Does matter travel in discrete amounts of h?

[CuriosOne]

So Plank discovered that:

Energies obsorbed or emitted by atoms were quantized, which means their values were restricted to certain quantities..If this relation were linked to a car driving, the car could only move at discrete values of h...

So if "nature" ie waves represents the flow of energy, or even disturbances in a medium at rest, (or using time with distance as in our car example) distance/time = rate, similar to frequencies, waves and etc 

Would this mean, all things are accellerating? 

 

With this information it's hard to understand the link between frequencies, waves and the math used that predicts physical behavior..

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

So Plank discovered that:

Energies obsorbed or emitted by atoms were quantized, which means their values were restricted to certain quantities..If this relation were linked to a car driving, the car could only move at discrete values of h...

h has units of angular momentum, so no.

Energy levels are quantized, but the frequency values are not integral, so energy is not quantized in steps of h.

Angular momentum is actually quantized. Changes in angular momentum happens in steps related to h.

 

5 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

 Would this mean, all things are accellerating? 

No.

 

 

[CuriosOne]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

h has units of angular momentum, so no.

Energy levels are quantized, but the frequency values are not integral, so energy is not quantized in steps of h.

Angular momentum is actually quantized. Changes in angular momentum happens in steps related to h.

 

No.

 

 

Angular Momentum, Understood....

But i'm "very very" confused now....

Angular momentum of a particle's "rotational axis?"

How do scientist know this at scales that small???

Does angular momentum use pi ratio??

""I just want to make sure becuase of this from Wikipidia...""" 

In physics, angular momentum (rarely, moment of momentum or rotational momentum) is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. It is an important quantity in physics because it is a conserved quantity—the total angular momentum of a closed system remains constant.

[joigus]

3 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

How do scientist know this at scales that small???

Because the theory predicts that charged particles with this angular momentum of spin will deflect in a magnetic field; and the deflection has been measured --Stern-Gerlach experiment.

That was the epochal experiment that's still very much in use. There are others based on photon emission, etc.

There are many, many other indirect checks. Ferromagnetism, for example.

Edited October 28, 2020 by joigus

[swansont]

7 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

Angular Momentum, Understood....

But i'm "very very" confused now....

Angular momentum of a particle's "rotational axis?"

How do scientist know this at scales that small???

Because electrons also have charge, having spin means they act like magnets, and that affects their behavior in a magnetic field. The Stern-Gerlach experiment joigus linked to is a famous  early example, showing the discovery of the property. It shows up in a lot of atomic physics.

 

7 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

Does angular momentum use pi ratio??

It shows up in the formulas. But angular momentum is tied in with rotations, so one would expect that.

 

 

[CuriosOne]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Because electrons also have charge, having spin means they act like magnets, and that affects their behavior in a magnetic field. The Stern-Gerlach experiment joigus linked to is a famous  early example, showing the discovery of the property. It shows up in a lot of atomic physics.

 

It shows up in the formulas. But angular momentum is tied in with rotations, so one would expect that.

 

 

Does a rotation mean:

An object that completes one cycle per some time interval? "Regardless of its size??

Does the electron act like a planet then?

It's hard to think of something so small with it's own magnetic effects considering how the electron is a fermion, then wave, then transforms into a light photon then obsorbes energy, then releases that same energy..

Shouldn't the electron's magnetic field inhibit this behavior?? IE Descrete values of h, this makes sense, if the theory is correct for QM.

Although I've never seen this electron, it's what I have studied..

Edited October 28, 2020 by CuriosOne

[joigus]

35 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Does a rotation mean:

An object that completes one cycle per some time interval? "Regardless of its size??

Does the electron act like a planet then?

An ordinary rotation is cycling around an axis. An electron is not like that. No matter how you look at it, it always rotates with angular momentum h/2 or -h/2 in any direction you look. So no, it doesn't act like a planet.

43 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

It's hard to think of something so small with it's own magnetic effects considering how the electron is a fermion, then wave, then transforms into a light photon then obsorbes energy, then releases that same energy..

Electrons do not transform into photons; the either emit photons of absorb them. Electrons might absorb photons if there are photons there to be absorbed.

45 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Shouldn't the electron's magnetic field inhibit this behavior?? IE Descrete values of h, this makes sense, if the theory is correct for QM.

 

Electrons radiate when they are accelerated, or when they are in an excited state.

I don't really understand what behaviour you are picturing the magnetic field to inhibit.

[MigL]

No, it doesn't rotate like a planet.
An electron's spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum.
For an electron, return to its 'starting point' takes 720^o.

x-posted with Joigus

[joigus]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

For an electron, return to its 'starting point' takes 720^o.

And yes, MigL is right. In order to get back to its original state you must turn it around 720º (4\( \pi \) radians). It was corroborated in experiments with external magnetic fields. Although that really may be confusing to you.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

Does a rotation mean:

An object that completes one cycle per some time interval? "Regardless of its size??

Classically, yes. But not quantum particles 

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

Shouldn't the electron's magnetic field inhibit this behavior?? 

Why? 

[CuriosOne]

On 10/27/2020 at 4:55 PM, swansont said:

h has units of angular momentum, so no.

Energy levels are quantized, but the frequency values are not integral, so energy is not quantized in steps of h.

Angular momentum is actually quantized. Changes in angular momentum happens in steps related to h.

 

No.

 

 

"Changes" in angular momentum answers "many questions."

😎 THANK YOU...

 

23 hours ago, joigus said:

An ordinary rotation is cycling around an axis. An electron is not like that. No matter how you look at it, it always rotates with angular momentum h/2 or -h/2 in any direction you look. So no, it doesn't act like a planet.

Electrons do not transform into photons; the either emit photons of absorb them. Electrons might absorb photons if there are photons there to be absorbed.

Electrons radiate when they are accelerated, or when they are in an excited state.

I don't really understand what behaviour you are picturing the magnetic field to inhibit.

What I mean by shouldn't the electrons magnetic field inhibiting this "QM" behavior is its:

Particle wave nature, among some other things I will wait on for now..

 

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Classically, yes. But not quantum particles 

Why? 

 I want to make sure I get my thoughts clear on this new information and get back to you..

[CuriosOne]

On 10/28/2020 at 3:12 PM, MigL said:

No, it doesn't rotate like a planet.
An electron's spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum.
For an electron, return to its 'starting point' takes 720^o.

x-posted with Joigus

I just want to make sure one very important fact:

The electron has "no axil tilt of refference?"

And that: From our member joigus quote:

An ordinary rotation is cycling around an axis. An electron is not like that. """"No matter how you look at it""" it always rotates with angular momentum h/2 or -h/2 in any direction you look.

 

[MigL]

There is no axis as the electron is considered a 'point' particle.
At 360⁰   it changes sign, so it must go a further 360⁰    ( 720⁰   total ) to get back to its original starting point.

[swansont]

20 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

I just want to make sure one very important fact:

The electron has "no axil tilt of refference?"

And that: From our member joigus quote:

An ordinary rotation is cycling around an axis. An electron is not like that. """"No matter how you look at it""" it always rotates with angular momentum h/2 or -h/2 in any direction you look.

 

The electron has a spin axis - a way of knowing something about its orientation in a coordinate system. We can’t know the actual direction of this vector, but we can determine the projection along an axis (usually the z-axis is chosen, by convention). So we can speak of an electron being “spin up” or “spin down” and that tells us what that vector is, which matters to certain interactions and measurements. 

But there isn’t a physical rotation. Nothing is physically spinning.

[CuriosOne]

On 11/3/2020 at 6:42 AM, swansont said:

The electron has a spin axis - a way of knowing something about its orientation in a coordinate system. We can’t know the actual direction of this vector, but we can determine the projection along an axis (usually the z-axis is chosen, by convention). So we can speak of an electron being “spin up” or “spin down” and that tells us what that vector is, which matters to certain interactions and measurements. 

But there isn’t a physical rotation. Nothing is physically spinning.

If there is no physical rotation, then how does angular momentum carry this quanta of energy "in regards" to frequencies and waves?

"Clearly there is some confusion on my end.."

I understand the point of "spin" though...

Now is this spin axis "some arbitrary refference point?"

Do we use the axil tilt of earth at 24 degrees for our electron's axil tilt refference?"

[MigL]

I'm afraid you're still not getting the concept of electron spin.
The electron is fundamental, so it is not made up of any constituents, nor does it have a radius ( considered a point particle ).
You cannot identify a certain constituent and see it move around the electron, nor can you mark a point on its surface and see it spin around, as it has no surface.

You may ask, then, how do we know it has 'spin' and what, exactly is meant by the term ?

Now for a macroscopic object, like a spinning top, its angular momentum imparts a certain stability to it, such that the spinning top will not fall over in a gravitational field, but will 'wobble' and right itself. IOW, it demonstrates certain properties in that gravitational field.
Similarly, an electron, without what we would normally consider spin, but with angular momentum, if placed in a magnetic field, will act like the spinning top in a gravitational field. But since we can't actually decide how it is spinning, we say it has 'intrinsic' angular momentum.
Spin directions are then assigned depending on the behaviour demonstrated in that magnetic field.

But again, nothing is actually/physically spinning.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

If there is no physical rotation, then how does angular momentum carry this quanta of energy "in regards" to frequencies and waves?

"Clearly there is some confusion on my end.."

I understand the point of "spin" though...

Now is this spin axis "some arbitrary refference point?"

Do we use the axil tilt of earth at 24 degrees for our electron's axil tilt refference?"

It’s an intrinsic property.

The spin axis is referenced to whatever coordinate system we choose, but if there’s a magnetic field, we usually use that for simplicity, since the spin axIs will have a known alignment related to the field.

It has nothing to do with the earth’s axial tilt

[CuriosOne]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s an intrinsic property.

The spin axis is referenced to whatever coordinate system we choose, but if there’s a magnetic field, we usually use that for simplicity, since the spin axIs will have a known alignment related to the field.

It has nothing to do with the earth’s axial tilt

When you say alignment related to the field, is this alignment an "angle?"

On 11/3/2020 at 6:42 AM, swansont said:

The electron has a spin axis - a way of knowing something about its orientation in a coordinate system. We can’t know the actual direction of this vector, but we can determine the projection along an axis (usually the z-axis is chosen, by convention). So we can speak of an electron being “spin up” or “spin down” and that tells us what that vector is, which matters to certain interactions and measurements. 

But there isn’t a physical rotation. Nothing is physically spinning.

Are these "Freed Elections" we speak of, or "Electron Orbitals"???

Several things....

If spin up and spin down are "vectors"

Then where does QM waves come from?? IE "Nothing is physically rotating"

I invision the wave function itself doing the rotating with its use of pi ratio and the unit circle, I suppose.

The reason I say this is becuase spin up and spin down looks like it disappears to reappear??

 

16 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm afraid you're still not getting the concept of electron spin.
The electron is fundamental, so it is not made up of any constituents, nor does it have a radius ( considered a point particle ).
You cannot identify a certain constituent and see it move around the electron, nor can you mark a point on its surface and see it spin around, as it has no surface.

You may ask, then, how do we know it has 'spin' and what, exactly is meant by the term ?

Now for a macroscopic object, like a spinning top, its angular momentum imparts a certain stability to it, such that the spinning top will not fall over in a gravitational field, but will 'wobble' and right itself. IOW, it demonstrates certain properties in that gravitational field.
Similarly, an electron, without what we would normally consider spin, but with angular momentum, if placed in a magnetic field, will act like the spinning top in a gravitational field. But since we can't actually decide how it is spinning, we say it has 'intrinsic' angular momentum.
Spin directions are then assigned depending on the behaviour demonstrated in that magnetic field.

But again, nothing is actually/physically spinning.

Very Understood, ThanXxxx...

It sounds like the electron is asynchronous then?

Without the spinning..

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by CuriosOne

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

When you say alignment related to the field, is this alignment an "angle?"

Yes. 

29 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Are these "Freed Elections" we speak of, or "Electron Orbitals"???

Both.

 

29 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Several things....

If spin up and spin down are "vectors"

Then where does QM waves come from?? IE "Nothing is physically rotating"

It’s nothing specifically related to waves. An electron is a point particle. Talking about a physical rotation makes no sense. (similar to how other classical concepts fail to work in quantum systems)

 

29 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

I invision the wave function itself doing the rotating with its use of pi ratio and the unit circle, I suppose.

The wave function is a mathematical description. It doesn’t rotate.

 

29 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

The reason I say this is becuase spin up and spin down looks like it disappears to reappear??

I don’t see where you’re going or how you arrived at this.

 

29 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

It sounds like the electron is asynchronous then?

That makes no sense.

[CuriosOne]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. 

Both.

 

It’s nothing specifically related to waves. An electron is a point particle. Talking about a physical rotation makes no sense. (similar to how other classical concepts fail to work in quantum systems)

 

The wave function is a mathematical description. It doesn’t rotate.

 

I don’t see where you’re going or how you arrived at this.

 

That makes no sense.

The spin up and spin down disappearing and re-appearing concepts comes from projected surfaces on the z axis projected on a 2d flat cooridinent plane...

I get this idea from "angles" or slopes, it's just a small piece of a bigger fractural picture. 

I guess that's quantum weirdness..

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

The spin up and spin down disappearing and re-appearing concepts comes from projected surfaces on the z axis projected on a 2d flat cooridinent plane...

Why would you do this? The spin projection is along the z axis. It doesn’t disappear, and projecting this along the xy plane doesn’t make it go away.

 

[CuriosOne]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why would you do this? The spin projection is along the z axis. It doesn’t disappear, and projecting this along the xy plane doesn’t make it go away.

 

I keep thinking about - and + polarities...