Will a single electron in vacuum vibrate?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter K.J.Healey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electron Vacuum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether a single electron in a vacuum can vibrate, exploring the implications of quantum mechanics, wave-particle duality, and the nature of particles in free space. Participants examine the definitions and conditions under which "vibration" might be applicable to an electron, as well as related concepts in atomic and particle physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the nature of vibrational energy in a single electron, asking what forces might sustain such vibrations.
  • Another participant asserts that all matter exhibits vibrational characteristics due to its particle-wave nature.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that in a free, flat space, a single electron remains in a defined energy-momentum state without "vibrating" unless influenced by a measurement apparatus.
  • Some participants note that the position of an electron is delocalized, which may imply a form of vibration, but caution against equating delocalization with actual vibration.
  • One participant emphasizes that vibration requires the emission of electromagnetic radiation, which does not occur for an electron in a vacuum.
  • Another participant explores whether complete atoms exhibit vibrational properties, suggesting that electrons in quantum wells may have different energy states and temperatures.
  • Discussion includes the nature of atomic energy states, with references to stationary states and transitions that may involve time-varying probability distributions.
  • The role of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) in understanding baryons and their potential vibrations is also raised, contrasting it with electromagnetic interactions.
  • Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is mentioned as a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics that applies regardless of observation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the concept of vibration in relation to a single electron, with no consensus reached on whether an electron can vibrate in a vacuum or under what conditions such vibrations might be defined.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in definitions of vibration, the dependence on measurement and external forces, and the complexities of quantum states and transitions that may not align with classical notions of vibration.

K.J.Healey
Messages
622
Reaction score
0
If so why? What is the spring force that keeps the vibration mode going. I know quantum mechanics, but I don't know if I've ever thought about this specific instance. A single electron, can it have vibrational energy (T & U) and what is its method of vibration.

Thanks for clarifying this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The particle-wave nature of all matter tells us that everything vibrates. Even you.
 
It depends what you mean by "vibrating". If we assume a free, flat space, with a single electron in it, in a certain energy-momentum state, well, that will remain so, then (in free field theory). It is not really "vibrating", it will have the energy and momentum specified by the initial state. From the moment that we are going to "measure" something, the universe will have to contain more than one single electron ; it will need something which will act as "measurement apparatus".
 
It's also important to note that the exact position of an electron is somewhat delocalized. In that sense, all small particles "vibrate." I think this may be what Werg alluded to by his reference to the wave-particle duality.
 
arunma said:
It's also important to note that the exact position of an electron is somewhat delocalized. In that sense, all small particles "vibrate." I think this may be what Werg alluded to by his reference to the wave-particle duality.

But it is misleading to equate delocalization with "vibration". Delocalization simply indicates that one cannot make a good prediction of the exact position of the electron. Vibration, on the other hand, requires the emission of EM radiation, which we do not observe for an "electron in vacuum".

Note that when one solves for the plane-wave state of a free electron, one do not interpret the wavefunction as a "vibration" of that electron. This is entirely different than what one would get when solving for a quantum harmonic oscillator, for example.

Zz.
 
Thanks ZapperZ that's what I was thinking. I know about the quantum "vibration" but that's not vibration, rather probability of measurement as I see it.
So therefor would it be true to say than an electron CANNOT vibrate as a free particle sans outside forces, or for that matter any free particle. (I chose electron due to its lepton simplicity)
That makes sense then, as I see no reason why it would be able to. I just wasn't 100% positive.
Do complete atoms have vibration in the mechanical/EM definition considering they have an electron contained in a quantum well? I'd assume so and thus also assume that an individual H atom can have multiple "temperatures"? Give it enough energy and the electron jumps energy states. But is it simply continuous or is it quantified?
What about Baryons then? Do we know enough about the forces that bind quarks together to know whether or not they can produce intra-system vibrations similar to my assumed electron-proton pair vibration?

I'm sorry if i seem to not know about some basic particle properties. I've never taken a particle/nuclear physics class(though I try to read as much as possible online), and undergraduate quantum only concerns itself with basic hydrogen style systems.
 
Actually, its not just about our measurements. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle applies intrinsically, measured by a conscious observer or not. Thats how nuclear fusion in our sun works.
 
Healey01 said:
Thanks ZapperZ that's what I was thinking. I know about the quantum "vibration" but that's not vibration, rather probability of measurement as I see it.
So therefor would it be true to say than an electron CANNOT vibrate as a free particle sans outside forces, or for that matter any free particle. (I chose electron due to its lepton simplicity)

For a vibration such as a harmonic oscillator, one needs a potential or a force. This is rather obvious because that is what the "potential" term is in the Hamiltonian, be it a classical Hamiltonian/Lagrangian, or the quantum Hamiltonian. If this term is zero, you have a free particle!

Do complete atoms have vibration in the mechanical/EM definition considering they have an electron contained in a quantum well? I'd assume so and thus also assume that an individual H atom can have multiple "temperatures"? Give it enough energy and the electron jumps energy states. But is it simply continuous or is it quantified?

Atoms and molecules have some "resonances". In molecules, the intra-molecular bonding can have a vibrational spectrum. However, for individual atoms, I would hesitate to equate these are "vibration". One do not solve a "vibrational" equation when solving for the energy level of an atom, because the central potential does not look like something one equate with a simple harmonic oscillator.

What about Baryons then? Do we know enough about the forces that bind quarks together to know whether or not they can produce intra-system vibrations similar to my assumed electron-proton pair vibration?

The bound state of quarks are way different than electromagnetic interactions. They are governed by QCD, a completely different set of rules than QED.

Zz.
 
Healey01 said:
Do complete atoms have vibration in the mechanical/EM definition considering they have an electron contained in a quantum well?

In an atom (such as hydrogen) that is in a state of definite energy (such as the ground state), the electron has a probability distribution function that does not vary with time. We call these stationary states.

In an atom that is in a superposition of two (or more) definite-energy states (such as an atom undergoing a transition between two energy states), the electron has a p.d.f. that does vary with time. It sloshes or pulsates with a frequency that corresponds to the energy difference: [itex]f = \Delta E / h[/itex], which is the frequency of the light that is emitted or absorbed in the transition.
 
  • #10
ZapperZ said:
But it is misleading to equate delocalization with "vibration". Delocalization simply indicates that one cannot make a good prediction of the exact position of the electron. Vibration, on the other hand, requires the emission of EM radiation, which we do not observe for an "electron in vacuum".

Note that when one solves for the plane-wave state of a free electron, one do not interpret the wavefunction as a "vibration" of that electron. This is entirely different than what one would get when solving for a quantum harmonic oscillator, for example.

Zz.

Yes, you are correct. I hope I haven't made anyone think that the quantum uncertainty in an electron's position contributes to its kinetic energy.
 
  • #11
Gib Z said:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle applies intrinsically, measured by a conscious observer or not. Thats how nuclear fusion in our sun works.
...If hydrogen falls into a star, and nobody is there to see the colour of the light, will nuclei still tunnel together and produce helium? :wink:
 
  • #12
yes?... :\ I would think so...there's a lot of other stars in the universe that we don't see, and I would think that they also produce helium..
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K