The inconsistent quantum physics and magnetic theory

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between quantum theory and magnetic theory, particularly how the behavior of electrons in quantum mechanics aligns with the generation of magnetic fields in atoms. Participants explore the implications of quantum mechanics on classical concepts such as electron orbits and magnetic moments, raising questions about consistency and interpretation.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about how electrons, described by quantum theory as existing in probabilities rather than fixed orbits, can still generate a current that produces magnetic fields.
  • It is noted that orbital angular momentum and spin contribute to magnetic fields, but these concepts do not align with classical definitions of motion.
  • A participant mentions the zitterbewegung interpretation of electron movement as a more visualizable concept compared to traditional explanations.
  • There is a suggestion that the inability to fully explain orbital angular momentum in quantum terms indicates a potential unsolvability of the issue at present.
  • One participant clarifies that the magnetic field in iron atoms arises from the intrinsic spins of valence electrons rather than their orbital motion.
  • Another participant highlights that the Schrödinger equation can yield results that resemble classical orbital motion, despite not describing actual orbits.
  • Concerns are raised about the physical interpretation of magnetic moments in quantum theory, questioning how probabilities can lead to measurable magnetic effects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the relationship between quantum mechanics and classical magnetic theory. Multiple competing views are presented, with ongoing questions about the interpretations and implications of quantum behavior on magnetic phenomena.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in understanding the transition from classical to quantum descriptions, particularly regarding the definitions and implications of angular momentum and magnetic moments. The nature of the semiclassical limit is also mentioned but remains unclear to some participants.

hds123523000
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
This question bothers me a long time and finally I decided to ask here.

The classic theory fails to deal with electron orbiting around atomic nucleus because energy has been emitted if we assume electron continuously orbits which leads to the collapse of the electron-nucleus model. But in real life the model is really stable. So, physicist proposed that electrons don't orbit continuously, instead, appear with possibility (quantum theory), which seems solved this problem perfectly.

However, in magnetic theory, the origin of the magnetic field of atoms is from the current of electrons. I am wondering if it is consistent with the quantum theory mentioned above, which is the possibility of electrons and doesn't generate current. It is quite difficult for me to think that electrons appear in possibility (at not completely random position) and generate current at the same time.

Is any expert can explain it to me? Many thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are still quantities such as "orbital angular momentum", spin, etc... that generates magnetic fields (in fact, that's how these are defined), but if you look at what they are, these are not in the same classical sense.

The problem here is that ALL our measurements are classical. So we have this thing called a magnetic field, we know that some atoms have magnetic moment, but the quantum description that produces such field does NOT look like charges moving around in circles. So at some point, we have to accept, at least for now, that magnetic fields is the measurable outcome of such a description.

Zz.
 
Perhaps this just gives more interesting questions rather than an answer, but the zitterbewegung interpretation of electron movement at least is more readily visualizable than the usual non-explanations.
 
ZapperZ, I think you spotted out more interesting points. Yes, we can't explain orbital angular momentum in a quantum concept.

So, this is something you think unsolvable, at least now. Does everyone agree? Or I missed something? Thanks for suggestion.
 
hds123523000 said:
ZapperZ, I think you spotted out more interesting points. Yes, we can't explain orbital angular momentum in a quantum concept.

So, this is something you think unsolvable, at least now. Does everyone agree? Or I missed something? Thanks for suggestion.

I gave the standard answer based on what you can find in QM texts. I assumed that this is what being asked for here. There are many other formulation and interpretation of QM that will offer varying explanations.

Zz.
 
hds123523000 said:
However, in magnetic theory, the origin of the magnetic field of atoms is from the current of electrons. I am wondering if it is consistent with the quantum theory mentioned above, which is the possibility of electrons and doesn't generate current.
1. The magnetic field of a iron atom is due to the aligned intrinsic spins of the valence electrons, and not their orbital motion.

2. There are also orbital magnetic moments given by mu=-e L/2mc, even though the electron is not moving in a classical orbit.
 
Hi, Meir Achuz

Can you explain your point 2 more deeply. For example, why it has such magnetic momentum but doest obey the classic orbit? Where this magnetic moment originally from?
 
hds123523000 said:
Can you explain your point 2 more deeply. For example, why it has such magnetic momentum but doest obey the classic orbit? Where this magnetic moment originally from?

We get these numbers by solving Schrödinger equation which does not describe any orbital motiom for the electrons. However, in the smiclassical limit, Schrödinger equation provides us with "picture" consists of something that look like "orbital motion" plus quantum correction. For this reason we still use the term "orbital angular momentum" to describe that part of ANGULAR MOMENTUM which (mathematically) looks like the classical angular momentum.

Sam
 
If you calculate the energy shift in a uniform magnetic field B, the answer is
[tex]\Delta E=-e{\bf L\cdot B}/2mc}[/tex]. No mention is said about the electron's classical orbit. Thinking classically about a quantum system is like trying to understand a fluorescent light in terms of a kerosene lamp.
 
  • #10
Hi, Sam

Your reply is interesting and a little beyond my understanding. You think the megnetic can be generated without electron orbiting? I think everything is out of a physical reason. But what is the physical reason of that magic equation.

You mentioned the semiclassical limit. I am wondering what is that?
 
  • #11
Meir Achuz said:
If you calculate the energy shift in a uniform magnetic field B, the answer is
[tex]\Delta E=-e{\bf L\cdot B}/2mc}[/tex]. No mention is said about the electron's classical orbit. Thinking classically about a quantum system is like trying to understand a fluorescent light in terms of a kerosene lamp.

Meriz
In your opinion, if I abandon the classic theory. Where is magnetic moment from physically in quantum theory? The possibility can generate magnetic moment? It is difficult to convince me in that way.

Best
 
  • #12
hds123523000 said:
Meriz
In your opinion, if I abandon the classic theory. Where is magnetic moment from physically in quantum theory? The possibility can generate magnetic moment? It is difficult to convince me in that way.

Best
The assertion"God does not play dice!" was found to be wrong many years ago. Time to move on(or find a more comprehensible reality :-p).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K