Electrons are not identical (split from xWhat do our clocks read?)

[Conjurer]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

QM disagrees. Electrons are identical, and can exist be at more than one point of space at a time.

Electrons are not all identical.  They can travel at different orbitals around atoms and appear to be different colors.

[MigL]

Colours ???

What exactly do you mean ?
The 'colour' of the EMR when they drop to a lower energy level ?

Any other 'colour' is purely imagined. And only by you.

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Electrons are not all identical.  They can travel at different orbitals around atoms and appear to be different colors.

Their orbitals are not an inherent property, and they do not have colors.

[Conjurer]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Their orbitals are not an inherent property, and they do not have colors.

It is determined by their wavelengths which is an inherent property.  It determines what wavelength of light they emmit.

Then they would actually look a different color which makes it distinguishable visually.  Then then they don't look identical. 

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It is determined by their wavelengths which is an inherent property.  It determines what wavelength of light they emmit.

No, their wavelength depends on momentum, which is variable, and is not the wavelength of light they emit, which depends on details of the atom.

You should start a new thread to get these things sorted out. This thread is about clocks/time.

 

edit: I’ve done it for you. But stop hijacking threads. It’s getting tedious 

[Huckleberry of Yore]

I'm curious if the wavelength of a photon that was say emitted by an electron during fusion on the sun changes due to time dilation as the photon escapes the effect of the star's mass?  Perhaps negligibly?  I've read that in the vicinity of a black hole, ambient starlight can be "transformed" into X Rays due to dilation.  Thanks.

[MigL]

That would be correct.
Because of gravitational time dilation, the frequency of the EM wave we measure higher up in the gravitational well of the sun, as compared to the point of emission on the surface ( much deeper in the well ), is reduced, or red-shifted.
Since wavelength and frequency ae inversely related, the wavelength is increased in relation.
Another way to look at it is that the EM wave loses energy climbing out of the gravity well, and energy is directly related to frequency.

IIRC a student of R Dicke, at Princeton, measured the gravitational red shift of the sun in the 60s.

It is also measured for the Earth, and is the difference between the surface and an orbiting GPS satellite that gives the GR adjustment for GPS systems.

Also see Pound-Rebka.
 

[Conjurer]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Colours ???

What exactly do you mean ?
The 'colour' of the EMR when they drop to a lower energy level ?

Any other 'colour' is purely imagined. And only by you.

I meant the actual color of them in the visible light spectrum.  What we see when we are looking at objects is actually the light coming off of the electrons around the atoms.  That is why objects look different colors.  It was discovered by Isaac Newton.

[uncool]

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I meant the actual color of them in the visible light spectrum.  What we see when we are looking at objects is actually the light coming off of the electrons around the atoms.  That is why objects look different colors.  It was discovered by Isaac Newton.

...no matter what idea of "discovery of electrons" you mean, it wasn't done by Newton, and generally was done nearly two centuries after him. A reasonable choice:

"In 1897, the British physicist J. J. Thomson, with his colleagues John S. Townsend and H. A. Wilson, performed experiments indicating that cathode rays really were unique particles, rather than waves, atoms or molecules as was believed earlier.[5] Thomson made good estimates of both the charge e and the mass m, finding that cathode ray particles, which he called "corpuscles," had perhaps one thousandth of the mass of the least massive ion known: hydrogen.[5] He showed that their charge-to-mass ratio, e/m, was independent of cathode material. He further showed that the negatively charged particles produced by radioactive materials, by heated materials and by illuminated materials were universal.[5][35] The name electron was adopted for these particles by the scientific community, mainly due to the advocation by G. F. Fitzgerald, J. Larmor, and H. A. Lorenz.[36]:273"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#Discovery_of_free_electrons_outside_matter

 

Further, it's not that electrons have a color. Yes, light is emitted by the photons, but that doesn't mean the electrons themselves have that color. If any particle can be said to have a color (in the "you see it" sense, not the QCD sense), it is the photon. 

[MigL]

13 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

What we see when we are looking at objects is actually the light coming off of the electrons around the atoms

That's not how it works.
Consider a carbon atom. It is arranged in a specific crystal pattern, and the electrons are in specific orbitals to account for the molecular structure of graphite. And its colour is black.

Take those same atoms and associated electrons, and rearrange them so that the crystal structure is different. The electrons for the new molecule bond using different orbitals, but the exact same electrons. And the colour of diamonds is clear.

That's the beauty of good science ( as opposed to WAGuesses ), it fits observational evidence.

[Conjurer]

19 minutes ago, uncool said:

Further, it's not that electrons have a color. Yes, light is emitted by the photons, but that doesn't mean the electrons themselves have that color. If any particle can be said to have a color (in the "you see it" sense, not the QCD sense), it is the photon. 

According to your theory, a stop sign is the same color as a yeild sign?  A stop light is the same color as a go light?

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Take those same atoms and associated electrons, and rearrange them so that the crystal structure is different. The electrons for the new molecule bond using different orbitals, but the exact same electrons. And the colour of diamonds is clear.

Yes, but the electrons have changed frequencies to fit those orbitals.  Electrons of different frequencies are not exactly alike or identical.  They have different frequencies.  The electrons would look different by having different frequencies than their previous selves.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Conjurer

[uncool]

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

According to your theory, a stop sign is the same color as a yeild sign?  A stop light is the same color as a go light?

...no, that's not what I said. 

4 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Yes, but the electrons have changed frequencies to fit those orbitals.  Electrons of different frequencies are not exactly alike or identical.  They have different frequencies.  The electrons would look different by having different frequencies than their previous selves.

Color is related to photon frequency. 

[Conjurer]

2 minutes ago, uncool said:

...no, that's not what I said. 

I just expanded onto your theory by switching the objects out for other objects.  Is there some sort of rule of how or what objects can be used in the description of your theory?

3 minutes ago, uncool said:

Color is related to photon frequency. 

The photon frequency is dependent on the frequency of the electron.

[MigL]

It is dependent on the difference in energy levels of the electron orbitals.
Most of the time the frequency of the resultant photon isn't even in the very narrow EM band where we 'see' colour.

[uncool]

16 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I just expanded onto your theory by switching the objects out for other objects.

In other words, by completely changing what I said. My argument is not that there is no such thing as color. 

Electrons don't "have" colors. That would indicate that there is only one color that can be seen emitted by an electron. But, for example (and using a crude approximation) an electron in the 3rd shell can emit photons corresponding to two colors: one for when it drops to the first shell, and one when it drops to the second shell (without the approximation, there are many more colors). The color comes from the interaction of the electron and the nucleons around which it orbits. 

 

[Conjurer]

20 minutes ago, uncool said:

In other words, by completely changing what I said. My argument is not that there is no such thing as color. 

It would mean that you could argue that anything even has a color.  That is a well known symptom of color blindness.

20 minutes ago, uncool said:

Electrons don't "have" colors. That would indicate that there is only one color that can be seen emitted by an electron. But, for example (and using a crude approximation) an electron in the 3rd shell can emit photons corresponding to two colors: one for when it drops to the first shell, and one when it drops to the second shell (without the approximation, there are many more colors). The color comes from the interaction of the electron and the nucleons around which it orbits. 

Do you have a reference for that?  Changing more than one orbital at a time?

I believe that it is due to the frequency of the electron depending on the orbital it is in.  Each orbital can only hold electrons that travel around the nucleus at a frequency that is a multiple of a full wave wavelength.  Then it jumps to a higher orbital when it absorbs a photon that would change its frequency to a higher orbital, and it loses a photon when it goes down an orbital.  So, the reason why things are the color they are is because that is the frequency of the orbital where the electrons can emit a photon, and where other frequencies of photons are absorbed.

It puts a block on other frequencies being emitted or absorbed, because it doesn't allow the electron to change to a different orbital.

They can only accept photons that would give it enough energy to be pushed into the next orbital, and it can only emit photons where it would change the energy enough to push it down into the lower orbital.  The energy required is based on the momentum of the electron in how it changes it's frequency.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Conjurer

[MigL]

You realize you are using the Bohr atomic model from 105 years ago ?

Electron orbitals are not orbits where the radius of the orbit ensures a circumference which is a multiple of a wavelength.
Electron orbitals are probability distributions, where the electron may even be found in the nucleus.

[uncool]

21 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It would mean that you could argue that anything even has a color.  That is a well known symptom of color blindness.

...

No, I'm not colorblind. No, I'm not arguing that "anything even has a color". 

25 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Do you have a reference for that?  Changing more than one orbital at a time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_series (specifically, the n = 3 case)

25 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I believe that it is due to the frequency of the electron depending on the orbital it is in. Each orbital can only hold electrons that travel around the nucleus at a frequency that is a multiple of a full wave wavelength.

It sounds like you thinking of something akin to the Rutherford model of the atom, with electrons physically circling the nucleus; even the standard version of that is a century out of date. Further, "a frequency that is a multiple of a full wave wavelength" doesn't make sense - frequency and wavelength don't even have the same units. 

[Conjurer]

The orbitals are a part of the phase space where it has a probability distribution.  They cannot occupy regions in between orbitals with any probability distribution.  Since they cannot occupy that region of phase space with any probability distribution, they quantum jump in between orbitals where they vanish and reappear. 

[michel123456]

There is a difference between "identical" and "uniqueness"

a."Identical" means "like twins" or "like clones" or  "like billiards balls" (on which you have to put a number in order to differentiate). That's the meaning of identical (indiscernible) particles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles

b."uniqueness" means literally the impossibility for Michel being Michel at two different places at the same time.  Or that an electron e cannot be at 2 different places at the same time (for example in the Sun & in a star of Alpha Centauri at the same time).

9 hours ago, Conjurer said:

and can exist be at more than one point of space at a time

Oh. Does that mean the one-electron-universe is real? That statement b above is wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I believe that it is due to the frequency of the electron depending on the orbital it is in. 

!

Moderator Note

It doesn’t matter what you believe. It’s what you can show, in a scientific context.

You haven’t backed up your assertion. So we’re done here.