As long as you keep trying to visualize what is physically happening in the quantum world you will remain largely confused.
The quantum world is described by mathematical functions of waves and probability that do not readily correspond to what we see and understand in our macro physical world.

For example in the two slit experiment a series of single electrons can go through both slits at the same time, generating an wave-like interference pattern on a target behind the slits, if they are not observed.
If they are observed in some manner to determine where they landed, even after going through a slit, then there is no interference pattern, indicating they went through one slit at a time like a particle.
So the electron behaves as a wave if you don't observe it, and behaves as a particle if you observe it.
I don't know of any way that it's possible to visualize how that happens.
You just have to accept, that's how the quantum world operates.

So what constitutes "observing" or "not observing" an electron? Is this something like relatively where the appearance of an object depends on the amount of movement within the frame of reference? For example, if you could run along side of a photon moving at the speed of light, would it appear to be a particle instead of a wave?

In the two slit experiment, a stream of electrons is sprayed at the two slits like a fire hose, and the result is an interference pattern. However, if just one electron is projected at a slit, it just goes through the opening and hits the target like the screen in a CRT.

 

An electron is a fundamental quantum entity (in the standard model) with arbitrary (physicist's convention) assigned 'negative' charge (how particles like it behave to an applied EM field).

The quantum field for each type of particle has quantum properties like 'charge' as one of it's local properties.

 

So the De Broglie electromagnetic wave in an atom is actually a standing wave instead of a traveling wave?

Then, how does the electron wave actually absorb energy from an outside source such as a photon? The photon must raise the electron one quantum state -IE- the next level up.

Also, is an electron in the conduction band (the band just above the valence band with a gap in between) considered as bound to the atom and subject to quantum mechanics?

Hi,

Yes that could be viewed as a standing wave.
The ground state does not explain the interaction of particles. It's like saying that we have a baseball sitting on the floor and there is no lower floor. It's not a statement about how another baseball might affect that first one if the second one hits the first onef or some reason.

The questions you are asking though suggest that you would want to study quantum mechanics so that you could get a better idea what is happening. The particles are somewhat elusive in nature because they are the building blocks of matter not the matter itself. This is unlike anything we know in common experience. If we build a house out of bricks and view it from a distance, it looks like the house is one solid object. In this case though we can always move closer and SEE the bricks, and then make determinations about the bricks themselves. With the atom, we can only use mathematics and very careful experiments to help develop that mathematics. This might be like throwing marbles at the house from a distance in order to figure out what the house is made of.
So in this case the math trumps the physical interpretation, and as the years went by people came up with ideas on how to interpret the experiments and then people that came after them had shown how that view wasnt quite good enough and so came up with other ideas to help better explain everything. When we look back we see an evolution in this interpretation, but it's mostly about the math otherwise it's very hard to deal with.
If i fill a balloon with gas and release it outside and tell you the balloon rises fast, you dont really know how long it will take to reach say 100 feet. If i then give you a little formula H=4*t then you might have a better idea, but then someone comes along and notices that the wind blows it a little north that day too, so the equation becomes more complicated so we can adjust for the wind H=4*t, x=2*t, y=6*t.

So to understand this the way you seem to want to understand it you probably have to study quantum mechanics. After that you can then ask why did they come up with string theory if quantum mechanics was enough, which is supposedly the next generation of understanding physics.

In the process, there are various theories that cover the same thing too. They are usually different attempts to explain some phenomenon in some abstract way but will be useful to us in predicting the behavior of matter in any situation. They often seem to lack proof until someone gets around to trying to do it.

So in short, if something causes an increase in energy the electron will 'move' in a way that changes it's movement and that means an acceleration that takes it out of it's normal range of movement.
The normal range of movement, in the wave view, is like a transmission line that is connected with it's end connect to it's beginning, and the length just happens to be an integer multiple of the length of the wave.
In the quantum view, the electron has 'spin' and moves like a set of superimposed waves that create one envelope that would look like a 'blip' in the shape of a spinning pea pod. The blip can be viewed as a probability density where the density near the center is something like 34 percent and near both font and back are something like 33 percent each (dont remember the actual percentages). If you rotate that 3d view you'll see a 2d sine wave blip where the cycles are made from the spin speed. This is a very comprehensive view, but even here the spin is an abstract idea.

I think the most amazing thing about nature is that some things happen automatically that seem more organized than what we might think nature is capable of. The atom seems to be one of these miracles that seems to take care of itself without any intervention. It's a tiny system unto itself that we seek to understand so that we can use it to our advantage. The view we have is limited though, and the best we can do is use the tools that were invented long before we even appeared on this planet. We might improve on those views in the future, but it will be very hard to do that without first understanding what came before us.

 

Thanks for your input.

I had no idea that my initial question would open up such a can of worms. However, as I think of more questions, the can will keep opening!!!

 

So what constitutes "observing" or "not observing" an electron?

Any method that shows the path an electron has taken.

In the two slit experiment, a stream of electrons is sprayed at the two slits like a fire hose, and the result is an interference pattern. However, if just one electron is projected at a slit, it just goes through the opening and hits the target like the screen in a CRT.

You can get an interference pattern even when only one electron goes through at a time.

 

As long as you keep trying to visualize what is physically happening in the quantum world you will remain largely confused.
The quantum world is described by mathematical functions of waves and probability that do not readily correspond to what we see and understand in our macro physical world.

For example in the two slit experiment a series of single electrons can go through both slits at the same time, generating a wave-like interference pattern on a target behind the slits, if they are not observed.
If they are observed in some manner to determine where they landed, even after going through a slit, then there is no interference pattern, indicating they went through one slit at a time like a particle.
So the electron behaves as a wave if you don't observe it, and behaves as a particle if you observe it.
I don't know of any way that it's possible to visualize how that happens.
You just have to accept, that's how the quantum world operates.

For more reading for the interested reader, google quantum cheshire cat.

 

Thanks for your input.

I had no idea that my initial question would open up such a can of worms. However, as I think of more questions, the can will keep opening!!!

It seems to me that will only reveal more worms.

 

So what constitutes "observing" or "not observing" an electron? Is this something like relatively where the appearance of an object depends on the amount of movement within the frame of reference? For example, if you could run along side of a photon moving at the speed of light, would it appear to be a particle instead of a wave?

In the two slit experiment, a stream of electrons is sprayed at the two slits like a fire hose, and the result is an interference pattern. However, if just one electron is projected at a slit, it just goes through the opening and hits the target like the screen in a CRT.

Hi,

Missed that one.

Observing means the particle has interacted with another particle and thus the wave function collapses.
Thus if we interact with the particle BEFORE it goes though the slot(s) it looks like a particle.

But there is another amazing facet of that experiment, so here comes the second can of worms, which is time itself.

1. If we dont interact with the particle before it passes through the slot(s) it creates a wave.
2. If we interact with before it passes though the slot(s) it acts like a particle.
3. Most amazing, if we interact with the particle AFTER is passes through the slots, it acts as though it lost it's wave function BEFORE it went through the slots. Thus, it acts as though it knew that it was going to be interacted with as it was going through the slot(s).

The only explanation for this third experimental observation i can think of is the particle exists in some kind of world of it's own and we are only seeing a shadow of it's total existence.

Maybe now you can start to see why it is so elusive.
Of course there is also quantum entanglement to tangle with

 

If we take a top and spin it quickly.....without wobble......it will always react the same when you hit it from the side. But if you wait till its slows a little and starts to wobble......then it will react........depending where in the wobble it was......when you hit it.

A charged particle.......even isolated and stationary......has two perpendicular accelerations....AND has two perpendicular wobbles.

The charged particle has two perpendicular, periodic phases. So....not only does the strength(Density) and rate(Velocity), and Angle of the external force affect the response........the phase(Time) of the particle also affects the response.

When the dense and fast wobble of a proton and the lite and slow wobble of the electron merge....it produces a slower resultant distance wobble of the electron in reference to the proton.

This distance wobble is what is called atomic oscillation. It's the result of two different wobble rates.

Charge is a very pure mechanical device. It's just hard to understand because the structure is one rotation inside another perpendicular rotation.

Think of a stripe on a hula hoop. Now spin hoop(stripe) at c. That's what an electron looks like.

 

It is well known that a charged particle following a curved path will emit "synchrotron" radiation which is the result of the centrifugal acceleration of the particle.

So why don't the electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom lose energy by radiation and eventually fall into the nucleus? Obviously, the electrons are held in orbit by the electric field which provides the centripetal force and this field must be relatively constant to maintain the average radius of the orbit.

I found this question in a chemistry book, however, the answer it gave is rather obscure so that's why I posted it here..

It is still a topical question that has no answer now.
For years I have tried to answer this question and I have not succeeded.

I watched with interest the discussion that you may find the answer.
Scientists know that this question has not yet been answered.
You would do a great job for physics if you answer this question.

This is the science and technique of 2017.

 

An electron can behave as either a discrete particle(.....) According to the Schrodinger equation, the electron is actually an electromagnetic wave instead of a particle.

NO
Quantum mechanics are based on particle wave dualism.

If you want to deduce and solve together the Schrodinger equation.
To see how stupid it is.

Dual wave-particle is absurd. That's what Einstein said.

But until someone comes up to put something better instead, I did not have what to do. We'll use it.

For example, if someone gives me to study and a photodiode I will use light as a particle. why ? That's the way the calculations are right.

If someone gives me a study of an antenna I will consider radiation as wave.

Although the reflex klystron or magnetron used for waves (microwaves) can emit infrared light (particles).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klystron
=======================================
Why do deceleration of electrons in vacuum give rise to electromagnetic waves with frequency proportional to the loss of energy of an electron?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

Because the frequency of e.m rad. of antenna is the number of cycles and not the deceleration force of the electrons.

 

As long as you keep trying to visualize what is physically happening in the quantum world you will remain largely confused.

That is what I hear often.
It has become a symbol of quantum mechanics teachers.

The electron still has a quality- it jumps from one orbit to another -without passing through intermediate positions,

 

Another example is quantum mechanical tunneling where an electron as a particle cannot cross an energy barrier while it can as a wave,
and hence we have the tunnel diode.

 

Sees, that if an electron can change from a particle to an electromagnetic wave, there must be some kind of mass to energy conversion process going on.

The most common example of mass to energy conversion is E= M C Squared. If an electron is converted from mass to energy, the electromagnetic wave would be a Gamma ray. However, when the electron is released from an atom as a particle, there must be an energy to mass conversion process.

 

E= M C Squared is energy mass equivalence. To convert the mass (a dime) to energy is usually very difficult. The mass to energy conversion of the Hiroshima bomb was less than 1/3 the mass of a dime vs the total weight of the bomb 4,400 kg.

 

Sees, that if an electron can change from a particle to an electromagnetic wave, there must be some kind of mass to energy conversion process going on.

The most common example of mass to energy conversion is E= M C Squared. If an electron is converted from mass to energy, the electromagnetic wave would be a Gamma ray. However, when the electron is released from an atom as a particle, there must be an energy to mass conversion process.

The electron is not changing from particle to wave. It is exhibiting both properties at the same time. It is like something can be round and blue at the same time.

 

So what part of the electromagnetic wave corresponds to an orbiting electron as shown in the Bohr model?

Seems that the electron might correspond to the point when the electric field component (E) of the wave is at maximum. Another possibility is when E is at minimum -IE- when the displacement current dE/Dt has reached a maximum.

 

So what part of the electromagnetic wave corresponds to an orbiting electron as shown in the Bohr model?

Seems that the electron might correspond to the point when the electric field component (E) of the wave is at maximum. Another possibility is when E is at minimum -IE- when the displacement current dE/Dt has reached a maximum.

I don't know. I give up. I have used up all of my answers. I don't have any more answers.

 

So what part of the electromagnetic wave corresponds to an orbiting electron as shown in the Bohr model?

Seems that the electron might correspond to the point when the electric field component (E) of the wave is at maximum. Another possibility is when E is at minimum -IE- when the displacement current dE/Dt has reached a maximum.

How can a person answer that, IMO your question is mainly nonsensical. You're taking classical electromagnetic wave theory into nuclear physics and obsolete atom models to a place we know today can't possibility be correct because atoms would collapse in a tiny fraction of a second.

 

I don't know. I give up. I have used up all of my answers. I don't have any more answers.

You know, this topic has turned into such a can of worms, I believe I should start praying for an answer.

Then I might get an email notice that God has replied to a thread I'm watching on AAC.