electron quantization

[lemur]

This seems like more of a QP question than an issue for speculations, but since the issue appears to be somewhat mysterious as it emerges in other threads, I thought it might deserve its own speculations thread. My sense is that wave-quantization has something to do with the internal dynamics of force-fields. Like, if you would try to subdivide them in increments between their natural quanta that they would resist because of internal cohesion-force, like surface tension causes water to divide into rain drops. I would also guess that this quantizing force also influences how the electrons can interact with the nucleus, i.e. because there is an energy threshold that has to be reached before a wave can be added or subtracted from the atomic electrons. What do others think and/or what has been written on this topic?

[farmboy]

Why does the energy go up in increments after you have reached the threshold then? If it was just an energy threshold that caused the initial quantization then I would have thought that above that level you would be able to add energy continuously, but you can't the next level up is also quantized.

[ajb]

I am not sure what you are asking. It is known how to quantise a Dirac field and Yang-Mills fields, within perturbation theory anyway.

[lemur]

Why does the energy go up in increments after you have reached the threshold then? If it was just an energy threshold that caused the initial quantization then I would have thought that above that level you would be able to add energy continuously, but you can't the next level up is also quantized.

Idk, if I think about a hypothetical situation where a high energy photon hits a molecule, causes it to ionize, emit some electron(s), changes its momentum, and re-emit lower-energy photons, for example, it seems like the fixity of the electron and photon quanta are playing a determinant role in how much energy ends up as velocity-change in the resulting fragments. So I would think that the electrons get excited and either emit a certain frequency photon or break off, but that there is tension as to when the electrons stabilize instead of breaking off. I see it like a ball of water in zero-gravity where something hits the ball and a certain number of fragments/drops break off from the ball but the remaining energy keeps wobbling as waves and shape-changing of the unbroken ball. If the water was a liquid with more surface-tension, it might not break apart at all with a given amount of energy added, whereas a liquid with less surface-tension might break off into smaller-sized fragments.

 

Something else I wonder about with the electrons is that the fact that their waves need to fit exactly into whatever quantized configuration would seem to mean that any energy that doesn't result in the threshold needed to increase the number of waves would have to be expressed as something else, e.g. velocity-change of the atom as a whole. There has to be conservation of energy, but the quantizing-requirement of the electron energy seems to determine where the energy will go. So it is as if there is room for non-quantized amounts of energy to be expressed as momentum, acceleration/deceleration, at the macro level that automatically pick up the slack of the quantum fixity. Is this incorrect, though? Are energy-amounts at the macro level also shown to be quantized in the same quanta as photons and electron-levels?

 

As for perturbation theory, I hear that mentioned a lot and I vaguely understand the meaning of the verb, "to perturb," but I have tried googling the term and it only sounds like a methodological approach to study, not a direct descriptive theory of a mechanical behavior - but am I understanding it wrong?

 

 

[farmboy]

Idk, if I think about a hypothetical situation where a high energy photon hits a molecule, causes it to ionize, emit some electron(s), changes its momentum, and re-emit lower-energy photons, for example, it seems like the fixity of the electron and photon quanta are playing a determinant role in how much energy ends up as velocity-change in the resulting fragments. So I would think that the electrons get excited and either emit a certain frequency photon or break off, but that there is tension as to when the electrons stabilize instead of breaking off. I see it like a ball of water in zero-gravity where something hits the ball and a certain number of fragments/drops break off from the ball but the remaining energy keeps wobbling as waves and shape-changing of the unbroken ball. If the water was a liquid with more surface-tension, it might not break apart at all with a given amount of energy added, whereas a liquid with less surface-tension might break off into smaller-sized fragments.

 

I'm not sure how that explains what I said though dude, or even really relates to it. For example a ball of water being broken into different fragments, the fragments will all technically be quantized since they will consist of multiple basic units (atoms) and the energy required to seperate them will therefore be related to the total number of electrostaic attractions and the energy needed to break them and so would perhaps also be quantized (i'm not sure actually if that is accurate), but either way your theory does not exlpain why the same thing would happen with electrons moving up energy levels. Okay so an atom absorbs different amounts of energy, some of that energy causes other processes within the atoms, but some very specific amounts are absorbed and cause electron transitions. How do you explain the quantized nature of the enrgy which causes these transitions. With the water we know that there (is perhaps) quantization caused by the fact that water can be broken down into individual molecules, what causes the same effect in an electron?

 

Something else I wonder about with the electrons is that the fact that their waves need to fit exactly into whatever quantized configuration would seem to mean that any energy that doesn't result in the threshold needed to increase the number of waves would have to be expressed as something else, e.g. velocity-change of the atom as a whole. There has to be conservation of energy, but the quantizing-requirement of the electron energy seems to determine where the energy will go. So it is as if there is room for non-quantized amounts of energy to be expressed as momentum, acceleration/deceleration, at the macro level that automatically pick up the slack of the quantum fixity. Is this incorrect, though? Are energy-amounts at the macro level also shown to be quantized in the same quanta as photons and electron-levels?

 

As for perturbation theory, I hear that mentioned a lot and I vaguely understand the meaning of the verb, "to perturb," but I have tried googling the term and it only sounds like a methodological approach to study, not a direct descriptive theory of a mechanical behavior - but am I understanding it wrong?

 

Again dude this doesn't actually explain why atomic processes, caused by absorption of energy, only work with dicrete packets of energy. All that does is show what might happen to any energy that isn't used up by these processes, and isn't related to what I said. The important part isn't what happens to any energy not used in electron transitions but rather what causes electron energy changes to directly correspond to quantized amounts of energy. The way you've suggested it seems that these processes would not be quantized.

[lemur]

I'm not sure how that explains what I said though dude, or even really relates to it. For example a ball of water being broken into different fragments, the fragments will all technically be quantized since they will consist of multiple basic units (atoms) and the energy required to seperate them will therefore be related to the total number of electrostaic attractions and the energy needed to break them and so would perhaps also be quantized (i'm not sure actually if that is accurate), but either way your theory does not exlpain why the same thing would happen with electrons moving up energy levels. Okay so an atom absorbs different amounts of energy, some of that energy causes other processes within the atoms, but some very specific amounts are absorbed and cause electron transitions. How do you explain the quantized nature of the enrgy which causes these transitions. With the water we know that there (is perhaps) quantization caused by the fact that water can be broken down into individual molecules, what causes the same effect in an electron?

My analogy wasn't meant the way you took it. I was just referring to the fact that it would take a certain amount of energy to cause a ball of water in zero-gravity to deform to the point of fragmenting and that amount of energy would be related to the surface tension of the water. Could the case be similar with photon field-cohesion? I.e. as a magnetic field begins to emerge, it cannot begin propagating until it reaches a certain threshold at which point it suddenly generates an electric field, which in turn generates another magnetic field, etc. linearly. It's like the electron has its own containment force that gets overcome at the moment the fields start propagating. As long as the energy is not sufficient to overcome that containment, it probably just causes the atom to wobble and contributes to its vibrational KE. Only when it wobbles so much, it could either ionize or emit a photon, depending on the electrostatic conditions I think. Metals are known to be more prone to lose electrons than non-metals, but are non-metals also more likely to emit photons with the same amount of energy input as an ionizing metal?

 

Again dude this doesn't actually explain why atomic processes, caused by absorption of energy, only work with dicrete packets of energy. All that does is show what might happen to any energy that isn't used up by these processes, and isn't related to what I said. The important part isn't what happens to any energy not used in electron transitions but rather what causes electron energy changes to directly correspond to quantized amounts of energy. The way you've suggested it seems that these processes would not be quantized.

Well, let's assume for a moment that an atom can receive an amount of momentum from a collision with another atom that gives it a partial quanta of energy (idk if this is possible or not). Then the electrons might swell/stretch a little trying to go up a level but they couldn't yet without sufficient energy to do so. Then once they reach the needed threshold, they could suddenly gain an additional wave and go up a level; and afterward could drop back down as a result of re-seeking electrostatic equilibrium, with the photon carrying away the surplus energy. The photon quanta would thus be a consequence of the electron quantization, which would be a result of the inability for electron "waves" to overlap, which would be a result of the wave shape/size being determined by the texture of the field-force that composes the wave, which behaves as if it has some kind of surface-tension to energy-amount ratio for fragmentation into waves.

 

 

[farmboy]

My analogy wasn't meant the way you took it. I was just referring to the fact that it would take a certain amount of energy to cause a ball of water in zero-gravity to deform to the point of fragmenting and that amount of energy would be related to the surface tension of the water. Could the case be similar with photon field-cohesion? I.e. as a magnetic field begins to emerge, it cannot begin propagating until it reaches a certain threshold at which point it suddenly generates an electric field, which in turn generates another magnetic field, etc. linearly. It's like the electron has its own containment force that gets overcome at the moment the fields start propagating. As long as the energy is not sufficient to overcome that containment, it probably just causes the atom to wobble and contributes to its vibrational KE. Only when it wobbles so much, it could either ionize or emit a photon, depending on the electrostatic conditions I think. Metals are known to be more prone to lose electrons than non-metals, but are non-metals also more likely to emit photons with the same amount of energy input as an ionizing metal?

 

That doesn't happen though dude, not as far as I know anyway. The example with the water deforming doesn't explain it either so far as I can see. Okay so say there is a minimum amount of energy needed to deform the water in some way (actually I'm not sure that there is) but that doesn't in anyway explain why there are multiple energy levels that the electron can move to each requiring absorption of a discrete amount of energy. It shows how their might be one energy level, but doesn't explain quantization in any way.

 

Well, let's assume for a moment that an atom can receive an amount of momentum from a collision with another atom that gives it a partial quanta of energy (idk if this is possible or not). Then the electrons might swell/stretch a little trying to go up a level but they couldn't yet without sufficient energy to do so. Then once they reach the needed threshold, they could suddenly gain an additional wave and go up a level; and afterward could drop back down as a result of re-seeking electrostatic equilibrium, with the photon carrying away the surplus energy. The photon quanta would thus be a consequence of the electron quantization, which would be a result of the inability for electron "waves" to overlap, which would be a result of the wave shape/size being determined by the texture of the field-force that composes the wave, which behaves as if it has some kind of surface-tension to energy-amount ratio for fragmentation into waves.

 

Again dude, thats not what happens. Look at the atomic spectra of different elements for example. We can identify the different elements that make up stars based on the light they emit. Each element produces a distinct spectra which we can identify based on the different energy levels which are missing. These missing energy levels correspond directly to the electron transitions which occur within that atom. If what you were suggesting were actually taking place then we would essentially see all wavelegths of light being absobed since energies less than the exact amount needed to change energy levels would still cause some change in the electrons.

 

There were a couple of bits in your post that I didn't really understand though (I've put them in bold), I don't think they could change the points I made (that is all still true to the best of my knowledge) but just thought I'd point that out incase I was missing something significant. I study chemistry rather than physics just, and I don't always understand all the physics terminology.

Edited April 16, 2011 by farmboy

[lemur]

You're bringing up important points that I am indeed overlooking in my attempt to just conceptualize some plausible basis for quantized electrons and photon energy. The spectra of different elements are interesting to me. I see what you mean that they aren't perfect black bodies and thus only absorb and emit certain wavelengths and not others. Still, they must also absorb energy in the form of kinetic energy of heat among molecules. So this kinetic energy could theoretically be continuous instead of quantized, right? In that case, the jarring of the molecules during collision could raise their energy levels somewhat but not to the threshold of photon emission, or not?

 

Also, you don't see my point about the electron waves having to link-up in a way that creates a whole number of waves having a determinant effect on the ability to emit certain photons and not others? This is why I think something like surface-tension could be responsible for the wave's insistence on forming only certain sizes/number and not others. The big question to me is what the electrons are at the wave level. Are they like photons (propagating EM fields) but with mass? With the EM field propagation, there seems imo to be some interactive effect between electric and magnetic fields that results in their linear propagation. It's as if the one is the shadow of the second and the next is a shadow of the second, etc. Thus it makes sense to me that their quantum nature would have to do with them propagating as repetitions of the same basic entity. That still doesn't say anything about why only certain quanta are possible and not others.

[farmboy]

You're bringing up important points that I am indeed overlooking in my attempt to just conceptualize some plausible basis for quantized electrons and photon energy. The spectra of different elements are interesting to me. I see what you mean that they aren't perfect black bodies and thus only absorb and emit certain wavelengths and not others. Still, they must also absorb energy in the form of kinetic energy of heat among molecules. So this kinetic energy could theoretically be continuous instead of quantized, right? In that case, the jarring of the molecules during collision could raise their energy levels somewhat but not to the threshold of photon emission, or not?

 

It doesn't matter if the kinetic energy of a molecule is continuous or not though, the energy levels of electrons aren't, and that is what I'm asking about. Collisions etc do cause a number of other changes in atoms, whether that be a change in momentum or the like or some sort of quantum change. As far as I know the change in momentum would not necessarily be quantized, but this just has nothing to do with the energy of electrons being quantized dude. Energy levels simply don't change a little bit like you are hoping/imagining, they jump straight from one level to another and go back down again, always in jumps of specific energy.

 

 

Also, you don't see my point about the electron waves having to link-up in a way that creates a whole number of waves having a determinant effect on the ability to emit certain photons and not others? This is why I think something like surface-tension could be responsible for the wave's insistence on forming only certain sizes/number and not others. The big question to me is what the electrons are at the wave level. Are they like photons (propagating EM fields) but with mass? With the EM field propagation, there seems imo to be some interactive effect between electric and magnetic fields that results in their linear propagation. It's as if the one is the shadow of the second and the next is a shadow of the second, etc. Thus it makes sense to me that their quantum nature would have to do with them propagating as repetitions of the same basic entity. That still doesn't say anything about why only certain quanta are possible and not others.

 

And nah dude, I'm really not sure what that first part means at all sorry. Why do you think that electron waves ''have to link up in a way that creates whole numbers of waves'' and how exactly are you imagining this exists in real terms? I mean you also seem to be basing it on the assumption that electrons can't overlap one another. Is that definitely true? I know the pauli exclusion principle states that two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state (or something like this), but I'm not sure that means that no two electrons can overlap like you are suggesting, they just need to have slightly different energy levels, but then could still orbit the same nucleus presumably also inhabiting the same space. So no need for them to line up in whole numbers or anything like that.

[lemur]

It doesn't matter if the kinetic energy of a molecule is continuous or not though, the energy levels of electrons aren't, and that is what I'm asking about. Collisions etc do cause a number of other changes in atoms, whether that be a change in momentum or the like or some sort of quantum change. As far as I know the change in momentum would not necessarily be quantized, but this just has nothing to do with the energy of electrons being quantized dude. Energy levels simply don't change a little bit like you are hoping/imagining, they jump straight from one level to another and go back down again, always in jumps of specific energy.

Well, how would you know if a molecule got jarred in a collision and absorbed a certain amount of the energy into its electrons without it leading to an amount sufficient to result in photon emission? Also, how do you know that when atoms transfer momentum from one to the other, they don't do so as a result of their electron-excitement as much or more so than their actual linear motion as an atom?

 

And nah dude, I'm really not sure what that first part means at all sorry. Why do you think that electron waves ''have to link up in a way that creates whole numbers of waves'' and how exactly are you imagining this exists in real terms? I mean you also seem to be basing it on the assumption that electrons can't overlap one another. Is that definitely true? I know the pauli exclusion principle states that two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state (or something like this), but I'm not sure that means that no two electrons can overlap like you are suggesting, they just need to have slightly different energy levels, but then could still orbit the same nucleus presumably also inhabiting the same space. So no need for them to line up in whole numbers or anything like that.

I guess that was the pauli exclusion principle that I thought required the electrons to add up to whole numbers. I didn't think the waves could overlap. I still think there's something to the idea that these things are propagating as "subsequent shadows" as opposed to cohesive units in continuous motion. I think such continuous motion may be facilitated by the fact that "propagative-space" can curve in on itself and move as a frame relative to other "propagative-space frames."

 

 

[farmboy]

Well, how would you know if a molecule got jarred in a collision and absorbed a certain amount of the energy into its electrons without it leading to an amount sufficient to result in photon emission? Also, how do you know that when atoms transfer momentum from one to the other, they don't do so as a result of their electron-excitement as much or more so than their actual linear motion as an atom?

 

Because this would lead to an increase in the energy levels of the electrons prior to their moving from one energy level to another, but that just doesn't happen. With what you are suggesting we would see continuous absorption and emission (think I already said this lol) since an electron in one instance could say make up say 17% of the energy required to 'jump' from collisions and then the other 83% from a photon or whatever. Essentially it would mean that all wavelengths could potentially be absorbed. That just doesn't happen dude, what you are suggesting doesn't fit with the experimental data.

 

I guess that was the pauli exclusion principle that I thought required the electrons to add up to whole numbers. I didn't think the waves could overlap. I still think there's something to the idea that these things are propagating as "subsequent shadows" as opposed to cohesive units in continuous motion. I think such continuous motion may be facilitated by the fact that "propagative-space" can curve in on itself and move as a frame relative to other "propagative-space frames."

 

Again dude I'm not familiar with any of the terms you have put inside inverted commas, so I'm not really well placed to comment on this part of the theory. I can say though that if you are going to make a theory you should start with the evidence and make it fit that, rather than trying to work around the evidence to formulate a theory which sounds personally good to you.

[lemur]

Because this would lead to an increase in the energy levels of the electrons prior to their moving from one energy level to another, but that just doesn't happen. With what you are suggesting we would see continuous absorption and emission (think I already said this lol) since an electron in one instance could say make up say 17% of the energy required to 'jump' from collisions and then the other 83% from a photon or whatever. Essentially it would mean that all wavelengths could potentially be absorbed. That just doesn't happen dude, what you are suggesting doesn't fit with the experimental data.

So how do collision energy-exchanges interact with electron-level changes?

 

Again dude I'm not familiar with any of the terms you have put inside inverted commas, so I'm not really well placed to comment on this part of the theory. I can say though that if you are going to make a theory you should start with the evidence and make it fit that, rather than trying to work around the evidence to formulate a theory which sounds personally good to you.

You're right. It would be ridiculous to try to make the data fit the theory unless you thought for some reason that the data could be interpreted in some other way that made more sense vis-a-vis the theory. But, no, I would not want to blatantly change data to work for some theoretical idea.

 

Finally, please stop calling me "dude."

 

 

[farmboy]

So how do collision energy-exchanges interact with electron-level changes?

 

I'm not 100% certain tbh dude, though I'd imagine that collisions (as well as causing changes in momentum and the like) can cause quantum changes in the atoms electrons just like absorption of EM radiation, but the changes in the energy states of the electrons would still correspond to qunatized amounts of energy.

 

 

You're right. It would be ridiculous to try to make the data fit the theory unless you thought for some reason that the data could be interpreted in some other way that made more sense vis-a-vis the theory. But, no, I would not want to blatantly change data to work for some theoretical idea.

 

To be fair though dude, you weren't trying to interpret the data in a different way, but trying to make electron energy quantization fit your theory by suggesting that they didn't only absorb energy in discrete packets. There is no evidence to support that though, and I personally think it is always best to work the other way. Only formulate a theory after you get evidence. I'm not having a go btw pal, I appreciate this is speculations and so some degree of speculation is likely lol, I'm just highlighting what I believe to be the better technique.

 

Finally, please stop calling me "dude."

 

Isn't that your name lol? You seem a little bit uptight its a simple term of enderment which I use quite often. I can go with the alternatives mate, pal or friend. If we sleep together some time sexy would also be appropriate.

[lemur]

I'm not 100% certain tbh dude, though I'd imagine that collisions (as well as causing changes in momentum and the like) can cause quantum changes in the atoms electrons just like absorption of EM radiation, but the changes in the energy states of the electrons would still correspond to qunatized amounts of energy.

That's logical in terms of conservation of energy from the perspective of the electron wanting a quantized amount of energy, but what about the particle colliding into it? How can a particle receiving momentum from a collision decide that it will only accept amounts of momentum that satisfy its particular energy-quanta requirements? This could be solved, I think in terms of collision elasticity, where an atoms would divide received momentum between receivable EM quanta and velocity-change. I don't know how this could be deductively tested, though, since the only way I know to test velocity-change in molecules is in terms of net energy-change, in terms of heat/pressure/volume. Idk how you could test whether subsequent weak collisions can build up a level of energy that permits emission. It could just as well be that random emissions within a low-temperature substance could be caused by an exceptionally energetic collision that delivered all the energy necessary to raise the energy level at once.

 

To be fair though dude, you weren't trying to interpret the data in a different way, but trying to make electron energy quantization fit your theory by suggesting that they didn't only absorb energy in discrete packets. There is no evidence to support that though, and I personally think it is always best to work the other way. Only formulate a theory after you get evidence. I'm not having a go btw pal, I appreciate this is speculations and so some degree of speculation is likely lol, I'm just highlighting what I believe to be the better technique.

I'm not trying to be slippery. Oftentimes my thinking conflicts with scientists who elevate inductive modeling about deduction. I see no problem with taking known parameters and playing with them loosely to see what kinds of models could emerge just to practice deducing testable hypotheses and ramifications. If anything, I was mentally modeling in a way that would necessitate a certain kind of data so that I could compare that to known data, as you have done. I'm not trying to "change data," just to think about what the data would have to look like to support a certain model and then compare that with the data that has actually been collected.

 

Isn't that your name lol? You seem a little bit uptight its a simple term of enderment which I use quite often. I can go with the alternatives mate, pal or friend. If we sleep together some time sexy would also be appropriate.

I know people use it as endearment. It's just a personal thing that I would rather hear any of those other names instead of "dude." We don't have to sleep together for you to call me sexy because that just refers to the fact that I'm sexy period.