Resonate frequency at the quantum level?

[Cadeyrn]

Tesla theorized that everything has a resonate frequency. I wonder if that could extend to the quantum level and atoms. Since atoms are said to vibrate, could it be possible for the nucleus of, say, a helium atom to vibrate at its resonate frequency (if it has one), and eventually 'shatter' like a wine glass does when it is exposed to its resonate frequency? Would it release energy if it does, like when you split an atom?

 

[alxm]

Atoms in a molecule vibrate, yes. In that sense, a helium atom can't vibrate because it's inert - it does not form a bond to any other atom, so there's no restoring force. Think of two balls on a spring vibrating - and now break the spring.

Atomic nuclei probably have some internal modes of vibration as well, but as I'm not a nuclear physicist, I'll plead ignorance on that topic.

In any case, at the quantum scale, these vibrational energy levels are quantized; they can only have specific, discrete values. Your atom in a molecule (for instance) can only reach higher and higher vibrational energy levels through resonance if the difference in energy between one level and the next is the same throughout - true only for a harmonic oscillator. But atoms in a molecule (and likely nucleons in a nuclei) don't vibrate harmonically. At higher energy levels, it becomes anharmonic.

So to use the old analogy: With your wine-glass it's like pushing a swing, you keep pushing at the same moment and the swing goes higher and higher, gaining more energy (until the glass breaks), because it's classical and essentially harmonic (or at least, close enough). Quantum mechanics doesn't allow for 'almost' resonant frequencies; the match has to be exact (or near exact, but that's another story)

To continue the analogy, the situation with an atom in a molecule is like a (somewhat fictional) "anharmonic swing" where, if you keep pushing the swing at regular intervals, it will first go higher, but as it does so, it'll get more and more out of sync with your pushes. Soon enough, you won't be transferring any more energy to the swing. For an atom in a molecule, this will occur well before the bond breaks.

You can still break the bond if it gets enough vibrational energy, it's just that you can't pump it to that level by repeatedly hitting it with its fundamental frequency.

 

[ZapperZ]

Tesla theorized that everything has a resonate frequency. I wonder if that could extend to the quantum level and atoms. Since atoms are said to vibrate, could it be possible for the nucleus of, say, a helium atom to vibrate at its resonate frequency (if it has one), and eventually 'shatter' like a wine glass does when it is exposed to its resonate frequency? Would it release energy if it does, like when you split an atom?

You have heard of MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), haven't you? Well that is derived from NMR - nuclear magnetic resonance.

That should give you plenty of starting phrases to google.

Zz.

 

[Cadeyrn]

Atoms in a molecule vibrate, yes. In that sense, a helium atom can't vibrate because it's inert - it does not form a bond to any other atom, so there's no restoring force. Think of two balls on a spring vibrating - and now break the spring.

Atomic nuclei probably have some internal modes of vibration as well, but as I'm not a nuclear physicist, I'll plead ignorance on that topic.

In any case, at the quantum scale, these vibrational energy levels are quantized; they can only have specific, discrete values. Your atom in a molecule (for instance) can only reach higher and higher vibrational energy levels through resonance if the difference in energy between one level and the next is the same throughout - true only for a harmonic oscillator. But atoms in a molecule (and likely nucleons in a nuclei) don't vibrate harmonically. At higher energy levels, it becomes anharmonic.

So to use the old analogy: With your wine-glass it's like pushing a swing, you keep pushing at the same moment and the swing goes higher and higher, gaining more energy (until the glass breaks), because it's classical and essentially harmonic (or at least, close enough). Quantum mechanics doesn't allow for 'almost' resonant frequencies; the match has to be exact (or near exact, but that's another story)

To continue the analogy, the situation with an atom in a molecule is like a (somewhat fictional) "anharmonic swing" where, if you keep pushing the swing at regular intervals, it will first go higher, but as it does so, it'll get more and more out of sync with your pushes. Soon enough, you won't be transferring any more energy to the swing. For an atom in a molecule, this will occur well before the bond breaks.

You can still break the bond if it gets enough vibrational energy, it's just that you can't pump it to that level by repeatedly hitting it with its fundamental frequency.

And yet in this thread it is agreed that atoms vibrate...https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=311619
So what is the truth?

 

[Cadeyrn]

This link also talks about the nucleus of an atom vibrating...http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983SciAm.248...62B

 

[Bob S]

The Fraunhofer atomic absorption lines in blue skylight are a good example of resonant atomic absorption. See thumbnail. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy)

A very famous and very narrow nuclear resonant absorption line is the Iron 14.3 KeV Fe-57 line used in Mossbauer absorption experiments by Pound and Rebka in the late 1950's.

Bob S

 

[alxm]

And yet in this thread it is agreed that atoms vibrate...https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=311619
So what is the truth?

Atoms in a molecule vibrate as the chemical bonds between the atoms stretch, like balls connected by a spring.

A single atom flying through a vacuum does not vibrate, i.e. move back-and-forth, as there's no force acting on it. That's just Newton's first law; it can't just spontaneously reverse its direction of motion. Nobody in that thread was claiming such a thing.

 

[alxm]

You have heard of MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), haven't you? Well that is derived from NMR - nuclear magnetic resonance.

Well, that's resonance, but it's not a vibrational resonance.
The change of spin states doesn't, after all, correspond to any change in the physical motion. (at least if you ignore various subtle coupling effects)

 

[Cadeyrn]

Atoms in a molecule vibrate as the chemical bonds between the atoms stretch, like balls connected by a spring.

A single atom flying through a vacuum does not vibrate, i.e. move back-and-forth, as there's no force acting on it. That's just Newton's first law; it can't just spontaneously reverse its direction of motion. Nobody in that thread was claiming such a thing.

First, let me sincerely thank you for replying to my question. Second, I understand the differentiation between molecules vibrating and a nucleus of an atom vibrating. Since I have googled it and have found links that talk about the nucleus vibrating I don't understand why you contend they don't. Below is one of the links I have found.

This link also talks about the nucleus of an atom vibrating...http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983SciAm.248...62B

 

[Cadeyrn]

I would also like to contend that something such as a helium atom, which has two protons and one neutron which are individual entities to themselves, bound together by atomic forces, could be the source of the energy that you claim needs to exist for something to vibrate so that Newton's First Law is not violated. Could it not?
I also understand that you qualified your response by stating an atom traveling in a vacuum would have no force to be able to act upon it, so it does not vibrate in its natural state, but what if a force could act upon it, like a laser hitting it? Could that be an outside force which causes it to vibrate?

 

[alxm]

I would also like to contend that something such as a helium atom, which has two protons and one neutron which are individual entities to themselves, bound together by atomic forces, could be the source of the energy that you claim needs to exist for something to vibrate so that Newton's First Law is not violated. Could it not?

When people talk about 'atoms vibrating' they are talking about the vibrational motion of entire atoms relative the inertial frame of the molecule it is in. Nucleons are bound by nuclear forces, and energy and force are two quite different things.

I would contend that you are clutching at straws, making a hand-waving 'argument', rather than admit a free atom does not vibrate, are you not?

 

[Bob S]

When you put a neutral atom in a high-frequency electric field, like a photon transverse electric field, the negative-charged electrons want to go in one direction, and the positive-charged nucleus in the other. If the electric field has the right frequency, the electrons will resonantly absorb the photon and will "jump" to higher vacant electron states. A classic example are the two sodium D-lines at 5890 and 5895 Angstroms.

If the final state is not a vacant state but the unbound free state, there are an infinite number of final states, and the absorption is not resonant. See photoelectric effect for electrons. For nuclei, a 2.2-MeV or higher photon energy on the deuteron nucleus will "shatter" the deuteron (split it up).

Bob S

 

[Cadeyrn]

When people talk about 'atoms vibrating' they are talking about the vibrational motion of entire atoms relative the inertial frame of the molecule it is in. Nucleons are bound by nuclear forces, and energy and force are two quite different things.

I would contend that you are clutching at straws, making a hand-waving 'argument', rather than admit a free atom does not vibrate, are you not?

I wish you would stop talking about molecules and talk about the vibration mentioned here...

"The six vibrations of the atomic nucleus, and the models designed to explain them, are discussed. The mode of excitation of each of the vibrations, the motions of nucleons during the vibrations, and the nature of the restoring forces are addressed. Where the vibration is due to interaction of a wave with a nucleus, the resulting diffraction patterns are examined. The historical development of models explaining the vibrations is traced, and the presently utilized mean-field theory is described. Spin vibrations are treated separately from the dipole, quadrupole, and monopole vibrations; the latter three are geometric deformations, while spin is an intrinsically quantum-mechanical property. ''

This is from this link...http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983SciAm.248...62B ...

As far as for grasping...if you don't check out the link then who is guilty of it? All I am doing is trying to keep it simple. Especially when they talk about..."...the vibration is due to interaction of a wave with a nucleus, the resulting diffraction patterns are examined. "
If you don't know for sure there is no shame in admitting it.

 

[Cadeyrn]

...or this link here which claims..."Nuclear reactions happen at the nucleus of an atom. If you are able to send a subatomic particle, say a neutron, to the nucleus of, say uranium atom, you may start a nuclear reaction. Let us assume that we have uranium 235 isotope, and a slow neutron is send straight into it. Since neutrons do not have electrical charges, it will penetrate the atoms outer and inner electron shells and enters into the nucleus. This neutron will meet with 92 protons and 142 neutrons in the nucleus of U235. Now the nucleus is 144 neutrons and 92 protons vibrating within a very very small volume. Depending on some nucleonic proporties this vibrating nucleus can reject one neutron out. This reaction is called a scattering reaction."...

From...http://en.allexperts.com/q/Nuclear-Power-2462/Nuclear-Chemical-Reactions.htm

Shall I continue to post more links?

I mean, if the nucleus is not vibrating as you claim then why do they use the term here?

 

[Cadeyrn]

When you put a neutral atom in a high-frequency electric field, like a photon transverse electric field, the negative-charged electrons want to go in one direction, and the positive-charged nucleus in the other. If the electric field has the right frequency, the electrons will resonantly absorb the photon and will "jump" to higher vacant electron states. A classic example are the two sodium D-lines at 5890 and 5895 Angstroms.

If the final state is not a vacant state but the unbound free state, there are an infinite number of final states, and the absorption is not resonant. See photoelectric effect for electrons. For nuclei, a 2.2-MeV or higher photon energy on the deuteron nucleus will "shatter" the deuteron (split it up).

Bob S

Thank you, Bob, this is more what I was trying to understand. So what you are saying is that it would take..."For nuclei, a 2.2-MeV or higher photon energy on the deuteron nucleus will "shatter" the deuteron (split it up)."...And if it did, indeed, release energy when it does then most likely the energy released is LESS than the energy it takes to cause it to happen. (?)

 

[Bob S]

Thank you, Bob, this is more what I was trying to understand. So what you are saying is that it would take..."For nuclei, a 2.2-MeV or higher photon energy on the deuteron nucleus will "shatter" the deuteron (split it up)."...And if it did, indeed, release energy when it does then most likely the energy released is LESS than the energy it takes to cause it to happen. (?)

Exactly.
When for example a 4-MeV photon hits a deuteron and splits it up, the combined kinetic energy of the free neutron and proton is about 4 MeV - 2.2 MeV = 1.8 MeV.

Bob S

 

[Cadeyrn]

Exactly.
When for example a 4-MeV photon hits a deuteron and splits it up, the combined kinetic energy of the free neutron and proton is about 4 MeV - 2.2 MeV = 1.8 MeV.

Bob S

So my billion dollar question is (going back to resonate frequencies) if the nucleus of atoms vibrate, could they also have a resonate frequency which would allow their vibration to be reinforced to the point where it becomes so great that the atoms' nucleus "shatters" and releases energy?

 

[Bob S]

In the range between ~ 10 MeV and ~ 30 MeV there is a "giant resonance" in photonuclear reactions in which the entire nucleus (I believe) absorbs the photon and resonates, and usually emits several (one or two) neutrons, sometimes an alpha particle. There is a mention of the giant resonance in

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...kLmrAQ&usg=AFQjCNHJJZ0wukPQ0RXGHTUpQkmyDVaTZA

See page 2. Sorry, I cannot find a good reference to "giant resonance" that is not "pay per view". Do a web search or look for it in a nuclear physics textbook.

Bob S

 

[Cadeyrn]

Thanks for all you help and patience, Bob, I know I probably can't get a definite answer. It was very enlightening to read that the nucleus will absorb the photons and can emit several particles because of it. I had originally wondered about this for a story I am trying to turn into a screenplay. Here is a link about it... http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Porn-Stars-And-Stripes/154388461248893. I tried to imagine how they might be able to accomplish this and here is a link to the section where the character accomplishes it (fiction, of course) ... http://www.pornstarsandstripes.net/scenes-31-40.html .
it is found in chapter 31. Enjoy, and thanks again!