Welcome
Welcome to physicsdiscussionforum

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Specific electrons ? at specific region around the atom ?

Specific electrons ? at specific region around the atom ?

Postby fay's unKle » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:23 pm

I have a thing going on with the whereabouts of electrons in atoms, so when I read something surprising like this, I chase it hoping to get a little more insight into the subject. "Both single electrons now become paired and share the overlapping energy levels i.e. they can now also move in the energy level of the electron from the other atom so they can now move around each nuclei. However, most of the time they are found in the region between both nuclei as they are attracted by both nuclei."

They are talking for almost specific (?) electrons being at specific region around the atom. Where such finding are coming from. Are these theoretical or experimental findings. Pump-probe spectroscopy, photoelectron spectroscopy and crystallography, is all I only know to find electron energies and densities, but not positions as accurate to say that specific electrons "are found in the region between both nuclei"

Through which methods and what measurements they find that electrons are moving around each nuclei.

Would you know what to read to appreciate in its full extent the experimental procedures that lead to such findings/conclusions.
fay's unKle
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:45 pm

 

Re: Specific electrons ? at specific region around the atom

Postby Good Elf » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:11 am

@Fay's UnKle:
I have a thing going on with the whereabouts of electrons in atoms, so when I read something surprising like this, I chase it hoping to get a little more insight into the subject. "Both single electrons now become paired and share the overlapping energy levels i.e. they can now also move in the energy level of the electron from the other atom so they can now move around each nuclei. However, most of the time they are found in the region between both nuclei as they are attracted by both nuclei."

They are talking for almost specific (?) electrons being at specific region around the atom. Where such finding are coming from. Are these theoretical or experimental findings. Pump-probe spectroscopy, photoelectron spectroscopy and crystallography, is all I only know to find electron energies and densities, but not positions as accurate to say that specific electrons "are found in the region between both nuclei"

Through which methods and what measurements they find that electrons are moving around each nuclei.

Would you know what to read to appreciate in its full extent the experimental procedures that lead to such findings/conclusions.

We all "live" in little cocoons shielded from the rest of the Universe. The amount of research work going on "out there" is really quite enormous and to tell people a little of what exists is sometimes very disconcerting for them. The spokespersons keep it really really really simple because they don't know too much more than what they know from their tiny little almost insignificant field either. They do kid themselves though. The real understanding of how the Universe works comes from Quantum Field Theory (all "Jim Dandy" and tied up in the language of Quantum Operators), and it is nothing like any of the theories you have seen elsewhere. Ultimately it is a theory of resonance but not of things but one of statistical distributions. Best B***s**t I have ever seen. What you see in Wikipedia is just a very tall picket fence to stop you and me from ever getting past the front door to find our "really" what these guys are up to because it is not really about that stuff at all. They are way past that... nobody knows what they know ... not even they really know themselves because they can't check to see if what they are "saying" is a physical fact at all. The physical facts go way past this mumbo jumbo and they have to keep tagging on "bits and pieces" to the theory to keep it all working. You can build anything with a Constructor Set. You can build an elephant or a jet plane or a Ferris Wheel and you can even add in those little motors to make it go round. The constructor set is not the real thing, reality is far more complicated. A child can build the Ferris-wheel out of Mechano, Erector or Lego or whatever, but a child is not able to build a real working Ferris-wheel. That takes many years or even a full decade of directed concerted effort to get the engineering degrees and the experience to actually know enough about the material sciences to "have a go". In terms of the "Theory of Everything" the best minds are still working with their Constructor Sets. We all want an "easy build" but actually a theory of how stuff really works is still very distant.

Every type of particle in the universe is represented by it's own global wave equation where the particle fields occupy their own place through interactions with all the other particle fields. But there are no actual particles, just the matter waves everywhere. The photon has one of it's own and the electron has one of it's own and the neutron has one of it's own... so on for all the various particles... one field for each particle everywhere in the Universe.... that "particle field" describes where every particle of it's kind is, came from and will become, and ideally will show how they all interact. It works... in a kind of way... a way in which a real solution for everything has never been found. People look for simplification of the theory through "deconstruction". The theory goes if you break things down into smaller and smaller "bits' you will end up with the smallest bits of all. Only these "bits" need to be so small that an accelerator the size of the Universe and an energy sufficient to create this entire Universe would be needed to generate this one bit. Now that we destroyed the entire Universe to get this one bit... where did all the others come from??? Well... here is the 50 Trillion Dollar Question... it all came from statistical variation. You can do the numbers and wait long enough and the problem solves itself... sort of.

There is a theory that the electronic structure of protons and electrons give rise to the Bohr Model of the atom. It is not correct but it explains some aspects of the electronic structure of atoms. What the model does not explain is "Spooky Action at a Distance". The electrons in the Bhor Atom are also involved in "quantum entanglement". No complete theory of the atom exists, there are a number of rules of thumb and they work well up to a point. Experimentally things have naturally grown way past the point of explaining these "features" using classical physics. Quantum physics introduce features through the use of statistics... this is not a phenomenological model. There may still be a phenomenological model hiding in this complexity, but we are "nowhere near" to explaining it fully yet. What I can say is a statistical model of the atom can never tell you anything at all about the actual position of electrons in an atom at any instant in time. To do that you need a theory that relies on a separate set of experimental data in Condensed Matter Theory. Unfortunately mathematics is still using statistics to determine the properties of the electron and also the other properties of the nucleus of the atom. As to a statistical model, it will characterize an atomic property if you compare it with classical properties of inhabitants of the earth by suggesting that a single "individual" is smeared over a space equal to the surface of the planet and this one individual has an ethnicity whose dozens of components differ from place to place depending on where you measure "him" or "her", and also suggest you are half male and half female at the same time you are also both parts are dead and alive at the same time in all those possible places you have ever been in the past and in the future. Statistics are very useful plan for allotting resources in City Councils and to determining the needs of the whole but are indifferent to the individual and the needs of the one. The suggestion that quantum physics is only about statistics is fine until you start to amass a lot of data that apply to the one and not to the collective and also the properties of the collectives sometimes do actually apply to the one. The maths is far too hard... there is only a solution of the wave equation for the simplest of atoms, the mono-nuclear hydrogen atom exhibiting just zero or one electrons. The rest hast to be "added" on to like Topsy using perturbation theory to makes it become a real theory that handles real world situation. Some aspects "work" and people in high places have convinced themselves they "know it all" by doing tiny calculations and adding them all up to approximate the whole. True deconstructionism appears to solve every problem. Yet as an actual predictive model is overall very poor unless you look only at the pure statistics. "For the rest" you tell the suckers to "shutup and calculate". Some of the theory does indeed work when you narrow it down to the simplest of systems over the shortest of time intervals, but no theory does it all at the same time. It's far too complex. We will need capable quantum computers to crack some of the more interesting problems.

The "pairing" of electrons is called "Cooper Pairing" first described in 1956. The "state" of being in a "Cooper Pair" implies that the electrons share the property of "Superconductivity". Generally this "Superconductivity" is only a very local phenomenon and only existing inside a "single shell". These "shells" are not like "egg shells" but are diffuse regions in a "parametric space" not comparable with ordinary space. Every shell is different and "overlap spatially". Two electrons in one of these sub-shells exist in that "Spooky State" and where these sub-shells overlap "something" connects them together. It is not "really" electrons since electrons are "mutually repulsive" but they are some kind of quasiparticles... two electrons are in the one quantum stationary state, like protons, neutrons, electron? and plasmons... the orientation of electrons in space is a dubious phenomenon when you are only using statistics. In these cases you must use experiment... there are lots of them... they indicate behavior that cannot be accounted for using pure Quantum Electrodynamics (QE). Of course QE is the most accurate theory we have ever had yet it will not answer certain questions about "elements of reality". The Quantum State has only one property, it's quantumness, yet it may contain one two three ... a million or more quantum particles in one single state described by just one state variable. QE does not describe every physical property of the quantum states that has been measured... many of these properties are "Spooky"... to do with quantum entanglement. But because Quantum Entanglement is so weak at normal temperatures the connection to so many of the other phenomenon in nature and to all of it's forces, has remained an intense area of interest. When "material" of a particular fermionic kind like electrons or photons or even some pure nuclear isotopic composite particles share these entangled properties, they overlap their quantum states and can dynamically occupy the same space together. At low temperatures these new quasiparticles form dramatically new properties such as a Bose-Einstein Condensate, even photons, gluons, and possibly mesons can form a "liquid phase" and attract each other by the "bejillions" and be poured like water. Electrons in this quantum state can also "share" their electrodynamic charge, which in electrons is a half each but each half charge occupy opposing sides of the overlapping space, the "link" is then through this medium. So any even numbers of pairs become a integer quantum number which makes it a member of an entirely different class of "quantum composite particles". When there are two of them together the charge and other half integer properties of fermions will pair up into whole numbers and become a surrogate boson, indistinguishable from each other.

Bosons are the same kind of particle as photons, gluons or mesons. Most of the rest (including electrons) are Fermions. Pairs of identical isotopes can also pair up and occupy the same space as these can become surrogate Bosons. This is BCS theory developed by John Bardeen, Leon Cooper, and John Schrieffer won a Nobel Prize in 1972 and used ever since. Other than in low temperature superconductors this "affinity" is not noticed very much at room temperature and is "weak" because it is confined to tiny dissociated regions usually centered on the electrons who normally repel each other due to being of the same charge... such as in these bonded states between atoms. The other feature of this extremely limited range superconductivity is they form a soliton pairing... one at each end of this "bond". According to certain models this soliton is also one kind of wormhole. In certain isotopes of certain elements, a similar kind of "bond" exists between neutrons in the Nucleus. Another exist between mesons, but not in the space near us in our neck of the woods. Another pairing relationship exist in quantum entangled photons as noted above. At extremely low temperatures the components of the Nucleus "tunnel" between the components of other nearby Nuclei when the quantum change is identically zero. There is no limit to the range of this phenomenon it has been measured existing even over 100 Km and virtually instantaneously. There is a reciprocity relationship In such a case for the properties of quantum entanglement, normally not able to be observed, becomes closely related and exhibit in the matter wave Hong-Ou-Mandel Effect well known for photons and due to the tunneling particle's quantum indistinguishably, uncharged species move rapidly through the cold solid phases unhindered near absolute zero.

At absolute zero and at infinitely great temperatures, the theory of forces (the Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic) coalesce into a single force, a "quantum scale force". Gravity is left out and does not fit this schema. It may never fit. Or it may fit into the other three through "symmetry breaking". Humans occupy a tiny spectrum and niche of the greater quantized multiphasic universe around us. Our physics and "rules of thumb" work only "here", on our scale. Behind this fuzzy curtain lie a lot of work for the future. I have just one "very productive observation"... there is more knowledge coming out of experiments into quantum processes right now than can be accounted for by the theory alone. In all cases experiment trumps theory. There is no way to know beforehand if theory will be reflected in the real world, only experiment can tell you that. Only one experiment can "debunk" a theory. Look to experiment for what to find... let the theory follow. Unfortunately the physicality of "all this" as some broad understanding is very far off indeed. Maybe centuries away. On the other hand a single discovery can change everything technically in a single moment. In the end it all ends up as technology, it may appear "mumbo jumbo", and it is, but it will enable us to "do stuff" that never occurred to us in the past.

I could have told you some "c**k and bull" story that would satisfy you. You may even go to your grave satisfied... but do you want the Truth? We all can't take the Truth, and we really don't currently know anything about it. No scientist should ever believe in a "universal Truth"... it does not exist. However it is easy to judge when somebody knows "more", at least about something if he has given you a schema for the definitive experiment. But we don't need to to achieve even greater theories as long as we do discovery through experiment , use the scientific method, check our results and write up new theories... and most importantly... not "rest on our laurels". Every theory must fall to new discovered facts someday. New facts mean unanticipated facts which ripple up from the bottom changing the overlying theories. Only the experiments ever remain. Theoretical Physics have had some "spectacular" successes... but more often... far more often... there have been many many failures. There is far more maths in the Universe than there are "actual" Physics. For every rule there are exceptions and for every exception they may be a whole new field of research waiting. For every new research area are new technologies to be exploited that will make all out lives richer... we don't really need to wait for theory to make those things "right". In this last week I have seen at least three new fields, never known before, have a beginning... maybe one of the less productive weeks for quite some time... he he he! More work for "the boys" and their Constructor Sets, and something robots can never do. You need to see something go wrong before you can understand how it can be made right and exploited as technology. Just get those lazy do nothing politicians off their sticky a**es and understand the imperatives we have as species to progress and expand not contract in continually repeating economic "Black Swan" events of contractionary ideologically driven politics. Big ideas need bold minds. We have a world to build and to save here. Please... Keep it coming... forever.
Aa' menle nauva calen ar' ta hwesta e' ale'quenle
User avatar
Good Elf
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Specific electrons ? at specific region around the atom

Postby fay's unKle » Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:55 pm

I stopped reading quantum mechanics and about bosons and up and down and charm quarks and their color long time ago so I will never get close to some of the stuff you are reffering too, except if quantum computers will become reality, then to understand how they function one must have a really deep understanding. (and for entanglement, if secure information transfer will been done through it)

But I take the kick out of "Real-time observation of valence electron motion" and "Electron Caught On Film For The First Time" or "For the first time ever, scientists watch an atom's electrons moving in real time" and read them. Can't see though all that the title promises, maybe because I'm not a scientist to have all the necessary knowledgeable background or I see everything from an engineering perspective and expect more concrete observations.

The orbitals, which is actually the probability of finding electrons in some regions of the atom are still guiding atomic physicist's thought, 100+ years after their introduction and I think when they do experiments they try to explain the results through quantum theory, or else they try to "bring" the results to quantum theory using its jargon. In a very simplistic way, mine, one could say that electrons were caught at about these different locations at different times and forget probabilities and shells for one time.

I like this ones of yours "The amount of research work going on "out there" is really quite enormous and to tell people a little of what exists is sometimes very disconcerting for them. The spokespersons keep it really really really simple because they don't know too much more than what they know from their tiny little almost insignificant field either."
and "There is a theory that the electronic structure of protons and electrons give rise to the Bohr Model of the atom. It is not correct but it explains some aspects of the electronic structure of atoms.........."
and this I find very unfortunate "What you see in Wikipedia is just a very tall picket fence to stop you and me from ever getting past the front door to find our "really" what these guys are up to because it is not really about that stuff at all. They are way past that... nobody knows what they know ... not even they really know themselves because they can't check to see if what they are "saying" is a physical fact at all. The physical facts go way past this mumbo jumbo and they have to keep tagging on "bits and pieces" to the theory to keep it all working."
"Unfortunately mathematics is still using statistics to determine the properties of the electron and also the other properties of the nucleus of the atom........." I think physicists use mathematics/probabilities to some how this something that doesn't have a clear, definite mathematical formulation.


Also for "Behind this fuzzy curtain lie a lot of work for the future. I have just one "very productive observation"... there is more knowledge coming out of experiments into quantum processes right now than can be accounted for by the theory alone." I think that:
Theory functions as a compass, it shows the direction, now it's the era of the GPS which gives the exact position. In engineering the GPS is the prototype, one can't do anything in product development if doesn't find the details of a design with the prototypes build. In science it's the experiments but unfortunately the electron hides its secrets in its speed and magnitude, for ever or for now. It can't be energy, it's matter. Away from the atom, they even say it can be in two places at the same time, don't they ? And why don't they say it for in the atom too, or they do and it slipped my attention.
"There is far more maths in the Universe than there are "actual" Physics. For every rule there are exceptions and for every exception they may be a whole new field of research waiting............" I say when things are getting complicated, most probably the subject has not been well understood. Most of the time there is a underlying simplicity in nature, but can't been seen easily.

Although you seem to be in neighboring waters, and closer I would say, on the general subject of theory and experiment in science, you don't seem to like (it's only a guess) to follow in parallel, other work BY SCIENTISTS to resemble my thoughts, in-the-absence-of-analytical-solutions-t1225.html correct or not it doesn't matter for the start, it's the approach that matters, it's different. (maybe it's engineering approach) Have you seen anything that resembles what I describe there. I would very much like to read it.


LET'S FINISH WITH " Only the experiments ever remain." FOR NOW, BECAUSE SOME OF US IN THEIR OWN WAY WILL BE PURSUING THE ENDLESS SUBJECTS, FOR A LIFE'S TIME, OF THE WHEREABOUTS OF ELECTRONS, BONDING,NEURONS AND BIOLOGICAL SELF-ASSEMBLY. THEY ARE THE SALT AND PEPPER IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO ME, MIND REFRESHING AND STIMULANT AND SOME TIMES CAN BE QUITE INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGING, FOR AS LONG AS ONE DOESN'T LIVE ONLY WITH THEM.

If good elf read this please tell me if you have a catch on crystallography.
numerical-simulation-in-crystallography-t1224.html
chasing-electron-ghosts-t1223.html
fay's unKle
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:45 pm

Re: Specific electrons ? at specific region around the atom

Postby JohnDuffield » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:20 pm

I'm confident that this is wrong:

The orbitals, which is actually the probability of finding electrons in some regions of the atom are still guiding atomic physicist's thought, 100+ years after their introduction and I think when they do experiments they try to explain the results through quantum theory, or else they try to "bring" the results to quantum theory using its jargon. In a very simplistic way, mine, one could say that electrons were caught at about these different locations at different times and forget probabilities and shells for one time.

An electron isn't some point-particle thing, it's a standing wave thing. IMHO the spokespersons employ "lies to children".
JohnDuffield
Site Admin
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:01 pm

Re: Specific electrons ? at specific region around the atom

Postby fay's unKle » Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:54 pm

Maybe the standing wave thing is one of the two ways of characterizing the electron, particle or wave ? It fits to abstract discriptions of physical observations, gives them more substantial identity. In the two slit experiment they say that electrons go through both openings at the same time. Am I mistaken ? I the non scientist will always remain a "student" of the subject.

But I have seen somewhere an estimate of its size 10*"(-18) (I wish I could find it to refere to it in quotations) and I tend to see it as a particle because that's what I understand.

We wait for when science turns to technology to find out when "spokespersons" don't "employ "lies to children" (I want to post something on carbon nanotubes and their strength)
fay's unKle
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:45 pm

Re: Specific electrons ? at specific region around the atom

Postby JohnDuffield » Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:13 pm

fay's unKle wrote:Maybe the standing wave thing is one of the two ways of characterizing the electron, particle or wave ?
I'm confident it's really a standing-wave thing. See atomic orbitals on Wikipedia and note this: "The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the manner of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves". Also take a look at What is an Electron? by Frank Wilczek and note this: "the proper quantum mechanical description of electrons involves wave functions, whose oscillation patterns are standing waves”.

fay's unKle wrote:It fits to abstract discriptions of physical observations, gives them more substantial identity. In the two slit experiment they say that electrons go through both openings at the same time. Am I mistaken?
No. The electron goes through both slits. However IMHO detection involves something akin to the optical Fourier transform. See Steven Lehar's web page:

Image

The electron is "focussed" by the interaction, so if you detect it at one slit it goes through that slit only, and you lose the interference pattern.

fay's unKle wrote:I think the non scientist will always remain a "student" of the subject.
If you take an interest in this stuff you will become a scientist, and then whilst you never stop learning, you will ending up learning more than some.

fay's unKle wrote:But I have seen somewhere an estimate of its size 10*"(-18) (I wish I could find it to refere to it in quotations) and I tend to see it as a particle because that's what I understand.
It's a non-sequitur. See Wikipedia where you can read that “observation of a single electron in a Penning trap shows the upper limit of the particle's radius is 10−22 meters”. But when you follow up on the references and read Hans Dehmelt’s 1989 Nobel lecture you appreciate that the upper limit is merely an extrapolation. It’s an extrapolation from a measured g value, which relies upon "a plausible relation given by Brodsky and Drell (1980) for the simplest composite theoretical model of the electron". The extrapolation yields an electron radius R ≈ 10^-20 cm, but it isn't a measurement. Especially when "the electron forms a 1 μm long wave packet, 30 nm in diameter". When you follow the trail back to Brodsky and Dell you can read the anomalous magnetic moment and limits on fermion substructure. And what you read is this: "If the electron or muon is in fact a composite system, it is very different from the familiar picture of a bound state formed of elementary constituents since it must be simultaneously light in mass and small in spatial extension". The conclusion is that if an electron is composite it must be small. But there's no actual evidence that it’s composite. So it’s a non-sequitur to claim that the electron must be small.
JohnDuffield
Site Admin
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:01 pm

Re: Specific electrons ? at specific region around the atom

Postby jzz » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:24 pm

John Duffield : I'm confident it's really a standing-wave thing. See atomic orbitals on Wikipedia and note this: "The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the manner of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves". Also take a look at What is an Electron? by Frank Wilczek and note this: "the proper quantum mechanical description of electrons involves wave functions, whose oscillation patterns are standing waves”.

IMHO Mr Duffield, I think you are missing the trees for the forest. What fay's unKle seems to be referring to is the strange incident of the dog in the night time. Diverging for a moment, let us examine the orbit of the earth around the sun, in an extended release exposure lasting several years or centuries, the strange thing is that it doesn't in anyway resemble the neat orbits that we would expect, no it resembles very much those orbits that you refer to as standing waves. The strange incident that fay's unKle seems to be referring to is the very fact that, by whatever means, an electron can be isolated in its orbit for the brief interval needed to form an image. Needless to say it should not be possible to 'image' a wave.

John Duffield : No. The electron goes through both slits. However IMHO detection involves something akin to the optical Fourier transform. See Steven Lehar's web page:


Here is my take on the double slit experiment:

With the coming of Quantum Mechanics the Double Slit experiment was refined to allow for individual photons to pass through the slits, an amazing phenomenon was seen. When both slits were open even though the ’single’ photon would have to pass through one of the slits, over time an interference pattern was built up.

Image

When only one slit was open a diffraction pattern was built up over time. This seemed to imply that (a) either the photon knew that the other slit was open OR (b) the photon itself split up and followed multiple paths in order to pass through both slits at once, both ideas support the wave like property of particles. The experiment was repeated using electrons, neutrons and alpha particles always with the same results, an interference pattern when both slits were open and a diffraction pattern when only one slit was open!

The question is, How did the photon in the first experiment know that the second slit was not open? Think about it. If both slits are open, there are always alternating bands of illuminated and dark areas. This means that there are always areas where the photons never go (otherwise there would not be any dark areas). If one of the slits is closed, there is no interference and the dark bands disappear; the whole wall becomes illuminated, including those areas which previously were dark when both slits were open. When we fired our photon and it went through the first slit, how did it "know" that it could go to an area that must be dark if the other slit were open? In other words, how did the photon know that the other slit was closed?

An even more astounding fact as mentioned by Mr. Duffield is that if an attempt is made to detect which slit the particle was coming through when both the slits were open, the interference effect disappeared. Amazing huh? Almost like magic. Now look at my interpretation look at the picture below:

Image

This picture shows how a particle would behave if a medium such as the aether were present. Obviously the aether itself would demonstrate an interference pattern when both slits were open, no need for magic or voodooism, the particle merely follows the path that the aether follows! That's all there is to it. Even more damning is the fact that the observation in red above is almost self explanatory, when an attempt is made to detect which slit the particle goes through the interference pattern made by the medium(aether) is disturbed and the interference pattern disappears.

John Duffield: It's a non-sequitur. See Wikipedia where you can read that “observation of a single electron in a Penning trap shows the upper limit of the particle's radius is 10−22 meters”.


I think that your observation that the electron is not a particle is premature. Think about it, the very reason that the electron undergoes so many gauge interactions is to maintain its identity, this does not sound like something a wave would do. Again the electron in its virtual form in the different types of muons, just goes to re-emphasise that it is an electromagnetic Universe.
jzz
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: Specific electrons ? at specific region around the atom

Postby fay's unKle » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:22 pm

At this point it must be reminded that, it is the BONDING that I mentioned in the very first posting action and I will remain mainly there although I follow the exchange of opinions in the relative subjects with interest.

I'm confident it's really a standing-wave thing. See atomic orbitals on Wikipedia and note this: "The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the manner of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves". Also take a look at What is an Electron? by Frank Wilczek and note this: "the proper quantum mechanical description of electrons involves wave functions, whose oscillation patterns are standing waves”.

The people who are writing these are the "priests" of these theories, I don't expect them to say anything other than, the quantum theory, for the quantum theory, to the quantum theory, from the quantum theory.......... Respecting science I will never refuse the theory per se, it's not right, mainly because no one and certainly me can PROVE that it's wrong and that electrons CAN NOT BE TREATED AS WAVES in the atoms too. Quantum theory is unreal but it is a reality in the world of physics.


Anybody though who wants to get to the point to see closer the subject of bonding when reads in scientific publications: (not by anyone but from the knowledgeable people who produce science)
"If we actually knew how electrons are distributed and move in atoms we would have been able to know better how they bond to form compounds and find new improved materials without having to test hundreds (or even thousands) of combinations every day in labs around the world" OR ".....we have to understand how atoms combine to form molecules; how electrons and nuclei couple........How do all these things behave in a correlated way, ‘dynamically’ in time and space, both at the electron and atomic levels?” AND "Physicists have long chased an elusive goal: the ability to "freeze" and then study the motion of electrons in matter. Such experiments could help confirm theories of electron motion and yield insights into how and why chemical reactions take place."

and more like these, searches what science does to get aroung the hurdles that the size and speed of the electron raise and make it elusive. Nobody says, am I mistaken?; we have quantum theory and treating electrons in atoms as standing waves we know why sodium and chlorine react easily but gold doesn't react with oxygen to rust. (In my opinion superficially this subject is treated with the "completeness" of what it is called the outermost orbital, valence electrons )

I also rushed to say "..........tend to see it as a particle because that's what I understand." I don't understand how bonding can be explained by the wave theory of electrons, even when the subject is presented as overlapping wave functions (orbitals) of two interacting elements. (correct ?) Wave functions are so abstract to rely on to find if cobalt and selenium react or not. But I understand that electrostatic forces are holding two atoms together. Do waves have static electricity, or they don't need to, and bonding is explained differently, if it's explained.

To be honest, I would only be happy if they ever saw and state that, the electrons of the x element are arranged so that when it comes to the proximity of element y, its electrons find the paths open to penetrate into the space that element y's electrons are occupying or vice versa and the interactions start among them and the nuclei, (protons) as theory states how the atom holds its existence together, but that's not true for element z whose electrons are arranged so and so in space and do not allow room for element x's electrons to penetrate their territory. (I did my attempt here would you do yours) ELSE IF A NEW ATOMIC THEORY WAS ESTABLISHED BASED ON EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS TO DESCRIBE ATOMS,ELECTRONS AND NUCLEI AND WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN BONDING (AND OTHER THINGS) IN A WAY THAT A COLLEGE GRADUATE WILL UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT ALMOST AS NEWTONIAN PHYSICS. (Who knows when)

I don't fully understand this, jzz "in an extended release exposure lasting several years or centuries, the strange thing is that it doesn't in anyway resemble the neat orbits that we would expect, no it resembles very much those orbits that you refer to as standing waves." but I'm guessing why you're using it and what you have in mind, but I like this "by whatever means, an electron can be isolated in its orbit for the brief interval needed to form an image. Needless to say it should not be possible to 'image' a wave." but instead of the word orbit I would use position. Do you think that advances like this will aid at all, are we at the same wave length ? (not wave function, please) "A zeptosecond stopwatch for the microcosm. For the first time ever, physicists from Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, the Technische Universität München and the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics have recorded an internal atomic event with an accuracy of a trillionth of a billionth of a second"
I think that's how the strangeness started: "An even more astounding fact as mentioned by Mr. Duffield is that if an attempt is made to detect which slit the particle was coming through when both the slits were open, the interference effect disappeared." I have seen Faynman's treatment on this and "conclusions" but I stop there because it didn't help me get closer neither to how electrons are distributed around nuclei nor why some elements combine to form molecules more readily than other. I don't know much so i'm saying not bad to this "Even more damning is the fact that the observation in red above is almost self explanatory, when an attempt is made to detect which slit the particle goes through the interference pattern made by the medium(aether) is disturbed and the interference pattern disappears."




PS In connection to what is written 15 lines above, I'm wondering if this question has logical meaning: If the electrons went through both slits in the two slit experiment, why in the atom couldn't they be at two positions at the same time. I have never seen anything on this or like this.

Now one may see why I do my off beat (for hard core scientists) thoughts like, in-the-absence-of-analytical-solutions-t1225.html and post it to Will it happen ? (or Is it possible ?) and other, rather engineeringwise attempts to "solve" problems and then I dare to ask if anything like this has been seen around and done, by the pros of the kind, to find and read.

Just for the heck of it
instantaneously (instantaneous dipole): for instance, all 34 (2 x 17) the electrons in a chlorine molecule are in permanent motion and at a particular instant they may not be evenly distributed over the two atoms making

As if this dual behavior is not confusing enough, trying to detect the electron as it passes through the slits changes the entire outcome of the experiment. The electron is never detected simultaneously in both slits; instead, a detector will find it passes through only one opening. But when this detector is in place and making this measurement, the interference pattern disappears. We are left instead with the leftmost pattern on the screen above which was predicted if electrons are particles going through one opening or another: two bright spots in front of the each individual slits. Our measurement at the openings has forced the electron to behave like a classical particle.

..... he invites (Feynman) the reader to imagine firing individual electrons through two slits and then marking the position where each electron strikes a screen behind the slits. After many electrons have passed through the slits, the marks on the screen will comprise a diffraction pattern – illustrating the wave-like behaviour of each electron. But if one were to cover up one of the slits so that each electron could only pass through the other slit, the diffraction pattern would not appear – showing that each electron does indeed travel through both slits.....The first single-electron experiment to use an actual double slit was reported in 2008 by Pozzi and colleagues. The Italian team also conducted the experiment with one slit plugged, which – as expected – did not lead to the creation of a double-slit diffraction pattern. The team also performed another experiment in 2012, in which the arrivals of individual electrons from a double slit were recorded one at a time.

Electron movement can be explored in the attosecond dimension using laser-generated ultrashort light pulses. In their project MEGAS (megaherz attosecond pulses for ultrafast photoelectron microscopy and spectroscopy), scientists from the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, Ludwig Maximilians University and the Fraunhofer Institute in Jena and Aachen are developing a new source of such laser pulses. The researchers are building a short-pulse laser that can produce attosecond-long light pulses at a rate of tens of millions of times per second. With this, electron motion can be recorded, or “photographed”, in the dimensions of both space and time. Until now, attosecond pulses could only be produced at a much lower repetition rate, allowing electron movement to be recorded in space or in time – but not both simultaneously.
fay's unKle
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:45 pm

Re: Specific electrons ? at specific region around the atom

Postby jzz » Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:21 pm

fay's unKle: "by whatever means, an electron can be isolated in its orbit for the brief interval needed to form an image. Needless to say it should not be possible to 'image' a wave." but instead of the word orbit I would use position. Do you think that advances like this will aid at all, are we at the same wave length ? (not wave function, please) "A zeptosecond stopwatch for the microcosm. For the first time ever, physicists from Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich, the Technische Universität München and the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics have recorded an internal atomic event with an accuracy of a trillionth of a billionth of a second"

I think we are very much on the same wave-length here but I would like to take it further. What is really intriguing is the question :

"What if sub-atomic particles were particles and had nothing at all to do with waves?"

The reason I put this question is that why on earth should the electron undergo so many interactions and gauge interactions if not to preserve its identity. This is something that a wave would not have to do and would not be able to do because by its very nature a wave's energy is not localised. Hence a wave cannot undergo either interactions or gauge interactions in the way that is applied to electrons.
The second very intriguing thing I appreciated about your post :
fay's unKle : FOR NOW, BECAUSE SOME OF US IN THEIR OWN WAY WILL BE PURSUING THE ENDLESS SUBJECTS, FOR A LIFE'S TIME, OF THE WHEREABOUTS OF ELECTRONS, BONDING,NEURONS AND BIOLOGICAL SELF-ASSEMBLY. THEY ARE THE SALT AND PEPPER IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO ME, MIND REFRESHING AND STIMULANT AND SOME TIMES CAN BE QUITE INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGING, FOR AS LONG AS ONE DOESN'T LIVE ONLY WITH THEM.


Since you seem to be fairly up to date with technological developments, I would like to ask you where exactly is quantum encryption? I know that there is encryption in the sense of sending message coded in qubits does not at the moment exist, which is what true quantum encryption is supposed to do, right? What does exist is the capability, albeit limited of sending, a quantum encoded key from one computer to another although the distances are very limited. Let us examine this technology. Photons have the ability to be polarised, thus it is possible to polarise photons vertically, or horizontally and left to right diagonally and vice versa, four modes in all.

Image

The sender of the message will use filters to polarise his key in a certain sequence of polrisations. He will then send the order of filters to the person who is receiving the message and the person receiving the message will use the filters in that same sequence but in reverse in order to decode the message. If any attempt is made to intercept the message the polarisation will be upset and the receiver will immediately be aware that someone has attempted to tamper with the message. Now the polarisation of a photon is fragile, it can be neutralised for any number of reasons, a light shining on the optic fibre conductor, or maybe just a small imperfection in the conductor can neutralise the polarisation. For this reason, quantum encryption in this sense is only viable at present for distances of about a 100 Km which is not much good to anyone. But tell me isn't this a fairly dotty technology, why can't a hacker hack the sequence of the filters. Since there are only four possible combinations it should be easy to do, so next you have to encrypt the encryption. All more or less a waste of time. What is quantum mechanics spouting about this time. With no apparent basis ?

Hold on, it is a little more complicated than I at first thought. A sends a sequence of signals to B randomly polarised. B uses a random sequence of filters to read the message. Then B sends his sequence to A and A sends his sequence to B, Then the key can be worked out. This is possible because if a horizontallly polarised photon passes through a diagonal spliiter it will show up at only one photon detector. Apparently this form of encryption has been broken. Could you elucidate a bit more.
jzz
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: Specific electrons ? at specific region around the atom

Postby fay's unKle » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:07 pm

"What if sub-atomic particles were particles and had nothing at all to do with waves?"

The reason I put this question is that why on earth should the electron undergo so many interactions and gauge interactions if not to preserve its identity. This is something that a wave would not have to do and would not be able to do because by its very nature a wave's energy is not localised. Hence a wave cannot undergo either interactions or gauge interactions in the way that is applied to electrons.


Let's not think of electrons as waves. Would you agree or in any way want to comment on the thought that the adaptation of wave theory for the electron is a treatment that leads to the definition of the probability of finding electron-particles at certain space areas in the atom, we don't even say positions. It's better than nothing, it gave some explanations of physically observed behaviors and earned credit, elsewhere though doesn't. (This hydrogen atom, very difficult atom)

It is in use because its size and speed make it invisible in the atom with regards to its definition as particle, for this era's state of technology. But science has the means to "see" indirectly clusters of electrons as with crystallography. "The black spots on the image are the result of the cooperative scattering (diffraction) from the electrons of all atoms contained in the crystal.To know (or to see) the internal structure of a crystal involves solving a mathematical function that defines the electron density a function that is defined at every point in the unit cell" or "when an x-ray is passed through a crystal, the beams are scattered because of the positions of the electrons in the crystal." or "The electrons in an atom coherently scatter X-rays. The electrons interact with the oscillating electric field of the X-ray. Intensity ~ number of scattering electrons" and "In x-ray crystallography, the pattern of x-ray intensities (reflections) is formed (by constructive, partial, and destructive interference) of x-ray photons scattered by electron clouds of atoms within a crystal."

(If I'm not mistaken waves of one short don't scatter waves of another short, although they may interact in other ways, just for keeping reminding us the use of the word wave for electrons.)

And for bonding, these are entering each other's teritory. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT THOUGH FOR ONE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY WAY THAT RESEARCHERS HAVE TO OBSERVE ACCURATELY WHAT I READ AND FELT SO SURPRISED AND I POSTED THE VERY FIRST QUESTION.
They are talking for almost specific (?) electrons being at specific region around the atom. Where such finding are coming from.


NO WAY. IT'S ONLY A MENTAL CREATION TO TRY TO EXPLAIN BONDING. YES OR NO.
In an amateur way I do this too when I'm saying that the electrons of each atom gets into the "borders" of its bonding partner.

This way one sees electrons as discreet identities, to enjoy as I said above and repeat here, the continous search for its identity:
But I take the kick out of "Real-time observation of valence electron motion" and "Electron Caught On Film For The First Time" or "For the first time ever, scientists watch an atom's electrons moving in real time" and read them. Can't see though all that the title promises, maybe because I'm not a scientist to have all the necessary knowledgeable background or I see everything from an engineering perspective and expect more concrete observations.



I leave science subjects on the side when they are only a curiosity to me until the transfer to technology is visible.
Post by fay's unKle » Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:55 pm
I stopped reading quantum mechanics and about bosons and up and down and charm quarks and their color long time ago so I will never get close to some of the stuff you are reffering too, except if quantum computers will become reality, then to understand how they function one must have a really deep understanding. (and for entanglement, if secure information transfer will been done through it)


So although had the curiosity of the Bob and Alice experiment, because of its relationship w/secure information exchange, involving quantum entanglement, teleportation etc, (isn't it ?) didn't pursue it. But the acknowledge of interception was not directly obvious to me, I remember this. Was I missing something, is it so obvious and it is not necessary to explain with its measurements/observations, (like you explain without quantumish the operations involved with polarization , their intellectuallity ls sky high) That's what I always look for, the setup and the way they find something measurable even if it's yes or no, that's how the spin becomes clear (Stern–Gerlach experiment), otherwise from descriptions one may think that electrons or atoms spin.
Similarly in another relative application, quantum computing, I left for later what really is meant in that, it's either in one of two states or in both at the same time, so we are going to see 3's logic not 2's logic that is now used with transistors, what experimental setups they use and do the measurements for something to be found at two discreet states simultaneously. Although your descriptions aren't that 'quantum', I'm sorry but I'm not acquainted with 'any relatives to quantum', I don't speak 'quantumish', other than whatever has to do with the atomic theory, one can't avoid wave functions of quantum theory.
Now though there's a lot of talk about getting closer to see them outside the labs and it's getting close to lift the sleeves for them. (Wish I get to know them as I did and enjoyed years ago with semiconductor technology and binary arithmetic.)
Your descriptions are challenging, indeed, maybe I'll get back to it, till then maybe someone else will elucidate it more.

Hold on, it is a little more complicated than I at first thought. A sends a sequence of signals to B randomly polarised. B uses a random sequence of filters to read the message. Then B sends his sequence to A and A sends his sequence to B, Then the key can be worked out. This is possible because if a horizontallly polarised photon passes through a diagonal spliiter it will show up at only one photon detector. Apparently this form of encryption has been broken. Could you elucidate a bit more.

I would like to ask you where exactly is quantum encryption? I know that there is encryption in the sense of sending message coded in qubits does not at the moment exist, which is what true quantum encryption is supposed to do, right?
??? This last one i tried to understand but i only guessed a little what you want to say.
fay's unKle
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:45 pm


Return to Quantum Mechanics and Particles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred