason as brass."
Relativity is not the only possible explanation
The yellow colour of brass means that your idea that the colour of gold proves that there are relativistic effects is a false dichotomy.

At least 4 logical flaws in 2 posts may be a new record.
And that's before we start on the fact that a snail that's in no particular hurry still has relativistic effects; they just aren't very big, so it makes no sense to talk about relativistic electrons- they are all relativistic to an extent.



« Last Edit: 22/11/2010 21:32:27 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline 5nutjob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #18 on: 22/11/2010 21:28:18 »
For what it's worth the nice colour of gold is due to relativistic effects

Relativistic what?;- you claimed that electrons do not orbit - so where do these said effects stem from? ... electrons that zig-zag about randomly @ 0.5c+? ...... duh. [:o)]
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #19 on: 22/11/2010 21:34:25 »
Learn to read;
I have already said this twice "the interaction of QM and relativity is a lot more complicated than the article makes it seem."

BTW, that's another false dichotomy. They may move without being in orbit.
 

Offline 5nutjob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #20 on: 22/11/2010 21:55:26 »
Learn to read;
I have already said this twice "the interaction of QM and relativity is a lot more complicated than the article makes it seem."

BTW, that's another false dichotomy. They may move without being in orbit.

So, explain. All you've spouted thus far is;- "it's a lot more complicated" without any actual clarification. [:I]

..... or, will you just continue to feed me links to stuff you've clearly not got a clue about? [:I]
« Last Edit: 22/11/2010 22:05:49 by 5nutjob »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8665
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #21 on: 23/11/2010 06:51:37 »
" So, explain. All you've spouted thus far is;- "it's a lot more complicated" without any actual clarification.

..... or, will you just continue to feed me links to stuff you've clearly not got a clue about?"
Another false dichotomy.
There is a 3rd option where I don't bother to do either because I don't think you want to learn.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #22 on: 02/12/2010 14:39:30 »
Ahh, a lively debate :)

Like that.
As for why an electron behaves as it does?
"We seek him here, we seek him there?"

I'm sure its about, somewhere?
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #23 on: 02/12/2010 16:24:24 »
Ahh, a lively debate :)

Ten days & counting without debate, hmmmm...
Maybe not so lively afterall (& not such a bad thing either!) ;)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #24 on: 02/12/2010 19:22:50 »
Ah, you might be right :)

As for my contributions it's been months though.
Makes it sort of relative :)

Physics, an answer for every question ::))
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Compton Scattering .... Seriously?
« Reply #24 on: 02/12/2010 19:22:50 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length