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?

------------


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-decoherence/
chiral molecule
chirality
Ehrenfest theorems

mass coupling leads to decoherence, destructive interference of the wavefunctions
particle localization in bubble chambers a result of and aspect of decoherence, classical particle collision and overlapping superposition
1st degree superposition involves photons whos positions overlap exactly, perhaps only distinguishable by something called spin
2nd degree superposition involves particles whose wavefunction interferes, is associated with kinetic collisions and temperature
3rd degree superposition involves particles whose wavefunction do not interfere but are at the boundry of such
4th degree superposition lies beyond 3rd and has no defined limit
"
superposition is most unique between photons of which cannot be considered "physically entangled" due to a lack of force or exchange between them including interference. "Photon entanglement" is something of a different beast in that there is no possible force between photons, there only exsists a comparitive and relative correlation.

degrees of coupling involves the exchange of mediator particle to sustain a link between two or more particles, involves conventional ideas of forces including the 4 fundemental forces. Spatially independent neutral particles are not coupled as we will define it no matter the distance or correlation between them.


-------------------------


DECOHERENCE AS IT RELATES TO WAVEFUNCTION IS A CONDITION OF MASS PRINCIPLE

Decoherence for individual particles is the process of localization of the particle as a result of a reduction of its wavefunction.
The reduction of the wavefunction comes about in several instances and can be said and thought of many ways however it is a very simple principle.

...


The first case being when otherwise free particles collide with and scatter off each other ie. particles in a box

Subatomic particles are harmonic oscillators in which whose position and momentum is largely indeterminate in both a sense of practical measurement and observation.

...


--------------------------

If we consider an electron and its "orbit" as rather a "mass on a spring" we have something similar to a "Lorentz Oscillator Model".

http://webphysics.davidson.edu/Projects/AnAntonelli/node5.html

-------------------------

Theoretical atomic model that
Conserves Electron wavefunction for molecular bonds
(a false model)

Taking 2 Hydrogen atoms, in which they come together to form a simple molecule, they both share the same electron and one of the remaining electrons is eliminated. If we model this simple molecule we will see that the wavefunction of the shared electron is exactly equal to the wavefunction of the electron in a single Hydrogen atom. This is possible by a precise degree of proximity between each nuclei.

In constrast to the bohr model or the standard model, an electron may stay on one side of an atom and not necessarily be found on the other side. Because it is a "mass on a spring" its momentum is "up and down" or "in and out" along the "radius" of the atom. We will see that in a molecule a valence bond electron does not move around the atom; its degree of freedom is limited to "up and down", otherwise doing so would discontinue the shared electron and the molecule. In such a case, a new electron will be created and we have now the original 2 hydrogen atoms.

However in the case of a simple molecule that is say only 2 atoms joined by a common electron, there exsists a degree of freedom for each atom to freely rotate about this electron and the electron is turn can rotate about the circumference that links the two.

In the context of just 1 atom, no matter what element it is - how many electrons, the electrons can rotate about the nucleus in thier respective orbital level while at the same time still maintaining thier 'mass on a spring' charateristics.

In the case of a 3 atom molecule in which they form a triangle, we see that there are three electrons forming the molecular bonds. Those 3 electrons now have zero degree of freedom to rotate about the circumference of either or atom.

However In the case of a 3 atom molecule in which they form a chain, then there are only 2 electrons that bind the molecule and the degree of freedom for the electrons follow the previous case of 2 atom molecules, les the tail of the chain collides with the front of the chain in which to potentially form a triangle molecule.

to be discussed the mechanics of the wavefunction, is it analageous to an electric motor, or is it analgeous to two similar forces acting on the mass at the same time a "push and a pull" force, or whether there is 2 fundementally different forces acting on it ie. a push and a pull of different origin. Tell how the rate at which the force falls off can explain why the forces do not cancel out or lead to an equlibrim, idle electron.

The Proton Coulomb force is what holds an electron to an atom, to be discussed is the damping term of an harmonic ocsilator.


I have modeled moleculuar temperature according to my new atomic model. The only thing that I knew about moleculuar temperature before was the general idea that the colder the material, the closer the molecules or atoms are to each other. What I have added to that is what role the electron, the particles that bind atoms together to form molecules, has in relationship to temperature. And it is simply this, taking a simple molecule for example 2 Hydrogen atoms where both share an electron, in fact they dont just share an electron, it is the Only electron present because when they combine 1 of the electrons is redundant and is either ejected or annihilated this is shown by a simple illustration that I made. Anyway, when you cool a material how that is modeled is the electron radiates energy ie. loses energy and drops a level or several, accordingly. And it is the fact that they both share this electron that in turn brings both atoms closer together. I have shown that if you consider the electron as being the property of either atom, the wavefunction is identical to the other atom. I call it Conservation of -e Wavefunction. The neat thing about CW is that is holds true prior to the molecule bond and after the molecule bond. Its as if the electron itself doesnt know it is being shared by a second nuclei.

Draw two circles and one electron.
Find the mean value of electron displacement according to radius.
Bring the proximity of each nuclei together such that they intersect this mean value, and in doing so you see that atoms can bind to each other using this electron while conserving the wavefunction of it.
Now imagine you "cool" or "heat" the material that holds this molecule, in effect the electron will drop a level relative to the perspective of both atoms and the nuclei will come closer together for cold, and farther apart for hot where the electron jumps Up a level.


All that said, this theoretical model of molecular bonds is non standard because the accepted theory is that electrons are not lost in molecular bonds, there are pairs of electrons that make any bond. To know which is correct, simply see whether the overall coluomb charge is stronger ie. losing electrons would mean that the atoms and molecule now has a + charge unless is loses an equal amount of protons which is unlikely. Molecules can be neutral. Bottom line, it was a nice idea but no cigar. There is a wealth of established physics to support the idea that electrons are retained.


--------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_hybridisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_bond_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_geometry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_level
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/atspect.html

http://www.hypercomplex.com/research/emgrav/hypcx-p20001015.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_dichroism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion_rotation
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spin/node3.html
http://www.its.caltech.edu/%7Ejpelab/papers/nature432_691_2004.pdf
http://www.qdots.com/live/render/content.asp?id=82
http://www.google.com/search?quantum+confinement+effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exciton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_structure

http://student.science.nus.edu.sg/~g0203645/Atomic%20Molecular%20and%20Optical%20Physics/Quantum%20effects%20in%20one-photon%20and%20two-photon%20interference.pdf
http://www.bu.edu/qil/pdf/PRL-09-02-96.pdf
http://sales.hamamatsu.com/assets/applications/ETD/pmt_handbook/pmt_handbook_complete.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0502/0502092.pdf
http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/physics/tutes1.html
http://rkb.home.cern.ch/rkb/PH14pp/node108.html#SECTION0001080000000000000000
http://www.angelfire.com/stars5/astroinfo/gloss/s.html
http://webphysics.davidson.edu/Projects/AnAntonelli/node1.html#SECTION00100000000000000000
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/phyadv05.pdf
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:gr-qc/0309041
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0312/0312059.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maxwell%27s_equations
http://education.jlab.org/qa/atom_model.html
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/home.html
http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/esam/Chapter_7/section_2.html
http://www.chip-architect.com/physics/deBroglie.pdf


--------------------------


If a Photon has both an electric and magnetic field "at the same exact time" then it necessitates the "photon" be at minimum a 2 particle system. However in the case that the photon has at any one time either or, then we can simply eliminate the second particle and explain both the E and B field by one particle. That is, the polarization and consequently spin of the photon single particle traveling in a wavelike motion is what manifests either the electric potential or magnetic potential once absorbed by an electron. Example, a "verticle" polarization has an electric potential ("the electric field") and a different spin of that a horizontal polarization which has a magnetic potential ("the magnetic field") and perdendicular orientation or momentum and spin.

A cicularly polarized photon, one whose wavefunction orientaion goes counter or clockwise over time, switches between having an magnetic and electric potential over time. But never will a photon ever have a magnetic and electric field "at the same time".

We discussed previously that it is not the photon in any case or model that could have an direct electric or magnetic force associated with it as it has no mass or charge, it is rather the electron in a statistical count or matrix that is either the electric or magnetic field. In the same way that it is the polarization and spin of the photon that determines what force it will transfer to the electron, the electron matrix's spin an polarization dictates the force that is manifested on a larger scale.

A brief note on Polarization of unpolarized light according to my modification of the photon. Unpolarized light are photons whose orientation or individual polarization in an ensemble or "light wave" is random. This in itself is nothing new, however the main difference is with the old model, no matter what orientaion the light is it still theoretically has both a E and B field. Now when we pass the light through a filter say a verticlly polarized filter this is nothing more than an typical obstruction as seen in the 2-slit experiment, nothing special; only the light which happens to be vertically polarized at the moment of interaction with the filter will pass through, that is in this case photons with electric potential.

Current physics and models of the photon does not address the issue of what happens to the magnetic field >> force in such a case of verticle polarization because according to that model all light has an E and B field at the same time and regardless of polarization, just one of them is "more prominate" so to speak; in constract to my model, light has either or but not both. In actuallity the error and correction to the model is apparent in the experiment, none has just made the leap and admitted it what it means or what needs to be changed. Or something very bizarre and wrong would be to say that the B field in verticle polarization would align with the E field or disappear all together. No in fact light that goes through such a verticle filter will not have a magnetic potential (a perpendicular magnetic field) and so long as the light maintains its electric polarization. If we go further to add a second horizontal filter, none of the original light will be seen, because magnetic potential light didnt not pass through the first filter which is the only light that can pass through a horizontal filter les the electric light rapidly changes into magnetic light before interaction.

Simply put, Light is either electrically polarized or magnetically polarized at any given time or in the case of cicular polarization its potential changes between the two.

To be discussed is the magnitude of electric or magnetic potential according to polarization only. That is, we will address for example light being half way between E and B, and know that it now depends on Spin of the photon to say what potential it has "overall" either or at that particular instance of time and more importantly at the time of absorbtion. Where the Spin of the photon is either up or down, left or right at any instance of time, such that it can never have "zero spin" And it is precisely the spin that is the major information varible that dictates the electrons' orientation thus the electric or magnetic force, not the degree of photon E or B polarization.

The above examination of the photon treats that magnetism and electric forces are fundementally different so much as to not require a complete modification of our interpretation of physics. However we will go further to see that magnetism and electric forces are two sides of the same coin, they are fundementally identical!; they both adhere to the same fundemental mathmatics, the rate of which they fall off, the magnitude of force ect. A basic understanding of geometry and topography in a matrix of N body electrons along with "basic logic" akin to programming logic that allows us to model light according to a quantum qubit like particle with electrons being something similar to a quantum gate whereby polarization moreso Spin of light equates to 1s and 0s where 1s and 0s then represent the manifestation of either E or B forces in an material.

IONS and ANIONS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ions

Ions are apparently atoms whose net electric charge has a value other than zero. I will assume for the time being that "regular atoms" are electrically neutral, otherwise everything would be called an Ion... So an Ion as I see it being defined can be any element but missing or possesing more electrons than "usual" such to make the atom overall non neutral. Additionally the Ionization potential grows larger the more electrons missing, in other words the energy required to Ionize additional electrons from an Ion scales up. One the reasons this may be explained I believe is because the coloumb force is acting on fewer electrons and for the remaining electrons the force is greater, that is the force is not diluted or shared between as many electrons. An alternative theory could be that when you Ionize an electron, the remaining electrons modify

In any case, the amount of electrons must match the amount of protons for a nuetral atom to exsist.

"The recombining of ions and electrons to form neutral atoms is called recombination."

Ions are a key concept in the flow of electrical current - how and why electrons flow through a material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ions


"There is a standard notation in astrophysics for various levels of ionization of an atom. As illustrated in the following table, this notation uses increasing Roman numerals to indicate higher levels of ionization."

Suffix Ionization Examples Chemist's Notation
I Not ionized H I,He I H, He
II Singly ionized H II, He II H+, He+
III Doubly ionized He III, O III He++, O++


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/ionize.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auger_electron

On photon entanglement

Photon entanglement is only in principle, it is not an actuallity and should not even be discussed imo. There is no (significant albeit) possible force between photons given the standard model. I know what your thinking and if we were to be talking about particles with a charge and e and magnetic field associated with them, then when you modify the dipole of one particle the other will change its dipole accordingly given a reasonable distance between them, and this charge field shift aka "field polarization" is transmitted typically by mediator particles ie. photons at the speed of light. Obviously photons cannot exchange photons. Think of 2 magnets with a N and S polarity, well call them our 2 particles, we can now discuss a possible physical change between them according to modification of one or the other. Electrons... OK, Anything with some possible force field or mediator particle between them such that when you change one the other could in actuallity change as a second hand effect, this second hand effect has to be transmitted somehow and it is certainly not instantaneous, nothing in physics is for 99.9% of relavent discussion. A true an absolute definition of instantaneous is ficticious and violates causality.

Photons do Not and Cannot interact with other photons*, that is to say also that if you collapse the wavefunction of one, it has No effect whatsover on the other photon.

When people talk of photon entanglement it is typically in the context of using a PMDC to create identical photons, that is they both have the same frequency and wavelength...BUT they happen to be oppositely polarized meaning they have different spin as well.. So based on this fact Alone you can make predictions about the state of either or when you measure the state of either or. Photons do not decay, so if they are oppositely phased when they leave the PMDC they will Always be oppositely phased, with respect to each other. Again entanglement of photons is only in principle and not an actuallity! Even Einstien had problems with this, "spooky action at a distance". He did not get it, it continues to be a Major misunderstanding to this day! EPR, Bells theorm, is all based on this lapse of reasoning. If they Knew the Truth, they would look pretty damn stupid.

The reason why photons that leave a PMDC and have opposite spin and different polarization is because of the geometry of the crystal.
A photon can only take on 2 values of spin. A common misconception is that a photon can have both at the same time. In theory you could use a different geometry of crystal to create photons nearly identical in all aspects. So again when you measured 1 you know the other, its that simple.

Photon "entanglement" is not what you think it is. It will fall under a special catagory when I go to describe degrees of entanglement for the fundemental particles and groups; because while 2 photons wavefunctions can overlap so to speak, they do not literally interfere, quite contrary to any particles with an measureable and influencial charge or mass associated with them. Again while the photons DO have both of these in theory, it doesnt appear to be significant Enough...to cause change to each other based on proximity alone. (An exception to the rule being a case of super high energy photons, however special and rare photon-photon scattering is, it needs to be known that in theory it is possible) There should be no confusion with what I just said, its fairly simple, Ive repeating myself the photon is a boson. Alright thats what I wanted to say, degrees of entanglement theory different for bosons and for fermions including groups of either or...

To differenciate, more simply REAL entanglement as the word comes across and how I would like to define it, is a physical attraction or repulsion force between 2 or more particles aka an "Electric or Magnetic field" typical to fermions, particles of matter. I will Not consider a collision of such to be a special type of entanglement, that including the aforementioned special case of photon-photon scattering theory. There is a word and established physics for particle scattering already. Additionally I will not consider neutral particles however they may be in relation to each other through space and time to be entangled.

You could if you want use the word entanglement to describe the interaction, relation or lack thereof of any particle system unambiguously, however we must draw a line somewhere in order to make use of the word. There is nothing quite like photon entanglement, how it is prepared. In fact I may leave the word soley to photons so there is no confusion. Perhaps "degrees of coupling for charged particles" is more along the lines of what is appropiate to decribe fermion "entanglement". Any word that is useful to describe a physical link I may end up using instead of entanglement, which up to now is a word in quantum physics that is associated with a non physical link.

Yes you could say that I have a problem with the use of the word entanglement as it relates to photons. The word implies something that it is not. It goes against your intuition of what it is. Example, fish get "entangled" in a fishing net.. you associate the word with something physical. This is where most if not all the problems originate with students of quantum mechanics that want to learn about entanglement. I hear myself saying "photons are correlated, not entangled."

Is the light polarized or unpolarized? It would have to be unpolarized ie. circular polarized, because clearly if you repeat the experiment you would get the same result indefinitely with polarized light. However circularly polarized light changes spin back and forth according to polarization. It depends really on what they are measuring! A photon can have up and down Momentum its wavefunction ie. vertically polarized, BUT theoretically have an intricate horizontal spin left to right vice versa as the same time, what exactly is measured is not clear. A photon can only have an Electric or Magnetic potential at any one time, likewise spin can only take on two values accordingly.. I can only guess that this is what is measured. In any event it doesnt really matter so much as knowing there are only two measureable values, if one photon is "this value" the other is opposite. Keep in mind throughout all of this the extreme velocity of the wavefunction and likewise to an uncertainty the rotational velocity of the cicularly polarization.
So given the idea that the rotational velocity is extreme enough however unconventional, there is a substantial uncertainty in the outcome and this level of uncertainty is where you get the misleading statement of "superposition of both states at the same time." Times and Measurements cannot be expected to be exact beyond extremes and where the greater the velocity the greater the uncertainty.

What matters is the idea that each photon leaves the crystal with some if not absolute degree of opposite polarization and spin. How this comes about.. From the time the photon is absorbed by the crystal to the time is it then halved and emmited as two is concieveably a very sophisticated process. I dont not care to guess specific exchange of energy mechanics. There is something about this process that requires more detail than I can provide.


While the 1s orbital is lower in energy than the 2s orbital, its energy can be said to be contained in the form of mass. When an electron jumps to a higher state, its mass or potential energy is converted into radiation.

"Cold electrons" > "Ground state electrons" > Less Kinetic energy > Greater Potential Kinetic energy > Less wavefunction displacement
"Hot electrons" > "Valence Shell Electrons" > More Kinetic energy > Less Potential Kinetic energy > Greater wavefunction displacement

Wavefunction displacement hypothesis according to mass of particle, whereby more mass follows greater potential energy in which to convert to radiation.

A ground state electron that jumps from ground state to the valence shell will emit a high energy photon. ie. it loses mass and wavefunction amplitude increases. Typically a valence electron can only emit a low energy photon. A valence electron does not emit a high energy photon and drop to ground state even though a 1s orbital follows less energy. An orbital levels stated energy is kinetic, or in other words a measure of its amplitude. It is why molecules in cold materials are more closely bound and gases are spread out. Strickly speaking a valence electron has more kinetic energy than a ground state electron but less potential energy; That is to say, its mass is less than a 1s orbital. An electron may also incrementally or gradually lose energy or radiate sucessive low energy photons. The type of chemical reaction dictates which process will occur.

The necessity of such a model comes about in order to differenciate electron properties in various orbital. If all electrons have the same wavefunction, the same mass, then they should all be found at the same distance from the nucleus. Furthermore, photon emmision would not alter the electron in the afore-mentioned regards, the only thing it does is jump closer or farther from the nucleus; this ficticious model has no logical basis, it violates conservation of energy at the very least. The only thing that remains as a functional reality would be shape theory. Shape theory should be complimentary to wavefunction, not a sole explaination of molecular and atomic physics.


--------------------


Equipment that translates a signal into a visual representation is a charge density measurement. While the superposition of waves principle appears in front of you, this is not an accurate or literal representation of what happens when two signals come together, contrary to sound waves.

--------------------

How far does the rabbit hole go?

I can say with almost certainty that an electron is not a fundamental particle, a photon is not a fundamental particle. Any particle that can absorb and emit and even store energy, in electrons case photons or photon energy, is necessarily made of up of an amount of these particles. Nothing to shocking about that concept. Any particle that can be annihilated, is not a fundental particle... What IS conceiveabley fundemental are yet to be said, but Ill say it here now, energy particles. Energy in the context of the quantum realm is undoubtably an irreducible, unannihilatable, and truely fundamental identical particles. The term particle is not necessarily to imply any particular geometry either, although I prefer the good old sphere if I had to visualize something, what is energy; the truth is the shape could be anything, different shapes give rise to more complex emergent structures. The only question is, is that as far as the rabbit hole goes? We will never know I imagine, and that is the way it is suppose to be. You could never confirm this, but you know, I know that there are fundamental particles that make up fundamental particles... aka elemental particles according to modern physics; where the definition of elementary is "having no smaller constituent parts", or "indivisible". A particle of energy cannot be annihilated into energy, it IS energy as we will know it, it is a constant structure, a constant entity contained within the boundries of the universe. They are as old as the universe, they are conceiveably what makes up the quantum vaccum. They cannot combine with other energy particles, they cannot attract or repel energy particles, they cannot have any property about them other than pure physical geometry by which to interact.

"As far as we can tell, they (fundamental particles) have no internal structure or even any size. It is possible that future evidence will, once again, show this understanding to be an illusion and demonstrate that there is substructure within the particles that we now view as fundamental."

Do we really Need evidence to know something, something that comes from simple logic? Some people do, they require an official scientific proof, for many people like myself this is not necessary. I know that if there was a way to prove it, it would be proven.


-------------------


"An electron on a particular orbital will have the energy the oribital corresponds to. If you try to excite it with insuffcient energy it'll remain on the same orbital. I'm not sure but I think that the photon you used to try to excite the state will get absorbed and re-emitted (with the same energy it originally had). As for the energy differences of course there are energy differences between the orbitals when there are bound states. Why do you think quantization of energy would imply otherwise?

I think the excitation of an electron in an orbital with insufficient energy is a radiationless process in which the excess energy is dissipated as heat. Photon will excite the electron ,but as the electron can not reach higher energy level it will return to its ground state without emitting any radiation involving some heat dissipation.

There is an overwhelming probability that a photon incident on an electron will pass through the electron if the energy of the photon is not resonant (i.e. does not match with an electronic energy gap).

It is not absorbed and reemitted, this is a wholly different type of interaction.

Also Photon79, how do you propose an electron dissipate heat as a radiationless process?"

Claude.


"Yeah thinking about it now a/r-e process wouldn't make any sense since in this case the transition rules wouldn't be satisfied.

A photon incident on the electron will cause the electron to oscillate. IF the energy of the photon does not match an allowed transition, the electron will (overwhelmingly probably) return back to its original state after oscillating and the photon will continue on its merry way.

If the energy of the photon matches an energy gap (or is close to an energy gap), there is a significant chance that the electron will absorb the energy of the photon and change its orbital correspondingly. The closer the energy is to the energy gap, the likelihood of the photon being absorbed increases.

Energy levels are not discrete, they have a finite linewidth. This finite linewidth is due to the Uncertainty Principle. The more stable an energy level is, the smaller its linewidth. Because such linewidths are Lorentzian (wrt energy), they don't technically ever reach zero. Hence it is not IF you land on a resonance, but how close you land to a resonance peak so to speak, that is important.

Also, keep in mind that there is an inherent probability as to whether the photon is absorbed. Even on strong resonances, there are some photons that will not be absorbed. By the same token, there are some photons that do not lie near any resonances, yet are still absorbed.

If the photon is not absorbed by the electron, the photon will transmit through the electron unperturbed (with the exception of a slight phase shift).

Either the photon is absorbed and the electron is promoted or there is no interaction at all."

Photon79


"Hi, all -

Orbitals take on very specific shapes, but it's within those shapes that you have the "hazy" electron density you described. You can look them up: s, p, d, f, g, etc.

The shapes themselves are really beautiful. They are actually a special class of polynomials called "Legendre Polynomials". Legendre polynomials can be seen in other "energy-related" systems. For example, energy minima on our sun conform to these patterns.

Your suspicion that electrons w/ insufficient energy to truly ionize "jump" to higher excited states (and, therefore, orbitals) is correct. The theory is more complex than that, but you get the right idea. Before ionization, there are hundreds of higher excited states. As a matter of fact, the number of states at a given energy level is called "density of states".

Even hydrogen has d orbitals. Of course, they're empty unless an electron were excited to that state."

-----------------


"More generally, a quantum leap is the smallest possible change, as when one's bank account balance goes from $500.00 (five hundred dollars) to $500.01 (five hundred dollars and one cent). There are no possible amounts intermediate between those."

Since the photon emmited is the energy lost equivilent, its easy to say that based on that information alone, the electron must be able to quantum leap according to such energy. That is, according to the EM Spectrum, and inversely proportional. Following this has implications such that gamma rays presume a "cold electron", that is, an electron which has lost a significant amount of energy and would be found at a "low orbital" or near ground state, but radio waves do not assume a "hotter" electron after the fact because a radio wave is still lost energy. So there is never a case where an electron will emmit a photon and jump to a higher state, likewise there is never a case where an electron absorbs a photon and jumps to a lower state.

Is this a problem? Typically one would relate a greater emmision of light with a hotter object. So there is a mechanism yet to be explained that feeds the electron energy other than photon energy while at the same time or shortly thereafter it emits it in the form of photons. So we have the possibility that electrons could jump from a higher to lower orbit then back to a higher orbit all the while emitting photons to explain sustained radiation emission. That is, to explain how an electron can not run out of energy and drop to and remain at ground state unable to emit anymore energy.

How do we measure the mass of an electron? If the mass of the electron is 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms, we can only assume that this is most likely the mass of a free electron, because only then would it be a physical constant. In the case of ionization of unlike electrons a photon is emmited for each that is the equivilent of bringing each electron to ground state, so no matter what energy or mass electrons have at the time of ejection (one common example of that being Compton scattering), they are always equal to each other after they are ejected. Add to that, all free electrons found in nature should be identical in mass because they lose thier ability to emit and absorb photons.

An atomic electron on the other hand changes its mass and is not constant other than the ground state. So there are two possibilities, a free electron or a ground state electron has a mass of 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms. I suspect the two may be equivilent.

The maximum magnitude of a photons energy ("wavelength") cannot exceed the electrons current orbital level minus the difference to bring it to ground state. In other words, the electron can only lose so much energy and that depends on its current level. The more energy it has the more energy it can lose. Loosely speaking a low energy electron cannot emit a high energy photon because doing so would require more energy than it has to give up, and an electron cannot fall below ground state. An exception to the rule is in the case of annihilation in which the electrons mass, its ground state mass, is converted into energy.

How much energy an electron can hold is an important question that needs to be considered further. There are cases where it cannot gain more energy, and there are cases where a photon will eject an electron ie. ionization . The force that holds the electron is the Proton Coulomb force, which is an electric force following an inverse square law. The more distant the electron is from the Proton, the looser it is bound to the atom.

----------------


http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=85728


tdunc

If I had to define temperature I would Include somewhere in my definition the magnitude of potential energy, such that whenever it happens to collide or however it happens to transfer its energy it does so according to potential energy. So Gamma rays have a potential energy of x, radio waves a potential energy of y being considerbly less than x. A photons temperature can be said to be its energy level with reference to the EM Spectrum, correction its wavefunction, and is inherently a value determined by what electron emitted it. So in other words we can go further to say that an electron itself has a temperature and it can gain or lose temperature by emitting a photon such that the photons energy is the "temperature lost equivilent". This photon will inevitibly be absorbed later on by another electron, governing the transfer of heat per say or it is at least one definitive aspect of the quantum mechanical process of thermodynamics and statistical temperature.

Temperature can be measured by humans. Temperature in that context is purely an invention by our mind to know when a change in normal thermodynamic modes in our bodies molecules occurs-- this information handled by our nervous system. That is the top of the "what is temperature" pyramid along with anything that can show the difference in Temp for a Nbody system, thermometor of course. Breaking that down one level I think we all know how that works, interaction between molecules/ atoms blah blah, Thermodynamics. Breaking it down one more level to atomic particles themselves... "Do photons have an temperature?" Why Not? Of course you could say that, absolutely. But an GOOD point was made...

"I think to answer this you need to know if the photons themselves have mass, because to have kinetic energy (and therefore temperature) you need to have mass. IF photons have mass, then I suppose light has temperature."

Not to mention it would need some kind of mass to EXSIST and to SCATTER.


Space Tiger, I just want to clarify something. You say

"Boson-boson scattering does occur"

Which I was going to ask you about without a doubt, cause I gotta know if its true, but then I keep reading and you said

"As far as we know right now, light cannot interact with other light without some influence from matter."

So now Im confused, seems like a contradiction of statements? Or this some influence with matter part the part that makes it not contradict?, care to elaborate? I hope you dont mean it being absorbed kinda interaction...then again, what else is there? No mass, no charge...

FYI I do not think photons can scatter NOR interfere with other photons DIRECTLY if we assume no mass nor charge exsists. Which goes to say that I agree with your statements regarding various light sources being able to be present without interaction with each other to become in equilibrim of energies such that light could never obey a law defined by thermodynamics with interaction in itself. You could mathmatically find an average temperature ie. average kinetic or otherwise energy level, But light will never find an average temperature with itself, because light does not and cannot interact with other light. The very definition of a boson is such that it can occupy the same space Without Interference -- not enough localized mass. Only in context of a very large almost finite degree of decoherence could the argument be made that a potential exsists for light - light interaction. This is how I attempt to deal with how light is able to scatter with Any particle, because it and whatever little mass it has becomes localized ie. collapsed wavefunction. - Adding to that the Decrease in probability amplitude of P defines the classical particle nature at that time such that a classical elastic collision can and will occur given a mutual collision course with another particle whose wavefunction happens to be or at the moment of wavefunction interference, collapse ie. Free ionized electrons in air, Compton scattering.

Back to topic, You'll find that the temperature as it relates to photons is ALSO related to the density of said photons per unit area, such that for example focusing light by means of a magnifying glass, you increase the energy density of an arbitrary unit of space. This energy is absorb as is and translates into a greater change in kinetic energy for a greater energy density. Meaning if the light was more spread out whatever absorbs it will absorb fewer photons per unit area. Photons that are absorbed transfer thier energy perhaps not even in the form of kinetic energy, but it is then translated or converted into kinetic vibrational energy ie. EXCESS vibrational energy that the electron is given and maintains so long as it keeps interacting* with photons, absorbing photons, then after it stops absorbing photons it normalizes and settles into its normal new wave function after having perhaps jumped a level or several. Since atoms are connected together in a material or substance By electrons in some fashion... whatever may not have absorbed any photon energy directly will still feel the residual effects following some sort of inverse square law according to material density and composition ie. #electrons # exchanges, I would assume...Thermodynamics. ;)

*if the photon does not match the electron resounance and does not fulfill the requirement for absorption, thus a new electron level, it will simply pass by perhaps giving a jolt to the electron which is translated into excess vibrational kinetic energy that the electron will "work off" and settle into its NMWR. This can be related to temperature perhaps, such that we always have the option to say well maybe temperature is several things one of them being not necessarily anything to do with the electron radiating energy - a purely semi-classical mechanical explaination.


ST

People will often quote "effective temperatures" in which they basically equate it to energy, but I don't think this is a very practical way to define temperature in the more general sense. For example, if I'm going to say that an elementary particle has a temperature, from which property will I determine it? A free monatomic particle has three degrees of freedom, each of which will correspond to a different temperature (assuming E=0.5kT). I can assign a temperature based on the total energy, but it still cannot be distributed evenly amongst its degrees of freedom, so an ensemble of systems, each containing a free elementary particle, cannot be used to define an "average" energy per degree of freedom. We can take your definition to the macroscopic level and say that the individual (identical) particles of a gas in equilibrium each have their own temperature, T, and when they're combined, they yield a gas of temperature, T0. Then

meaning that the temperature of the combined system is the average of the individual components. However, since all of these systems (i.e. the individual particles) are in thermal contact, the zeroth law implies that the equilibrium state should be one of equal temperatures. That is

which will only occur in the macroscopic limit.

In other words, if we use the zeroth law to define temperature, it must be a statistical property, not one of individual particles.


tdunc


Would you object to the idea that Gamma rays have a greater magnitude of potential energy per degree of freedom than radio? Degrees of freedom being either an electric or magnetic potential ie. "electric & magnetic field" of the photon; That in turn being related to polarization.

The Displacement or I call Amplitude of the wavefunction is according to mass/energy and its important to note that while radio waves may displace more space per degree of freedom, that the magnitude of potential energy per degree of freedom is less than Gamma rays. So it is the Displacement Potential rather than the actual Displacement of a particle in the context of then relating thermodynamics and temperature.

And your right there is alot more to it...I wish someone would come in and lay it out for us, if not give me a couple of days ;) I admittedly never concieved or attempted a quantum explaination of temperature, even if in the end its not even appropiate to do such. I suspect theres something to be said though, or not said just considered.

Something else I might add. While the electron energy lost is the energy of the photon, the photons energy is not equal to the remaining energy of the electron. So the statement that regards the temperature of light is equal to the temperature of what emmited it is not necessarily true. In fact, the temperature of the blackbody should Decrease the more energy it loses, so the temperature of the light can theoretically be greater than the temperature of the blackbody, vice versa. Of course that is only in regards to one aspect of how light is radiated, and of course radiation is in turn only one aspect of temperature.... ya its complicated.

If we can say that wavefunction (includes amplitude and degrees of freedom) of a particle is according to mass/energy, then potential energy is _insert simple equation_ per degree of freedom. Not forgetting that the forward velocity of light, which is one of its degree of freedom, is faster than a free electrons "FV" AND more importantly that forward velocity is not equal to the rate or speed at which a particle oscillates; That is, in simpler terms, it can vibrate up and down FASTER than it can go forward through space at the same time which happens to be C. C being a fundemental speed limit of some aspect inherent to space (dont want to say medium) not the particle, to explain the same speed of light regardless of spectrum.

"For example, if I'm going to say that an elementary particle has a temperature, from which property will I determine it? A free monatomic particle has three degrees of freedom, each of which will correspond to a different temperature (assuming E=0.5kT)."

Not to mention the wavefunction velocity is not constant, meaning that a collision could occur at any point along its wavefunction at any instance of times, so I see little hope to come up with a simple solution.


--------------

tdunc

Bingo. Subatomic particles are harmonic oscillators in which whose position and momentum is largely indeterminate in both a sense of practical measurement and observation.

It is the Extreme velocity by which particles maintain thier wavefunction along with several other fundamental force interactions that gives rise to the Uncertainty Principle. The motion of a particle confined within an atom for example is essentially chaotic, but not without reason or order if Only we could establish all the varibles involved (impractical), however regardless of that, it is still impossible, impracticle for US "in our time" to observe an track a recognizable path. The truth is, if particles did not have a complex motion and they moved slowly, there would be no such thing as the HUP. Rapid motion leads to random results of successive measurements of supposedly identical particles at supposedly identical instances of times, yet what is not known is that this is essentially impossible.

Superpostion IS NOT real, dont be rediculous; that is posessing multiple lead positions at a single instance of time. It is an invention, a concept that serves its purpose. It gives reliable probabilities of an measurement. If and only if the particle is smeared out across the entire probability density isotropically could you argue superposition is semi-actual real, in fact it would have no lead mass no prefered direction of intricate wavefunction momentum, in that when you detect it, you immediately localize it to that point, you "unsmear it" for that instance.

And there is a truth to this fuzzy exsistance of say an electron in two important ways for a propagating particle (intricate wavefunction + overall momentum), Velocity, and charge field. If you wanted to describe the geometry of a particle that has a charge, you could do so including or not the charge field. If you include the charge field around the particle, then it is substantially more fuzzy.. However, regardless of that the extreme velocity will literally deform the surface geometry of it, making it fuzzy.

-------------