The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: what happens if the electron move faster speed in the same orbit  (Read 1502 times)

Offline taregg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
Does it produce more magnatic  field energy..


 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Does it produce more magnatic  field energy..
The "same orbit" will not result because the electrons speed determines, in part, the orbit of the electron.

In answer to your question, the faster a charged particle moves the larger the magnetic field that it generates.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4096
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
I have heard that one of the criticisms of the "electron orbit" theory was that the electron should be moving at almost the speed of light to resist the attraction of the positive nucleus. Since the speed of light is an upper limit on the speed of moving objects, the electron could not really move any faster.

However, the electron orbit theory has now been relegated to a metaphor, comparing the motion of electrons around the nucleus to planets moving around the Sun, or a weight spinning around on a string. Explanations of the response of materials to magnetic fields sometimes use this metaphor.

However, Quantum theory has now replaced this spinning electron description by a probability density function which represents the chance of finding an electron at a given distance from the nucleus.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1867
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Electrons don't really "move" in an orbit the way a planet might. Electrons can be represented more accurately as being "smeared out" over a space around the nucleus. There are only a few discrete energy levels they can be in for any given nucleus. The different orbitals do overlap substantially in space, but are characterized by energy level, angular momentum and magnetic quantum number.

Taregg, you are somewhat correct, in that electrons with higher angular momentum generate larger magnetic fields.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
I'm not sure, (never is btw:) but if you think of it as a field with 'excitations' then you have definitions, and limitations, of what matter can consist of. A orbital is description of a 'probability cloud', of what we would call a 'real measurable' orbit, around something (nucleus). That orbital has discrete energy levels, meaning that is not a 'smooth phenomena', able to have any position. Some orbitals are not allowed at all as I get it? Or is it possible to assign a coordinate system to orbitals and then prove that all coordinates/orbitals can exist, even though the energy levels for the electrons are discrete, making those orbitals 'jump' from one position to another? And then you have observer dependencies, macroscopically we should both be able to define 'one atom', agreeing on some position for it, and then measure its orbitals. But with mass energy and motion changing for one of us we will find us to have different coordinate systems, unable to agree on a position. Will that also change the orbitals that we measure? It should. If it is a field, then that field is related to the observer. So what would the observer be related to? A Lorentz transformation presumes some sort of hidden 'objective reality' to me, a anchor from where we relate those observer dependencies. But relativistically speaking no 'reality', or observer dependency, is more unreal than any other. For the observer we have one definition, and that is measurements, what they tell you will be your reality. Any arguments moving from measurements to some 'hidden reality' must move from what will matter for you, into philosophy and as I suspect.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
heh, the observer is related to mass energy and motion, isn't he?
So, what is 'mass'?
What is 'energy'?
What is 'motion'?

In a field with excitations.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums