Particle Indistinguishability and Electron Orbitals

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Ok

I have no idea as to how to give a visualization of this question so I will do my best here.

ALSO! C and h play a role here so excuse my question when I mention them...

 

 

We can keep this simple using a Hydrogen Atom​

 

This inquiry has to do with atomic orbital "shells" in relation to excited states of the electron jumping from one orbital to the next...

 

 

 

When an electron in its " excited state" jumps from one orbital to the next orbital is it:

 

The same electron?

 

I assume the electron does a disappearing act while it's doing this.

 

 

But then we have the mass-less photon that transfers energy to the electron that allows this to happen???? I'm not even sure here.

 

 

 

But if this is a yes, then now another question:

 

How can scientist be sure that it is the "electron" and not the photon doing the bouncing from one orbital to the next?????

 

 

I am very confused on:

 

Me

 

e

 

They seem to be indistinguishable????

Edited July 24, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[ACG52]

 

 

How can scientist be sure that it is the "electron" and not the photon doing the bouncing from one orbital to the next?????

Because the electron has both mass and electric charge, and the photon has neither. They are not at all alike.

[swansont]

It's the electron, and the one in the atom. Yes, it can happen because of absorbing a photon.

 

The solution that tells us the energy (and other properties) of the system is that of a bound state of an electron and a proton. It is the electron that changes to another energy level, not a photon.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Because the electron has both mass and electric charge, and the photon has neither. They are not at all alike.this

 

WAIT WAIT WAIT...

 

 

A photon has no electric charge????

I never knew this...

 

 

 

 

this makes sense, but to the atomic scale "at this size" " orbitals, the speed of light still is considered to be everywhere??

 

For example, the speed of light in a vacuum is 299.792.458 m/s

 

I assume this vacuum initially was about the size of a " living room " in a house?

 

But to the "atomic scale" is c 299.792.458 m / s still valid??

 

or would m / s be much much smaller ???

 

In other words m / s converged to:

 

microns / seconds?

 

nano-meters / second??

 

In where the speed of light just the number is constant, in where the " units" get smaller and smaller???

It's the electron, and the one in the atom. Yes, it can happen because of absorbing a photon.

 

The solution that tells us the energy (and other properties) of the system is that of a bound state of an electron and a proton. It is the electron that changes to another energy level, not a photon.

Electron that changes to another energy level.

 

So then technically its not the same electron??

Edited July 24, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[swansont]

No. c is the same everywhere.

 

So then technically its not the same electron??

It's the same electron. It's in a different energy state. Just as you are still you even when you walk up a flight of stairs.

[ajb]

The same electron?

I would quasi-classically interpret such a transition to be the same electron that has gained or lossed energy. However, in quantum mechanics all electrons are indistinguisable and so how would I know if it were the same or not?

 

With your example of the hydrogen atom, you can only ever observe an electron to be in one of the energy eigenstates (mod degeneracy due to other quantum numbers). Quantum mechanics does not really tell us what happens when we are "not looking". You would never actually see an electron move from one state to another. Within the path intergral formulation one can veiw the electron as taking all possible paths between the states, but we never actually see this.

 

Another way to think of things is in terms of ladder operators. Here we interpret the process as the creation and annihilation of the particles. In this way, you destroy the initial electron and crate another one with different quantum numbers. But again, as all electrons are indistinguishable it is not clear if it really is a different electron or not.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

I would quasi-classically interpret such a transition to be the same electron that has gained or lossed energy. However, in quantum mechanics all electrons are indistinguisable and so how would I know if it were the same or not?

 

With your example of the hydrogen atom, you can only ever observe an electron to be in one of the energy eigenstates (mod degeneracy due to other quantum numbers). Quantum mechanics does not really tell us what happens when we are "not looking". You would never actually see an electron move from one state to another. Within the path intergral formulation one can veiw the electron as taking all possible paths between the states, but we never actually see this.

 

Another way to think of things is in terms of ladder operators. Here we interpret the process as the creation and annihilation of the particles. In this way, you destroy the initial electron and crate another one with different quantum numbers. But again, as all electrons are indistinguishable it is not clear if it really is a different electron or not.

Quantum numbers?? Can there be others than h?

Singularities, I have read about them in where it is believed to be a barrier of some type.

 

I 100% agree with you!

 

Your explanation is very very clear to me, seems like an issue for dimensional analysis too, and you are very correct about the H atom, now I understand the quest of understanding other atoms whom have many many more shells to them!

 

 

 

Thanks!

[ajb]

Quantum numbers?? Can there be others than h?

I just mean that the states maybe eigenstates with respect to other operators than just the Hamiltonian (Energy). For example spin and angular momentum. The quantum numbers are just a convienent way of labeling these states and associated eigenvalues.

 

...now I understand the quest of understanding other atoms whom have many many more shells to them!

The same issues will arrise with multi-electron atoms. All the electrons are indistingusiable and it is wrong to say that "electron A is in state 1" etc. We can label multiparticle states, but these labels do not refer to any labeling of the individual electrons. There is no way to say what electon is in what state, but we do know if the states are filled or not.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

I just mean that the states maybe eigenstates with respect to other operators than just the Hamiltonian (Energy). For example spin and angular momentum. The quantum numbers are just a convienent way of labeling these states and associated eigenvalues.

 

 

The same issues will arrise with multi-electron atoms. All the electrons are indistingusiable and it is wrong to say that "electron A is in state 1" etc. We can label multiparticle states, but these labels do not refer to any labeling of the individual electrons. There is no way to say what electon is in what state, but we do know if the states are filled or not.

Hymm, very very good points here thanks...