Butch

In the case of 1H, I have no idea, as far as 2H, I have an idea that is incomplete. Why do I even mention it? Mentioning things like this has brought me a great deal of understanding through your responses. Perhaps not, but it is for another topic I suppose... Thanks again.

I am simply saying that light having a particle nature was a surprising discovery, while a charged particle having a wave nature should not be so surprising. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron#Structure_and_geometry_of_charge_distribution This is something I unwittingly stated as being the case in another topic, just fishing for some commentary. The following is a excert from the link. An article published in 2007 featuring a model-independent analysis concluded that the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core.[66] In a simplified classical view, the negative "skin" of the neutron assists it to be attracted to the protons with which it interacts in the nucleus. (However, the main attraction between neutrons and protons is via the nuclear force, which does not involve charge.) The simplified classical view of the neutron's charge distribution also "explains" the fact that the neutron magnetic dipole points in the opposite direction from its spin angular momentum vector (as compared to the proton). This gives the neutron, in effect, a magnetic moment which resembles a negatively charged particle. This can be reconciled classically with a neutral neutron composed of a charge distribution in which the negative sub-parts of the neutron have a larger average radius of distribution, and therefore contribute more to the particle's magnetic dipole moment, than do the positive parts that are, on average, nearer the core.

I am not the expert here, however I believe an electron in motion relative to another body would influence that body via a magnetic field... Except that classical science once thought of the photon as a wave and the electron as a particle... Perhaps the Buddhists were the first to get it right, "Everything is connected". Not traded between systems (although that certainly occurs), rather traded between entities within a system such as an atom. I don't have an answer yet( significantly so for 1H... And not complete for 2H) but such a phenomena could explain some of the "magic"* of quanta. *1 "Any sufficiently advanced technology is completely indistinguishable from magic." You all have helped me a great deal with my understanding of QM and Schroedinger. Thank you so much... I really could not have done it alone.

Yes, I get that, still energies could be traded and conserved. Thank you.

Yes, I am familiar with the photon experiment... I think that light having a particle nature is more remarkable than charged particles having a wave nature. I thought perhaps an example of uncharged particles in the double slit experiment, does such an example exist? Ionized molecules are charged. A very interesting article! It will be very interesting to find a threshold.

Thank you! Because charged particles produce an electromagnetic wave. Can you provide an example? Is it possible that an electron with trajectory could exchange energy with another entity in the system? I guess we cross posted, I will need to give this point some thought...

What are some of the ways that velocity of an electron violate quantum mechanics?

Wouldn't the charged electrons in the double slit experiment interfer simply because they are moving charged particles?

Yeah, I get it... It is a way for our feeble minds and limited senses to deal with what we cannot truly perceive... I am ok with that. There are a few differing theories about the nature of things at this point, correct? So, they interfer... And why is the wave nature of an electron surprising? (Just going by what I have read). Agreed... I suppose a misconception here would be akin to believing Earth was the center of the universe, quantum science is very young. Our eager young scientists should be very careful... As well their teachers?

It is just a damned difficult thing for anyone to comprehend then? I do have a question that I believe should have a very reasonable (and somewhat classical) answer . An electron is a charged particle, wouldn't a charged particle with velocity relative to another charged particle produce a wave that would be an inductive force on those particles?

This is indeed a difficult concept to get ones head around... Would it be valid to think of an electron as a dimple in space that can flatten out here and pop up there? Please elaborate if you wish.

Yes, this all makes good sense, thank you! It is difficult to discern all this from texts.

Again, thank you for your patience.

Then I am unclear on amplitude, I have a background in electronics and Ohms law is etched into my mind, sorry. Does not Coulomb's law and position indicate potential energy? Ok... I get that velocity would indicate linear transition between energy levels. There is a lot of science I need to incorporate here.

I think the reason I got lost was I did not realize that x represented a point in 3d space... Can you confirm this? It may not be relevant... However I think it is the phase of potential energy v kinetic energy. As far as path, my understanding is that the time independent equation eliminates velocity as a consideration and with it we deal only with potential energy and position. Can we not also modify the equation so that we can consider kinetic energy and velocity(as an oscillation) and discount position?

I am not saying that it is there, just that standing waves can be out of phase. Just to address your understanding of my statement, not to propose any real system... If the electron followed a path through the center of the atom and out the other side to the altitude of the Bohr radius and then followed the opposite path back through center and to the Bohr radius opposite, it's kinetic energy would be greatest as it passed through the nucleus and least as it reached the Bohr radius. Regardless the actual path of the electron it would have it's greatest k the closer it was to the nucleus. This would be 180 degrees out of phase with the wave function. Perhaps I still do not correctly comprehend wave function? These are included in the full equation... I am not there yet.

Hmm... At least one of my thoughts was correct, Schrodinger's next step was to incorporate the particle energy into the equation. Two standing waves can be 180 degrees out of phase, the resultant would be the difference in energies... Let's check our phase at this point, the math we have discussed, resolves the wave function. What I will be moving on to next is inclusion of the kinetic energy of the electron, potential energy and angular momentum?

Ok, an electron in an orbital of an atom as a particle would have higher average kinetic energy as the orbital decreased. Despite uncertainy the electron still has a particle nature, kinetic energy and mass. I suppose perhaps I am stuck between a particle and a hard wave... Probably just need to read some more, you have aided me very much. Thank you.

I have the idea that the energies of the particle and the wave are out of phase, should I elaborate or has someone already been there? This is in my study materials, I will endeavor to gain a better understanding for later discussions. Thank you.

Phew! Thanks!

I get that...(Thank you for your patience). What I don't understand is this... A wave function is described via a sinus function of the unit radius, a self reference would have amplitude that extended from 0 to A, and the principle quanta would be multiples of the wavelength? In the atom would the reference be the nucleus, that is at 0 the electron would be at the center of the atom and at A it would be at the Bohr radius? Or am I just a floating lump of protoplasm lost in space?

I am confused... How does the square well apply to the quantized energy states of the electron in an atom?

Great, I can pinpoint exactly where I am lost here... The amplitude is the same at 180 as it is at 0, the slope however is perpendicular... As long as we are at 0 at the wall why does slope matter?

As concerns amplitude, are the peak amplitudes positive / negative or 0 / absolute? What is our reference? If Amplitude is 0 @ theta = 90 the well would have a span of 1 wavelength, if however amplitude is 0 @ theta = 0 span would be 1/2 wavelength, if the latter is correct, what is our zero reference? I apologise if I am being tedious, however in pursuing information on the web I have been witness to many erroneous assumptions and conflicting information.

Thank you all very much.