Atom Shape: Experiments, Spheres & Cubes in Physics

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaos' lil bro Order
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atom Shape
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the shape of atoms, particularly whether they can be considered spherical or cubic, and the nature of photon emission from deexcited electrons. Participants explore theoretical models, experimental evidence, and the implications of quantum mechanics on these concepts.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the spherical model of an atom, such as hydrogen, is based on experimental evidence or is merely a visualization tool.
  • There is a suggestion that proving an atom is not a cube could be possible through specific linear combinations of energy eigenstates.
  • Participants discuss the role of quantum electrodynamics (QED) in explaining photon emission, with some noting that it does not provide a geometric model for this process.
  • Concerns are raised about the adequacy of current theories to provide a physical geometric explanation for the interaction between photons and electrons.
  • Some argue that the concept of an atom having a definite shape implies a surface, which complicates the understanding of quantum entities like black holes.
  • There is a contention regarding the interpretation of energy transitions in electrons and whether these transitions can be equated with acceleration, with some participants asserting that such transitions do not involve dynamics in the classical sense.
  • Participants express frustration over the perceived lack of a comprehensive geometric theory that accurately describes photon and electron interactions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the shape of atoms or the nature of photon emission. Multiple competing views and interpretations remain, particularly regarding the adequacy of current models and the need for geometric representations.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in the discussion include the dependence on definitions of shape at the quantum level, the unresolved nature of certain mathematical descriptions, and the varying interpretations of energy transitions in quantum mechanics.

  • #31
interations

Chaos' lil bro Order said:
I cannot accept any theory as complete until it can be represented geometrically. I am frustrated that some people are posting scientific dogma without seriously contemplating my question. Is there no theory or white paper outlining how photons and electrons interact in the real, 'physical' terms of geometry?

Are we still stuck at Feynman's 'Magic bag' analogy?

two things interacting is not known as a physical phenomenon. so every where we describe it different (interacting two objects). A phenomenon is any observable occurrence.
when in normal scales we say "when a ball hits a wall it folds it to some degree", then the wall being folded is a phenomenon which physics is interested in, and not the interaction which is only an assumption. now not typically something to fold but to change or variant, you know.
now the wall that folds, there is something observable about this folding. having this potential to fold is one of its invariance property and to what degree it is being folded, in another sense, is an observable quantity of the wall.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K