- #26

- 15,310

- 6,705

Generally the expectation values for the distance between proton and electron in a hydrogen atom gets larger when exciting the atom from its ground state.

- B
- Thread starter Iceking20
- Start date

- #26

- 15,310

- 6,705

Generally the expectation values for the distance between proton and electron in a hydrogen atom gets larger when exciting the atom from its ground state.

- #27

- 30,071

- 9,253

Yes, and that should be a red flag to you that the question that seems fine to you when expressed in ordinary language, isn't actually well-defined. The only way to fix that is to learn the math and figure out what question expressed in math you want to ask. @vanhees71 gave one example of such a question, and gave the answer to it.I'm struggling to express the question in terms of mathematics

- #28

DrDu

Science Advisor

- 6,032

- 759

Why not? Position, speed and acceleration are observables in QM, too, and the squared wavefunctions in the respective representations yield the probabilities to observe a given position, speed or acceleration.For bound electrons (the ones that move from one energy state to another in an atom) it makes no sense to talk about their position, speed, or acceleration.

- #29

- 30,071

- 9,253

Yes, but they don't all commute, so no quantum state has exact values for all of them.Position, speed and acceleration are observables in QM

Also, unless you are actually observing them, you can't say any of them have definite values, just as for any QM observable. And we don't actually observe the positions or speeds or accelerations of bound electrons; we only measure the changes in energy as they go from one energy level to another. (We don't even measure the energy levels themselves directly, only the differences between them, as shown in the frequencies of the photons emitted or absorbed in the transitions.)

- #30

- 13,690

- 6,183

If you take an electron in the ground state of the Hydrogen atom and measure its total angular momentum you get 0 with 100% probability.I don't understand. In quantum physics the electron is a point particle (true or false?). So it arises the question how does it move? Does it move like a point particle along a curved path (mith multiple zig zags e.t.c) which we just cant determine (because we don't have yet the appropriate theory) and so we can speak only with probabilities about its location and movement? Or what does it hold about the movement of electron in the regime of quantum physics?

The expected value of its kinetic energy is, however, non zero.

What sort of orbit is that, you might ask? Well, it's a quantum mechanical "orbit", which cannot be reasonably explained in classical terms. In particular, in this system it makes little sense to think of the electron "moving" at all.

- #31

- 2,987

- 1,043

Some things don't seem to make sense in quantum mechanics. I am sure you ll tell me that they don't make "classical" sense but they make "quantum mechanical" sense. Seems to me one has to redefine fundamental concepts such as the concept of movement in order for QM to make sense.If you take an electron in the ground state of the Hydrogen atom and measure its total angular momentum you get 0 with 100% probability.

The expected value of its kinetic energy is, however, non zero.

What sort of orbit is that, you might ask? Well, it's aIn particular, in this system it makes little sense to think of the electron "moving" at all.quantum mechanical "orbit", which cannot be reasonably explained in classical terms.

- #32

- 30,071

- 9,253

And if you can point to something in the math that you think deserves to be called "movement" and give a good argument, you might get such a redefinition accepted. But you're not going to do it by just saying "seems to me".Seems to me one has to redefine fundamental concepts such as the concept of movement in order for QM to make sense.

- #33

- 2,987

- 1,043

No there isn't anything in the math about movement, but somethings just don't make sense. Like we talk about position and momentum in HUP, but a particle doesn't have definite position and velocity and it is like we are forbidden to talk about its "movement". How does this makes sense to you I don't know but it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Maybe you understand it as the particle being simultaneously in many places with a different probability in each place. But this understanding certainly doesn't make classical sense, might make quantum mechanical sense though.And if you can point to something in the math that you think deserves to be called "movement" and give a good argument, you might get such a redefinition accepted. But you're not going to do it by just saying "seems to me".

- #34

- 30,071

- 9,253

That's one pair of non-commuting observables to which the HUP applies, but it's by no means the only such pair.we talk about position and momentum in HUP

You're right, it doesn't. Welcome to quantum mechanics, where the first lesson is: the world is not classical. Classical physics is an approximation that works well in some domains, but that's all it is. You should not expect everything to make sense in classical terms.this understanding certainly doesn't make classical sense

- #35

- 30,071

- 9,253

The OP appears to be gone and the thread topic has been thoroughly covered. Thread closed.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 808

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 772

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 813