Physics Discussion Forum

Bill, If the electron emits the photon as an expanding donut shaped energy pulse why wouldn't the proton move away from the electron and in so doing pull the electron with it?

A photon emitted as a "doughnut shaped energy pulse"?
It's an interesting concept, but I think there would be a problem developing a mathematical description of the electric and magnetic fields of such a photon that would satisfy Maxwell's equations and also yield experimental predictions consistent with what is observed when a photon is absorbed by an atom, causing an electron to jump from a lower to a higher energy state.

Then we have a problem. There have not been any serious objections to this view since it's inception by JJ Thompson.
See the last post here: post2020.html?hilit=#p2020

Little Bang wrote:Then we have a problem. There have not been any serious objections to this view since it's inception by JJ Thompson.
See the last post here: post2020.html?hilit=#p2020

OK... I looked at your diagram
The diagram depicts an electron as if its properties could be described by classical mechanics, i.e. as if it were a billard ball localized in space. That description might be relevant to discussing unbound electrons, or electrons situated in the conduction band of a solid. But the issue under discussion is the properties of an electron bound to an atom, in this case a hydrogen atom. To quote from my message:

Bill Angel wrote:When a hydrogen atom emits a photon, the photon propagates, for example, along the positive X axis. The hydrogen atom itself "recoils" and moves slightly in the negative direction ( parallel to the negative X axis). If the photon, as suggested, were emitted as an "entire expanding sphere of light around the electron/atom that emits it", then the recoil of the hydrogen atom in one direction would not be observed.
But here is the interesting question...how does one actually experimentally observe the recoil of the hydrogen atom?

One has to rely on a quantum mechanical model of the electron bound to a hydrogen atom to get the physics right. Representing the electron as a tiny ball orbiting a proton won't work.

QM uses statistical data to make it's predictions. Why would their success imply an understanding of matter? Since JJ Thompson's photon has never been denied, your right, classical physics can describe the electron. I think Heisenberg and Bohr couldn't predict both the position and momentum of the electron because they did not know that the structure of the electron was a torus.

To me it seems like the recoil of the atom following emission could be due to the electron falling back toward the nucleus after losing energy and re-contraction. Electron degeneracy pressure seems to be a barrier that resists the electron continuing toward the nucleus, so it's like the photon breaks off the swollen electron causing it to snap back toward the nucleus like a broken rubber band, where it bumps against the degeneracy limit. Btw, how is it even observable that such recoil takes place? (someone else also mentioned that issue of empirical observation, but I forgot who it was).

If the electron is a wave in the shape of a torus it would only get smaller as it gained energy and then bigger as it released that energy as a photon.

Little Bang wrote:If the electron is a wave in the shape of a torus it would only get smaller as it gained energy and then bigger as it released that energy as a photon.

I'm not sure whether you're talking about the shape of the point-particle and surrounding field of which atoms have one-per-proton # or whether you mean the entire electron exterior of the atom. My understanding has been that the electrons jump between orbital levels when they get excited and when they release a photon, they de-excite and go down a level. This makes sense to me insofar as larger atoms and those with more partially filled shells seem to ionize more easily. I thought that was because the positive charge becomes weaker further from the nucleus so electrons can break free from it more easily when they are more weakly bound. This also makes sense with the low quantization requirements for conduction-band electrons to move between outer orbitals. It would thus surprise me to hear that atoms contract when excited and expand following photon-emission, but is it the point-particle-field of an individual electron that you're referring to as having torus shape or the atom as a whole?

I'm referring to the shape of the electron, it's actual structure not it's field. They call the electron a point particle but then they give the diameter as having a value of something on the order of 10^-13. If it is a point particle how could it have a diameter a thousand times that of the proton? Proton=8.05 X 10^-16 , electron=2.82 X 10^-13

Little Bang wrote:I'm referring to the shape of the electron, it's actual structure not it's field. They call the electron a point particle but then they give the diameter as having a value of something on the order of 10^-13. If it is a point particle how could it have a diameter a thousand times that of the proton? Proton=8.05 X 10^-16 , electron=2.82 X 10^-13

I don't know how you differentiate between the external surface of a particle and the surrounding field. To me an electron is a field with inertia. Calling it a point only refers to the fact that the field is localized around a central point. Considering that electrons don't move along continuous paths, however, the field-force they consist of may morph in ways that displace the point-center in erratic ways. So when you say it is a torus, do you mean that its negative charge becomes negligible at the surface of the torus figure? Is the torus fixed in size and shape or does it expand, contract, and flex/bend? What is the relationship between the torus and the probability curves of orbitals or is there any interdependence of the shapes?