Why do electrons obey certain levels?

[quanta]

"A free electron can't conserve both energy and momentum by absorbing a photon" was insufficient?

 

Well then' date=' perhaps you would explain what you mean, because to me "all particle" carries the implication of "no wave" in the behavior.[/quote']

 

No your little one liners dont cut it Im afraid. Could you be anymore vague?

 

Alright, an electron IN atomic orbit, can conserve both energy and momentum is the flipside of the coin of what your saying.. that didnt help... got anything else?

 

I was talking about the measureable or lack thereof dimensions of a particle. You obviously did not even read what I wrote.

[quanta]

I only implied that there is an electromagnetic interaction in what we call absorption (or energy transfer). It has been modeled as a damped harmonic oscillator as you've shown in your link. The damping term 'gamma' and the oscillation frequency 'omega' are descriptions of the electron-nuclear interaction. They basically define the "spring constant" and "damping" of the system. The interesting result is there is interaction with photons that are NEAR the transition frequency "omega_0" (as opposed to exactly "omega_0").

 

However' date=' the point I wanted to make is that the link you post is a description of the dynamics and not of the interaction mechanism itself. There can essentially be other systems (obviously not free electrons) that react to EM radiation (ex: exciton breakdown...otherwise known as stimulated emission).[/quote']

 

As an answer to my question you lost me, even though I know what your saying otherwise, thanks I guess.

[swansont]

No your little one liners dont cut it Im afraid. Could you be anymore vague?

 

Alright' date=' an electron IN atomic orbit, can conserve both energy and momentum is the flipside of the coin of what your saying.. that didnt help... got anything else?

 

I was talking about the measureable or lack thereof dimensions of a particle. You obviously did not even read what I wrote.[/quote']

 

What you wrote was

 

What is the functional relationship between an electron and a nucleus, protons and nuetrons, that allows it to absorb a photon such that if it does not have this link ie. free electrons, the function ceases to work?

 

The answer is: the inability to conserve both energy and momentum when the electron is unbound. I don't know where you put "the measureable or lack thereof dimensions of a particle," that you say you were talking about, in that question.

[quanta]

I dont. You are SOO dumb. Why dont you go back and read when I originally wrote that and in reply to what.

 

 

"The answer is: the inability to conserve both energy and momentum when the electron is unbound"

 

No your wrong. Its hard to say just "HOW WRONG" you are because you wont elaborate, leaving me to do guess. and that is not even an answer to a question that I asked.

[quanta]

By my own research the answer is...

 

If a high energy photon collides with an electron, it is not absorbed BUT a fraction of its energy IS transfered to the electron for conservation and a photon with the remaining energy is scattered. Why is it not absorbed then re-emited you ask? Because the scattering angle tells us so, it is a classical-like collision and exchange of energy. See Compton scattering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

 

There are some pretty big questions to answer on compton scattering that are not adressed there.

 

However in the case of low energy photons, they are not scattered, they can only "pass by" or be absorbed. If a free electrons wavefunction closely resembles a bond electrons wavefunction, and the requirement or energy gap for promotion of the electron is a photon of x wavelength and energy, then an x photon may be absorbed by a free electron because there is no law preventing it. A free electron is the same as a bound electron if the momentum of electron and photon are "close enough" such that the photon doesnt care if the electron is bound or not, it just needs to match up with the frequency and phase, the energy gap requirement equivilent, so it can transfer its energy, its 'self being'.. so that the two particles merge together.

 

Given that this is true, my orginal question is necessarily false.

[quanta]

*snap*

 

"In a material where there are free electrons, this effect will occur at all photon energies and hence all wavelengths."

 

So clearly you can forget what I just wrote... Uh ya, there is definatly some property of bound electrons not present in free electrons, and that what is missing is what is required for photon absorption. Spin, angle, polarization, coloumb interactions? I dont know... it must be something.

[Conceptual]

If we look at a simple case, the hydrogen atom, the electron orbital states are a function of EM force fields between the electron and the proton. When the electron drops an energy level the systems EM force potential drops and energy is given off. The opposite should also occur with input energy increasing the EM potential of the entire system. These jumps of potential are quantitized.

 

Heat is a horse of a different color. Within any orbital state, the electron is restricted to a given orbital, but one can heat the atom and still not get it to jump into the next orbital state. These subquanta of heat energy are probally connected to the kinetic energy changes of the electron and maybe the protons. One would expect the wave function reflects the higher kinetic energy of the electron causing it to appear more often closer to the next orbital.

[quanta]

give me awhile to reply to all of your I gotta go but,

 

by "EM force fields" do you mean that being made of photons?

Thats another thing I wanted to ask, photons are gauge bosons of electrons, and they are massless and chargeless. Yet in many references they flow to and from protons as well.. the "coloumb field", where the field is positively charged... See a problem with this?

 

Well I mean you could even argue that it is *possible* that photons only get absorbed or emitted by protons, and protons in turn interact with electrons... At least then we have a reason why free electrons can only scatter with photons... Ive actually thought of this possibility before and couldnt think of anything to disprove it, Im sure there is right? Im sure that it is absolutely proven that electrons absorb photons, yeah? It just seems kinda strange that EMR /photons are mediator particles of electrons while at the same time they are emited from protons... That cant be right can it? Then what particle if not photons makes up the coloumb charge field?

[swansont]

*snap*

 

"In a material where there are free electrons' date=' this effect will occur at all photon energies and hence all wavelengths."

 

So clearly you can forget what I just wrote... Uh ya, there is definatly some property of bound electrons not present in free electrons, and that what is missing is what is required for photon absorption. Spin, angle, polarization, coloumb interactions? I dont know... it must be something.[/quote']

 

It's the presence of the bound state - a second body to absorb the momentum. Very high energy photons will also Compton scatter because a few eV of binding energy doesn't "look" like a bound state to that photon.

[swansont]

Heat is a horse of a different color. Within any orbital state, the electron is restricted to a given orbital, but one can heat the atom and still not get it to jump into the next orbital state. These subquanta of heat energy are probally connected to the kinetic energy changes of the electron and maybe the protons. One would expect the wave function reflects the higher kinetic energy of the electron causing it to appear more often closer to the next orbital.

 

Heat is vibrational KE of the center-of-mass of the atom. Since this will be represented by a speed distribution and you will have collisions (in a gas, anyway) then some atoms will have a large KE, and you can get excitations of some small fraction of the atoms. (look at Boltzmann distribution)

 

If you're discussing electrons in solids, you look at the Fermi-Dirac statistics

[Conceptual]

I developed a very simple physics model that can explain this but it is quite different from existing theory. But here goes. The model I developed simplies everything in physics and chemistry down to just three variables, mass, distance and time potential. If one looks at special relativity these are the only three variables that change with reference, all the rest (laws of physics/chemistry) are the same in all references. All the rest of the laws of nature are nevertheless influenced by changes in these three basic variables, implying these three are the most fundamental data set, which can be differentiated further.

 

And electron and proton will both contain different ratios of mass, distance and time potential. The proton has more mass potential because it is more massive, the electron has more distance potential because it exists within larger space, while both last as long as the universe implying both have high time potential, that is greater than particle accelerator produced matter. When an orbital transition occurs, the energy output reflects changes in distance and time potential occurring between the electron and proton. This distance and time potential is quantified in the wavelength and frequency of the energy that is emitted. The electron lowers its distance potential when it falls into a lower orbital. The change of time potential is observed as heat. With mass conserved during EM force there is no change of mass potential. The nuclear forces are more connected to changes within the mass potential of protons and neutrons with only small change of distance potential, but higher changes of time potential as reflected by the high heat output.