The duality of the electron

[howard2]

The duality of the electron is explained when you consider that the electron orbiting the nucleus is not a particle but a shell representing an EMF.
When the electron is drawn away from the nucleus. It forms a concentrated energy packet and is considered a particle.

When photon packets are added to electron shell fields. The orbital distance is increased when the value is equal to the next rung of the ladder plus the extra needed to overcome the original electron shell inertia.
When the electron shell moves to a lower state photons are released.

[R.A.F.]

Howard...it might be a very good idea to start only one discussion at a time...participating in threads you start is "expected" on this board, and I just don't see how you'll be able to "keep up" if a lot of people answer each of your 4 threads....

[Gullible Jones]

A free electron should still be cloudlike. An electron is a larger, "fuzzier" particle than, say, a proton, by virtue of its lower rest mass (and thus higher wavelength). Seems counterintuitive, yes, but on that scale, things don't work the way we're used to.

[korjik]

The electron is just as much a particle wether it is free or not. Being bound just constrains the energy and allows orbital angular momentum.

[north]

A free electron should still be cloudlike. An electron is a larger, "fuzzier" particle than, say, a proton, by virtue of its lower rest mass (and thus higher wavelength). Seems counterintuitive, yes, but on that scale, things don't work the way we're used to.

but is not the cloud like "picture" of the electron as a cloud, more of a mathematical probability cloud? and that the electron is still really a particle.

which suggests, is this cloud physical? if so what is the nature of the cloud its self? or is this cloud a more mathematical concept?

[Gullible Jones]

Yes, the electron is technically a point - well, okay, a string, but never mind that - but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle gives it a degree of "fuzziness": if you know its position, you can't know its velocity, and vice versa.

[north]

Yes, the electron is technically a point - well, okay, a string, but never mind that - but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle gives it a degree of "fuzziness": if you know its position, you can't know its velocity, and vice versa.

ironicly how is this any different from everyday life, really?

if one has a car that goes 300kph, if you know its position you don't know its velocity. and if you know the cars velocity you can't know its position. is that not true?

[Nereid]

The duality of the electron is explained when you consider that the electron orbiting the nucleus is not a particle but a shell representing an EMF.
When the electron is drawn away from the nucleus. It forms a concentrated energy packet and is considered a particle.

When photon packets are added to electron shell fields. The orbital distance is increased when the value is equal to the next rung of the ladder plus the extra needed to overcome the original electron shell inertia.
When the electron shell moves to a lower state photons are released.

Are you providing an alternative 'interpretation' of quantum theory (i.e. no change to the equations and the match with good observational results)? Or are you laying the foundations of an alternative theory, whose domain of applicability overlaps with that of quantum theory to at least the extent of 'electrons'?

[north]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullible Jones
Yes, the electron is technically a point - well, okay, a string, but never mind that - but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle gives it a degree of "fuzziness": if you know its position, you can't know its velocity, and vice versa.

ironicly how is this any different from everyday life, really?

if one has a car that goes 300kph, if you know its position you don't know its velocity. and if you know the cars velocity you can't know its position. is that not true?

let me refrase the question.

if a car is moving at certain speed and you want to know the cars position you can't know is speed and if you want to know the cars speed you can't know its position.

where is the difference? really, between everday life and quantum mechanics in this example any way? i say none.

[TravisM]

Ok. Given the time the car started and its speed, accounting for acceleration, I could, in priciple, calculate exaclty where it would be in five minutes astoundly accurate. The same with quantum particles, to a degree of probability.

To probe the exact location of an electron you'd need to use another electron...

If I shoot a radar gun at a car, this doesn't happen. But, if I'm chcuking cars at the car, and watching how they bounce off to tell its position, you might get the point.

[Grey]

let me refrase the question.

if a car is moving at certain speed and you want to know the cars position you can't know is speed and if you want to know the cars speed you can't know its position.

where is the difference? really, between everday life and quantum mechanics in this example any way? i say none.

Technically, this is true, since even cars have wavelike properties under quantum mechanics. However, I suspect that's not what you're claiming. Except to the same limits that are imposed on an electron, we can know exactly where and how fast a car is moving at any given moment. It might be tricky to set up the necessary equipment, but the difference between classical ignorance (we don't know, but we could in principle find out if we were to try hard enough), and quantum ignorance (not only do we not know, but the universe doesn't know either) is quite significant.

[north]

Ok. Given the time the car started and its speed, accounting for acceleration, I could, in priciple, calculate exaclty where it would be in five minutes astoundly accurate. The same with quantum particles, to a degree of probability.

but this evades my point(perhaps i was not clearer still?) we find the car already moving( as an electron is). therefore we are in the same situation as in the quantum. the problem of simultaneous knowing of position and speed.

To probe the exact location of an electron you'd need to use another electron...

If I shoot a radar gun at a car, this doesn't happen. But, if I'm chcuking cars at the car, and watching how they bounce off to tell its position, you might get the point.

point taken

but the only reason you are firing "things" is because we do not know the behaviour of the electron despite the fact that electrons should only be able to have certain orbits. and even within these orbits certain "places" they, electrons, can be.

therefore if we further study electrons there may be no reason to "fire" anything at all, at them. in time. and that we will simply know where they are at any time.

[north]

Technically, this is true, since even cars have wavelike properties under quantum mechanics. However, I suspect that's not what you're claiming. Except to the same limits that are imposed on an electron, we can know exactly where and how fast a car is moving at any given moment.

because we have referrence points to the car. but not so far to the electron. but in time we could. based on the limits to the electron orbit(s).

It might be tricky to set up the necessary equipment, but the difference between classical ignorance (we don't know, but we could in principle find out if we were to try hard enough), and quantum ignorance (not only do we not know, but the universe doesn't know either) is quite significant.

why not try anyway?!!

[Grey]

because we have referrence points to the car. but not so far to the electron. but in time we could. based on the limits to the electron orbit(s).

Experiment seems to say otherwise.

why not try anyway?!!

We have! It turns out that particles have a wavelike nature. If we imagine the electron as though it were a small particle, that possessed a definite momentum and position at the same time (even though we don't know what they are), we find that the electron behaves completely differently from our predictions. If instead we describe the electron with a wave function, we find that electrons behave exactly the same way. To about eight decimal places.

Nobody was really thrilled by the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Everyone expected the universe to behave in a more intuitive manner, and many of the most brilliant scientists who helped develop the theory were unhappy with the results. We don't believe that quantum mechanics is accurate because we like it. We believe it because, time and again, the experimental evidence shows that it's right. Moreover, we can show that no simple model where the electron behaves like a classical particle can possibly be consistent with the evidence. Take a look at some of the discussions of two slit experiments and the EPR paradox here for more about some of those issues.

[north]

Experiment seems to say otherwise.

We have! It turns out that particles have a wavelike nature. If we imagine the electron as though it were a small particle, that possessed a definite momentum and position at the same time (even though we don't know what they are), we find that the electron behaves completely differently from our predictions. If instead we describe the electron with a wave function, we find that electrons behave exactly the same way. To about eight decimal places.

Nobody was really thrilled by the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Everyone expected the universe to behave in a more intuitive manner, and many of the most brilliant scientists who helped develop the theory were unhappy with the results. We don't believe that quantum mechanics is accurate because we like it. We believe it because, time and again, the experimental evidence shows that it's right. Moreover, we can show that no simple model where the electron behaves like a classical particle can possibly be consistent with the evidence. Take a look at some of the discussions of two slit experiments and the EPR paradox here for more about some of those issues.

yet to get back to my point. there is no difference between the car scenario of the simutaneous calculation of speed and position, and the simutaneous calculation of the electron position and speed.

[Nereid]

yet to get back to my point. there is no difference between the car scenario of the simutaneous calculation of speed and position, and the simutaneous calculation of the electron position and speed.

You are quite correct north.

And if you put the numbers into the HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) equation, you will see how an uncertainty in the position of a car (given a measurement of its speed) relates to the degree of uncertainty in the measurement of its speed (and vice versa, of course). Ditto, with an electron's speed and position.

Would you like to specify a speed and position of a car (you will need to give its mass, of course, because the HUP pair is momentum and position), and state the degree of precision of one such measurement?

If you have difficulty with the math, just give us the numbers and we'll show you how this works.

[north]

You are quite correct north.

And if you put the numbers into the HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) equation, you will see how an uncertainty in the position of a car (given a measurement of its speed) relates to the degree of uncertainty in the measurement of its speed (and vice versa, of course). Ditto, with an electron's speed and position.

Would you like to specify a speed and position of a car (you will need to give its mass, of course, because the HUP pair is momentum and position), and state the degree of precision of one such measurement?

If you have difficulty with the math, just give us the numbers and we'll show you how this works.

no i would not like to specify speed nor position of the car. think of this problem as you would an electron. you know neither.

[TravisM]

There's a way, on paper, to set up an equation for a hypothetical electron. We define it position (writing down an XYZ point) and then it's momentm (writing another XYZ as a vector). Then we can calculate all day where our imaginary beast will be, at any given future time.

Meanwhile, back in the lab...

A brave physicist will be trying this in the real world. First, he needs the position of a real electron. He fires another electron at his test subject in order to get a fix on its position.
Ooops. He's now kicked it with enough energy for it to be at the moon in about 1 second.
Ok. Looking up some of Heisenbergs writing he finds out that the total energy of his electron probe is what's causing this kick. He gets a probe that uses less energetic electrons, but this causes the accuracy of his position measurement to lessen. He can know about where it's at, but not exactly.
After doing this a while he gives up.
There's a ratio for this position/vector knowledge... I can't seem to remember it.

[north]

There's a way, on paper, to set up an equation for a hypothetical electron. We define it position (writing down an XYZ point) and then it's momentm (writing another XYZ as a vector). Then we can calculate all day where our imaginary beast will be, at any given future time.

Meanwhile, back in the lab...

A brave physicist will be trying this in the real world. First, he needs the position of a real electron. He fires another electron at his test subject in order to get a fix on its position.
Ooops. He's now kicked it with enough energy for it to be at the moon in about 1 second.
Ok. Looking up some of Heisenbergs writing he finds out that the total energy of his electron probe is what's causing this kick. He gets a probe that uses less energetic electrons, but this causes the accuracy of his position measurement to lessen. He can know about where it's at, but not exactly.
After doing this a while he gives up.
There's a ratio for this position/vector knowledge... I can't seem to remember it.

so the secret is to know the exact point WHERE the two electrons meet. which therefore leads to position.

much like in billards, where the exact point is, when the que ball hits the other ball.

you concentrate on the deflection, whereas i concentrate on the exact point of contact between the electrons.

[AstroSmurf]

But to know that point of contact, you must know the original location and velocity - which is what we were trying to measure.

The ratio you were thinking of is (I assume) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: delta-x times delta-p >= h/(4*pi)

[TravisM]

Ahh. That's the one.

North, the way we would, in priciple, know the location is by measuring those deflections. The only way to know anything about something is by 'bouncing' things off of it. We use that idea to see. Photons from various sources bounce off of surfaces entering our eyes. Electron microscopes fire electrons at a surface and record the pattern in which those electrons are deflected, reconstructing the image using, what I assume is pretty sophisticated software.
This is where my car analogy comes in. It's totally dark where our car is and we start firing cars at it in order to observe how they deflect off of the car. Once we think we start to know where it's at we realize we've moved it with the cars we're using to figure out where it's at...
I hope that helped.

[north]

[QUOTE=TravisM]Ahh. That's the one.

North, the way we would, in priciple, know the location is by measuring those deflections. The only way to know anything about something is by 'bouncing' things off of it. We use that idea to see. Photons from various sources bounce off of surfaces entering our eyes. Electron microscopes fire electrons at a surface and record the pattern in which those electrons are deflected, reconstructing the image using, what I assume is pretty sophisticated software.

This is where my car analogy comes in. It's totally dark where our car is and we start firing cars at it in order to observe how they deflect off of the car. Once we think we start to know where it's at we realize we've moved it with the cars we're using to figure out where it's at...
I hope that helped.

i like your " totally dark" analogy. what if the car was in the dark as well?

then what if, instead of one electron, one fires a 3D(360degrees) of electrons with the density spacing of one electron.

[Grey]

then what if, instead of one electron, one fires a 3D(360degrees) of electrons with the density spacing of one electron.

And how are you planning on controlling the precise position and momentum of those incoming electrons?

For reference, though, I'll mention that the disturbance model of the uncertainty principle (where we change the values as we're trying to measure them) cannot actually account for the experimental evidence. It's not just that we cannot determine the position and momentum precisely at the same time, the particle doesn't even have a precise position and momentum at the same time.

[north]

And how are you planning on controlling the precise position and momentum of those incoming electrons?

as you would with one electron.

For reference, though, I'll mention that the disturbance model of the uncertainty principle (where we change the values as we're trying to measure them) cannot actually account for the experimental evidence.

explain further

have[/I] a precise position and momentum at the same time.

so the key is to find out why!!

[Grey]

as you would with one electron.

Yes, and the whole point of the discussion is that it's not possible to do this with arbitrarily high precision for a single electron, so why should we expect that we can do it for a group of electrons?

explain further

so the key is to find out why!!

Sure, but that's old news. The reason why is that all objects, electrons included, have a wave nature, and are best described as wave packets. By its very nature, a wave packet cannot have a well defined position and wavelength. The only reason this seems strange is that you're thinking of electrons as being like we imagine automobiles to be, only much smaller, and it turns out that's not the case.

[north]

Yes, and the whole point of the discussion is that it's not possible to do this with arbitrarily high precision for a single electron, so why should we expect that we can do it for a group of electrons?

because the group of electrons, fired at the exact same time would show peaks and valleys three dimensionally. just picture a three dimensional graph.

Sure, but that's old news. The reason why is that all objects, electrons included, have a wave nature, and are best described as wave packets. By its very nature, a wave packet cannot have a well defined position and wavelength. The only reason this seems strange is that you're thinking of electrons as being like we imagine automobiles to be, only much smaller, and it turns out that's not the case.

this is not entirely true.

electrons have a particle nature first( if this is not true, then why does the electron always show as a particle first? the wave aspect of the electron came after not before the electron particle evidence. wave was implied later). the wave(wave mechanics) has the same frequency as the electron but the wave aspect of the electron is not relevent here. the particle nature of the electron however is.

my point still stands.

[TravisM]

How do you figure electron wave nature is not relevant?

[Grey]

because the group of electrons, fired at the exact same time would show peaks and valleys three dimensionally. just picture a three dimensional graph.

You're missing the point. You're trying to say that we could measure the position and momentum of an electron precisely by using the precisely known positions and momenta of other electrons. That's circular reasoning. You'll have to first establish that you can determine the position and momentum of any given electron to arbitrary position before you can use that to try to measure something else.

this is not entirely true.

electrons have a particle nature first( if this is not true, then why does the electron always show as a particle first? the wave aspect of the electron came after not before the electron particle evidence. wave was implied later). the wave(wave mechanics) has the same frequency as the electron but the wave aspect of the electron is not relevent here. the particle nature of the electron however is.

my point still stands.

Yes, actually, it is entirely true. At the quantum scale, all entities exhibit both particle-like and wave-like behavior. If you try to predict the behavior of electrons without taking both into account, you get the wrong answers. That makes the wave function of the electron quite relevant.

[north]

You're missing the point. You're trying to say that we could measure the position and momentum of an electron precisely by using the precisely known positions and momenta of other electrons.

no, this not what i'm saying. what i am in fact saying is that once you a position of the electron you can find its velocity by finding it's position at a point in time and then time how long it takes to get another position. no different really from finding a cars velocity.

That's circular reasoning. You'll have to first establish that you can determine the position and momentum of any given electron to arbitrary position before you can use that to try to measure something else.

cleared that up above.

Yes, actually, it is entirely true. At the quantum scale, all entities exhibit both particle-like and wave-like behavior. If you try to predict the behavior of electrons without taking both into account, you get the wrong answers. That makes the wave function of the electron quite relevant.

the thing is though is that, both the wave and particle behavior of the electron is treated separate because both, the particle and the wave aspect of the electron ARE separate.

[north]

again getting back to my car and electron analogy there is still no difference. to know one(either position or velocity) means you do not know the other.

unless you have a reference point. true?