Why do electrons revolve so fast?

nitsuj

Let me give the context of why I say there is no "scale" for speed. Comparatively, I think there is no "scale". Individually clearly there is a "scale". That is the scale is arbitrarily "placed".

At any time I'm okay to say I'm not moving, in effect re-coordinating my measure of length / time comparatively, in that sense the "scale" is not applicable universally.

That being said individually, as in a single FoR there is a speed "scale" of 0 - >c.

You said;
"...but having a scale and being relative are not mutually exclusive." Because "Having a scale and being relative are different properties."

That is a much much better way to put it.

Especially if "scale" is defined here as measure of proper time / length, and specifically not the calculated speed. Similar the OPs confusion regarding what speed looks like and what speed is measured. (specifically it's frequency of events or "happenings" confused with measured speed)

I did exclude the fact there is a scale of 0-c for every FoR (due to how dimensions are measured), and focused on the fact it can be applied to any object (considering relative motion).

So in that sense, from the perspective of SR, I see speed as an "appearance" when ....Universally Speaking (woo hoo RHCP!!), Both from a visual & measurement perspective, but not from a proper measurement perspective.

Not specific to your post Dalespam, but telling the OP that the electron is not an object of position, and describing it as having a speed is pretty confusing. Stick to one physical reality, from there grow it into why moving so fast (having low mass) makes exact predictions probabilities. (sorry for the poor choice of words, think the meaning is still there)

DaleSpam

OK, I can see that.

You can measure all sorts of properties about an electron, speed, position, distance, angular velocity, ... (all relative to the nucleus). For each one of those properties you can construct an operator and apply it to the wavefunction to get an expectation. The HUP limits the uncertainty in certain pairs of these operators, but doesn't mean that we cannot get expectation values for them. In certain orbitals the expectation value of the speed can be quite high. There is nothing contradictory in saying that and also saying that the uncertainty in the position is quite high.

nitsuj

I am starting to wonder why physics discounts the dichotomy of appearance between a wave & a particle. In what sense is it not a point particle, that appears as a wave when "stretched" across a distance when in motion, in effect changing dimensional shape into something measured as space like, where the position of the "end" of the wave is simultaneous with the position of the "front" of the wave. Going even more arbitrary, a particle looks like a wave if the time "component" is "removed".

Why is the way we measure time / length carried over into observations of particle(time)/waves(length) when the technique is accurate but lacks a determinate prediction?

I ask this because the measure of time / length is defined by c, but fails works differently in microscopic observations. This makes me wonder if c is the "probability". More clear if I throw it in a postulate, the one way speed of c (keep in mind time/length is defined by c) is a probability calculated by whatever and is an accurate prediction of the probability, and it's always the same. the two way speed is exact for the same reasoning as the mechanics of "entanglement".

I'll have to check out Naty1's links, I'd guess it'd cover these elementary misunderstandings of mine.