What Does Kenneth W. Ford Mean by More Energetic Particles in The Quantum World?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter daisey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electric
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Kenneth W. Ford's book "The Quantum World" discusses the behavior of particles, specifically in relation to their energy levels and interactions. On page 22, Ford states that "more energetic particles don't pair up as the result of electrical forces; they merely deviate from a straight path." This indicates that particles with higher momentum, such as certain fundamental particles, do not form stable pairs due to their kinetic energy, which causes them to scatter rather than attract. The discussion clarifies that this concept applies to both heavier atoms and fundamental particles like Muons and Tauons.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic quantum mechanics concepts
  • Familiarity with particle physics terminology
  • Knowledge of momentum and energy relationships in physics
  • Basic comprehension of atomic structure and forces
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of Muons and Tauons in particle physics
  • Study the concept of momentum in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the interactions of charged particles at high energies
  • Explore the implications of energy levels on atomic stability
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators in quantum mechanics, and researchers interested in particle interactions and energy dynamics will benefit from this discussion.

daisey
Messages
131
Reaction score
3
I am reading Kenneth W. Ford's book entitled "The Quantum World". On page 22 under the introduction section to Charge, he talks about how charges lead to pairing. In that paragraph he states...

"The hydrogen atom...consists of an electron and a proton held together by electrical attraction. More energetic particles don't pair up as the result of electrical forces; they merely deviate from a straight path."

Can someone please explain what Kenneth means by the statement in RED?

When he talks about "more energetic particles", is talking about atoms with more mass such as such as helium, oxygen, etc. Or is he talking about other heavier fundamental particles (Muons and Tauons)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By more energetic, he means having so much energy that they are not bound, but scatter off each other.
 
So he is saying other particles that are oppositely charged just scatter off each other? He is talking about other fundamental particles?
 
Even particles of opposite charge can scatter if their kinetic energies are too large to get bound.
 
If two other types of particles are not moving (no kenetic energy), and are oppositely charged, will they also attract like protons and electrons
 
daisey said:
I am reading Kenneth W. Ford's book entitled "The Quantum World". On page 22 under the introduction section to Charge, he talks about how charges lead to pairing. In that paragraph he states...

"The hydrogen atom...consists of an electron and a proton held together by electrical attraction. More energetic particles don't pair up as the result of electrical forces; they merely deviate from a straight path."

Can someone please explain what Kenneth means by the statement in RED?

When he talks about "more energetic particles", is talking about atoms with more mass such as such as helium, oxygen, etc. Or is he talking about other heavier fundamental particles (Muons and Tauons)?

"More energetic particles" means "particles with a higher momentum". It's similar to things orbiting around the sun. If an object has a velocity that's too high, it'll leave the solar system and never return, but if the velocity's not too high, it'll just orbit around the sun in an ellipse, or possibly a circle. (I'm not saying electrons orbit nuclei like planets -- they don't -- but energy-wise, it's the same idea.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 135 ·
5
Replies
135
Views
11K