quanta

give me awhile to reply to all of your I gotta go but, by "EM force fields" do you mean that being made of photons? Thats another thing I wanted to ask, photons are gauge bosons of electrons, and they are massless and chargeless. Yet in many references they flow to and from protons as well.. the "coloumb field", where the field is positively charged... See a problem with this? Well I mean you could even argue that it is *possible* that photons only get absorbed or emitted by protons, and protons in turn interact with electrons... At least then we have a reason why free electrons can only scatter with photons... Ive actually thought of this possibility before and couldnt think of anything to disprove it, Im sure there is right? Im sure that it is absolutely proven that electrons absorb photons, yeah? It just seems kinda strange that EMR /photons are mediator particles of electrons while at the same time they are emited from protons... That cant be right can it? Then what particle if not photons makes up the coloumb charge field?

*snap* "In a material where there are free electrons, this effect will occur at all photon energies and hence all wavelengths." So clearly you can forget what I just wrote... Uh ya, there is definatly some property of bound electrons not present in free electrons, and that what is missing is what is required for photon absorption. Spin, angle, polarization, coloumb interactions? I dont know... it must be something.

By my own research the answer is... If a high energy photon collides with an electron, it is not absorbed BUT a fraction of its energy IS transfered to the electron for conservation and a photon with the remaining energy is scattered. Why is it not absorbed then re-emited you ask? Because the scattering angle tells us so, it is a classical-like collision and exchange of energy. See Compton scattering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering There are some pretty big questions to answer on compton scattering that are not adressed there. However in the case of low energy photons, they are not scattered, they can only "pass by" or be absorbed. If a free electrons wavefunction closely resembles a bond electrons wavefunction, and the requirement or energy gap for promotion of the electron is a photon of x wavelength and energy, then an x photon may be absorbed by a free electron because there is no law preventing it. A free electron is the same as a bound electron if the momentum of electron and photon are "close enough" such that the photon doesnt care if the electron is bound or not, it just needs to match up with the frequency and phase, the energy gap requirement equivilent, so it can transfer its energy, its 'self being'.. so that the two particles merge together. Given that this is true, my orginal question is necessarily false.

I dont. You are SOO dumb. Why dont you go back and read when I originally wrote that and in reply to what. "The answer is: the inability to conserve both energy and momentum when the electron is unbound" No your wrong. Its hard to say just "HOW WRONG" you are because you wont elaborate, leaving me to do guess. and that is not even an answer to a question that I asked.

Compton scattering, exactly. Now answer my question. "Neutrons exhibit wave behavior, as do neutral atoms." I take it this was a reply to my "Say the electron was nuetral, well then it is all particle" statement. Logical fallicy, you assume when I say "all particle" that meant no wave behavior, when I fact Im fully aware of the truth to your statement.

Lorentz Oscillator model... http://webphysics.davidson.edu/Projects/AnAntonelli/node5.html#SECTION00500000000000000000 Why? So your telling me that a free electron can absorb photons? Will you tell me that it can emit photons then also?

New question if none can/wants to answer the original. 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?

Eon, "is not a physically viewable or verifiable thing." That is basically correct for casual understanding. 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 in essense the extreme velocity of the electrons momentum that gives rise to an aspect of the Uncertaincy Principle. Or at least that is my belief. Keeping in mind that the geometry of the electron particle includes and can often be defined as the charge around it as well. Say the electron was nuetral, well then it is all particle But its a particle with a substantial deformation regardless, again because of its rapid momentum. So either way the electron can be said to be "fuzzy". I would say "orbital" is to be taken literally if and only if the electron is not part of a molecular bond, in such the electron loses that degree of freedom and that in part gives rise to the shape of complex molecules. Whats unique about it is that, take a particle that "vibrates" along the radius axis, and in addition to that add orbital motion. So its not like anything classical orbit in the sense that it has this additional wavemotion. I dont think physics is quite caught onto this yet although, so they explain it as appearing and disappearing into exsistance around a certainty mathmatical probability field.

So in a sense could you say that it is in part the repulsion between electrons in various shells that keeps them in those shells? And in the case of a more simple element, then what? Well that is one thing, yet the question is going back to how electron levels change with photon emmision. Ionization being a case of neither photon absorption or emmison. It almost sounds like, aside from the conventional definition, your describing an alternate additional type of ionization whereby electron - electron collision takes place, correct me if Im wrong.. you use the word temperature thats why I say it..

Its not you, its what you were taught. Quantum mechanics is screwy, its definatly not the final word, but if you want to talk about this stuff "quantum physics" you have to go through "quantum mechanics" as it has been theorized and laid out. Its a theory, simple as that. And no theory is completely void of logical fallicies, but QM seems to have more than its share of them. This whole chapter 3 is textbook QM its all hit and miss, its where you get your PE KE < 0 terminoligy, but where they miss its huge. http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/esam/Chapter_3/intro.html And if you dont want to even try to answer my questions then fine, or give me the benifit of the doubt and go along with what Im saying, Cause I know you have to know what Im saying at some level, your just ignoring the questions and spewing non relavent textbook knowledge that I can read on the internet anywhere.

I need to know why it is bound at the distance it is bound... And why this distance is not finestructure specifically according to photon emmision and absorption Which IS finestructure so to speak. ie. EM spectrum is more or less finestructure is it not? Relativistic effects would make it so if nothing else. Hyperfine structure, "splitting" are relativistic doppler effects in atomic spectral lines that arise from perturbations of PE and KE of photo-electrons wavefunctions due to magnetic moment dipole and quadrapole interactions between the nuclei and electrons imparted to each own respectively and as a whole. This kind of phenomenon is aside from the question at hand. "For an attractive force, PE is negative. A bound system has PE + KE <0" Your wrong. And i know about ionization energy. However there are possible more than one defintion of potential energy, a purely classical momentum limit and a quantum potential that being released as radiation. Where the former is a measure of the charge field strength and the later being a measure of electron mass to energy conversion potential; assuming that an electron can gain or lose mass/energy and thats how we describe change in "orbital distance" conditioned by radiation only, not by coloumb forces. And my question is again, where is the fine structure for orbital distances according to radiation? "The electromagnetic force on charges is attractive or repulsive, depending on the charge (electrostatic) or neither (magnetic - the force is perpendicular to the velocity). You need an attractive force to make a harmonic oscillator, which in this case would be the attractive electrostatic force." Ya and you Completely missed my point, which was what is the repulsive force that completes the second half of the waveform. And i already figured it out. so dont bother.

I guess I was going to edit my original post and get rid of some things.. but anyway Ill reply to this. Right so, quantum leaps are like marks on a ruler. However Id be curious to know why there are only typically 6 levels and a few subshells, Should there not be a very fine structure?? Like exactly inversely proportional to the EM spectrum? ie. an electron emits a say 'visible light - green photon' and drops down to a level indicitative of exactly that much energy lost... Ok think of it like this, a valence electron has a "potential energy" (magnitude of "stored" photon energy) and wavefunction equivilent to an photon of say infrared, so its total potential energy is the maximum amount of energy it can lose to bring it to ground state, that being in this case if it emited an infrared photon. But lets assume that it loses a very small amount of energy by emiting a radio wave, that would drop it to a level (NIF 300THz 1.24eV) - (ELF 30Hz 124feV) Result is it should still be in the infared range just slightly less energy. So my question is how does this fit into a model of only 6 possible levels? I mean it cant quantum leap between a 1s orbital and a 2s orbital by gaining or losing such a small energy photon. Quantum leaps are suppose to be fine structure ie. the smallest possible increment. but the model doesnt support it does it?? Ok thats my reply to your first sentence PE + KE < 0 I dont understand, why would either be considered such? And what does that necessarily have to do with how it is bonded? Ive already said that the bohr model motion is only applicable in situations where no bond is present, and that regardless if its in a bond or not, it has an ocsillatory wavefunction. do you agree? What force is electromagnetic? Are you trying to tell me that EM is the push force? Clearly the Proton coloumb force is the attractive force on electrons... I just want to know what the push force is that makes it a harmonic oscillator... And its definatly not EM so I dont even know in what context you even would mention EM. Unless you meant between electrons.. um Of course I meant between the nucleus and electrons. If I can try and answer my own question, it would seem that a bohr orbital motion is required to give explaination to a semi-classical centrifugal force, our mysterious push force. Of course in molecular bonds, the electron loses this bohr motion and just ocsilates inbetween the two coloumb sources... that part needs refining too because we need to explain why if it does not, find an equilibrim and lose its wavefunction, of course it may very well do so to a large degree. However then we run into the problem of differenciating it between a valence bond electron and a ground state electron based on its wavefunction alone. Sorry I'm rambling to myself here.

If the proton coloumb force is equal on all electrons and is what holds electrons in place..., what "tells" an electron to stay at such and such level and others at another? And at these levels is it correct to assume that they are simple harmonic oscillators ie. "mass of on a spring" ? Like the Loretz oscilator model, rather than the bohr atomic model of orbitals? Actually I have been trying to combine the two, where only if electrons are not in a bond do they have an additional degree of freedom such as a classical orbit, but not quite a complete orbit, just a degree of freedom around the nucleus... where when electrons are shared they form a molecular bond and lose this freedom... right? Another question related to the first, what is the force that shifts momentum back to the nucleus?.. going toward the peak of its amplitude... where in classical physics this could be gravity, obviously its not gravity is it? Can I assume that the force that attracts to nucleus, and the force that pushes from nucleus is not a force with equal rates of falloff? ie. one or the other is stronger at x distance but then with a greater distance that same force is less strong then the other, the reason why it oscilates...?? Because if not and the forces are mathmatically identical, then the electron would find equilibrim and be idle..??