Understanding Nuclear Fusion and the Role of Photons in Energy Production

[Eraniamayomii]

Hello. Please let me start off by saying that I'm not very smart. I know I am most likely going to embarrass myself, but I hope that I do learn a lot, and maybe can one day be smart enough to not have to ask such obvious questions. Until then I'm truly sorry.


Ok. Recently I have been greatly interested in the process of nuclear fusion. It is my understanding that all matter in the universe other than hydrogen is the result of nuclear fusion. I guess I consider everything in the Universe to be star dust.



So protium is made up of one electron, and one proton. The mass of each protium being 1.007825 u.

So with luck, and enough energy; one of the protium are transformed.through inverse beta decay into a neutron with an electron neutrino, and we can't forget the anti-electron..

So now we have an electron and proton, and a neutron, neutrino and anti-electron from the two protium

So then the anti-electron hits the electron which turns them into photons.

So far two protium transform into one deuterium while simultaneously giving off 2 photons, and one neutrino.

So now a deuterium combines with a proton from a protium while the electron from the protium finds an anti electron, and forms a photon.. With one neutron, and two proton, we now have He3.


With little luck, the He3 hits another He3. They combine, and lose two protons. These protons find an electron, and are now protium. The two neutron, and two proton form He4.


In conclusion, the photons released throughout the process is the energy, and I'm guessing light that is given off from the sun. Neutrinos are shot out from the sun also, but they are a particle I think, and move at a speed slightly less that of light.





My ultimate question is this:

I am under the impression that all light is made up of photons. What I can't understand is how can a photon be made with something as simple as fire? Even electricity.

Electrons bump into each other, but where does the random positron come from that is needed to create a photon?

I have been told that all mass can ve converted to energy. E = mc2 right? It seems to me that only electrons and anti electrons can be transformed into a photon. Does this not imply that only electrons can transform into the pure form of energy known as light?

I was told by my father that the light we see from fire is because oxygen in the air is pulling carbon from the wood. The ionization is the light that I was seeing. Is there maybe different kinds of light?



I know this question must come off as obvious, but I am really lost. I'm getting to the point where it's either too easy, and I already know, or it's way over my head. "Kinda like relativity."

Anyways, it's 3am so I should get to bed. I wanted to add up all the mass of the particles involved in nuclear fusion to see exactly how much mass is lost into nutrinos, and photons, but I'm on my blackberry, and the calculator on here is not big enough. Maybe another time. :)


Goodnight, and thank you for your patience.

Eraniamayomi

 

[pallidin]

For anyone confused about the term protium, like I was, this is from http://www.protiumenergy.com/home.html


"The scientific name for what we commonly refer to as Hydrogen is Protium. It is the most common isotope of the element hydrogen and has one proton, one electron but no neutrons. It is denoted by the symbol ¹H. Other isotopes of hydrogen are the rarer Deuterium which has one proton, one neutron and one electron, and the radioactive isotope Tritium which has one proton, two neutrons and one electron. You may be interested to know that Hydrogen is the only element that has unique names for each of its isotopes."

 

[pallidin]

Anyway, to help answer your question(I'm no expert), when a bound electron goes from a higher energy state to a lower one, a photon is released... it's frequency dependent on that energy state change relationship.

 

[Astronuc]

The fusion process takes place in the core of a star (or Sun) where temperatures and densities are high enough. The principal process is the proton-proton cycle.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/ppchain.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/procyc.html

Two protons fuse to form a deuteron (and positron (anti-electron) and neutrino). That's the origin of the positron which will find an electron and annihilate producing two 0.511 MeV gamma rays.

The deuteron fuses with a proton to form He-3 and another gamma ray is released.

Two He-3 nuclei then fuse to form He-4 and 2 protons, or a proton may fuse with He-3 to form He-4, another positron and neutrino.

In addition, electrons will scatter off the larger nuclei and produce bremsstrahlung radiation.


Also, the sun does contain other elements and a small fraction of fusion is due to the CNO cycle, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/cno.html - and that also produces gammas and positrons. In addition, the ionization and recombination process will produce X-rays.


Fire is a combustion (chemical) process, which release the atomic bond energies as fuel molecules combine with oxygen molecules (exchange electrons), as opposed to fusion which is a nuclear process. Fire also produces light, but no X-rays or gamma rays. The heat both fire and fusion are manifest in the kinetic energy of the products, which for fire is on the order of 0.1-0.3 eV, but for fusion is on the order of MeV.

 

[Eraniamayomii]

Dear Astronuc

Your response was VERY informative. Thank you very much for your explanation. I must ask though. The light that the fire produces. Are those photons? I have a feeling that they are not due to the fact that no positron exists to combine with an electron. This leads me to believe that the light produced by a fire is not composed of photons, which in-turn makes me question what light is made of. I am under the impression that light is composed of photons. False?

Thanks again everyone for your help. I know I must seem clueless.

Love,

Eraniamayomii

 

[Dale]

Photons are produced in many other interactions besides a nuclear fusion reaction! Essentially, any time a charged particle changes its state a photon will be released or absorbed. Photons are released when a charged particle accelerates, vibrates, changes quantum state, in many nuclear reactions, in blackbody thermal radiation, etc.

In a fire I believe that the visible flame is caused by small pieces of material (soot) which are hot enough to emit blackbody radiation in the visible spectrum. The heat is from a chemical reaction, not a nuclear reaction.

 

[Eraniamayomii]

Dear DaleSpam

I have been doing some research on charged particles, and although I feel a little more comfortable; I am, for the most part, lost.

To my understanding, a charged particle can be any type of matter in the universe with a charge. Any matter can produce photons as long as it comes into contact with its anti-particle. This does make sense though I will have to look into it at an atomic level deeper at another time to get a full understanding. I think this is off subject though.

I also did some reading on blackbody radiation. Can we conclude that this is the same as thermal radiation? In any case, I feel a little more comfortable with thermal radiation also.

I guess my next question is how exactly is a photon produced other then coming into contact with its anti-particle? I understand that a photon can be produced when a charged particle changges its state, but is this due to that fact that a proton turns into a neutron emiting a positron which comes into contact with an electron? Am I close?

Thank you very much for teaching me, and I'm learning alot. I really do appreciate all of your help on this extremely confusing matter.



Love,

Eraniamayomii





P.S. Sorry about the poor spelling. I am typing this on my computer which hasn't a spell check, unlike my cell phone in which I normally use.







*Edit*

I was just talking to my father, and I am not sure if he is correct, or if I understand so one more question.

Is inverse beta decay "electron capture" the only way a photon can be formed? Is a proton being converted into a neuton the only way a photon can be produced?

 

[Astronuc]

Light is basically photons. Light (visible light) is that group of photons in the small part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is visible to our eyes (wavelengths in the range of ~400-700 nm).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems1.html

But in general light (photons) have a broad range of energies from very high to low: gammas, X-rays, UV, visible light, infrared, microwave, radiowave

Gammas are those photons which result from nuclear or subatomic reactions, e.g. gamma decay of a nucleus, or annihilation, as in the annihilation of positron+electron.

X-rays are photons arising from electrons falling in the K or L shells of atoms which have had at least one K or L electron ejected by a collision.

Brehmsstrahlung (breaking) radiation is cause by acceleration of electrons near nuclei, where the electrons have too high an energy to be captured.

Fire produces visible light and infrared because the chemical reactions have very low energy per reaction compared to nuclear reactions, which I mentioned earlier.

Microwave and radiowaves are caused by electrons oscillating in a conductor (antenna). They have very long wavelengths and consequently relative low frequency and low energy, compare to visible light.

With regard to matter-antimatter, the electron+positron annihilation produces two gamma rays of ~ 0.511 MeV each, which is equivalent to the rest mass of an electron.

A proton-antiproton annihilation produces pions, which decay to muons (or in some cases gammas), which decay to electrons (and neutrinos and anti-neutrinos)

This might help

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/hadron.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/lepton.html

 

[Eraniamayomii]

Dear Astronuc

Thank you for your explanation, but can you please specify how, exactly a photon is produced in each of these situations?


Love,

Eraniamayomii

 

[malawi_glenn]

Well to answer 'how' a photon is produced there, requires quite much Quantum Electrodynamics (which is graduate level class in physics).

But I can give you a classical 'analogy': A charge that accelerates (changes is velocity vector) will emit EM radiation (photons in quantum physics), this is covered in standard electrodynamics courses in school. Now this can be transferred to gamma rays from radioactive nuclei. The configuration of protons in the nucleus can change, since there are many different possible configurations. But only one configuration is the lowest one (the ground state) and physical systems strives to reach the lowest energy possible. So in order to that in this situation is to change its proton distribution in 6dim-phase-space (space and momentum) - changing this leads to changes in velocities of charges, and photon(s) will be emitted.

Same 'argument' can be used to 'Brehmsstrahlung'.

 

[Dale]

I guess my next question is how exactly is a photon produced other then coming into contact with its anti-particle? I understand that a photon can be produced when a charged particle changges its state, but is this due to that fact that a proton turns into a neutron emiting a positron which comes into contact with an electron? Am I close?

No, this is not what I meant at all. I meant, for example, the change in state when an electron jumps from one orbital to another. There is no anti-particle involved, simply the movement of an electron from one shell to another. Similarly for the electrons that move back and forth in an antenna. In each case they change their state (orbital position in the first case, state of motion for the second case), and with that change in state there is a change in energy. In order to conserve energy a photon is either absorbed or released.

Think of photons primarily as the universal way to conserve energy. When a particle collides with its anti-particle there is a lot of energy so a high-energy photon is produced. When an electron goes to a lower orbital there is a medium amount of energy, so a medium-energy photon is produced. When an electron accelerates in an antenna there is a very small change in energy, so very low energy photons are produced.

 

[Eraniamayomii]

Dear DaleSpam

Your explanation is definitely informative. I feel like I'm starting to understand. I must say though that I have a lot of questions, so for this; I'm sorry.

After reading your response, my next question is; when an electron moves from one level around the atom to another, and produces a photon, there has to be mass lost. Please confirm there is mass lost. If not, then please explain, because for a photon to be produced, there has to be mass lost. I hope. If there isn't, then I'm WAY off.

Thanks for your patcience.


Love,

Eraniamayomii

 

[D.Richmond]

I just read that photons and gravitons are massless. I don't believe that an electron loses mass when disturbed...If I am wrong, the mass will return the next time the electron is bumped,,,Comments..right? wrong?

 

[Eraniamayomii]

Dear D. Richmond

You are correct in the sense that photons havn't any mass. This, I believe, is because there are pure energy. Photons move at the speed of light. Something no matter can do. Even neutrinos which have mass move at slightly less then the speed of light.

I think you forget Einsteins famous equation E = MC^2, where E is energy, M is mass, and C is the speed of light in a vacuum. As you can see, you need mass to get energy.

This is why I'm a little confused about this issue also.


Love,

Eraniamayomii

 

[malawi_glenn]

After reading your response, my next question is; when an electron moves from one level around the atom to another, and produces a photon, there has to be mass lost. Please confirm there is mass lost. If not, then please explain, because for a photon to be produced, there has to be mass lost. I hope. If there isn't, then I'm WAY off.

Well when an electron in an atom goes into a lower state and emits a photon, the atom will be more bound and hence have lower mass that it had before, so you are correct here.

 

[Eraniamayomii]

Dear Malawi_Glenn

Thank you for your imput. Can you please be a little bit more specific as to where in the atom this mass is lost? I know that inverse beta decay an electron, and positron are lose. In this case, an electron is simply shifted from one electron cloud level to another. So where in the atom does the mass come from to produce this low energy photon.


Love,

Eraniamayomii

 

[malawi_glenn]

The constituents in a bound system has lower mass then the free constituents, see:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=250621

That thread is about the atomic nucleus, but the same physics is applicable to atoms aswell. Also this is valid for the solar system, so it is a general physical feature.

 

[edguy99]

Dear Malawi_Glenn

Thank you for your imput. Can you please be a little bit more specific as to where in the atom this mass is lost? I know that inverse beta decay an electron, and positron are lose. In this case, an electron is simply shifted from one electron cloud level to another. So where in the atom does the mass come from to produce this low energy photon.


Love,

Eraniamayomii

I also am confused on this matter - say an electron goes from one energy level to a lower one and emits a red photon:

An electron mass of 9.109 382 15(45) × 10–31 kg translates to about 511,000 Electron Volts.

A typical red light photon is 1 Electron Volt.

Is it proper to visualize the electron as giving up a photon as it falls from one energy level to another, and that the Electron would now be 510,999 Electron volts. If not this, then where did the extra energy come from?

Is it a given that the electron mass does not change or can this be viewed a different way?

 

[Eraniamayomii]

Dear Malawi_Glenn

Thank you for your answer, and attempt to help me understand, but your response is telling me nothing. I'm guessing I am not smart enough to understand what it is your trying to get across. Sorry.

In any note, can someone please explain to me where the mass comes from in a way I can understand. Please remember that I"m in 8th grade, and havn't any scientific classes to assist me. I'm trying my best to understand though, and I do appreciate the help.


Love,

Eraniamayomii

 

[malawi_glenn]

The electron mass you are referring to is when the electron is free.

In bound systems you have binding energy, which is negative, and makes the system as a whole to get mass lower than the mass of its constutients. You can not say that ' a proton in a deutron has mass 0.98proton_free" and similar.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Dear Malawi_Glenn

Thank you for your answer, and attempt to help me understand, but your response is telling me nothing. I'm guessing I am not smart enough to understand what it is your trying to get across. Sorry.

In any note, can someone please explain to me where the mass comes from in a way I can understand. Please remember that I"m in 8th grade, and havn't any scientific classes to assist me. I'm trying my best to understand though, and I do appreciate the help.


Love,

Eraniamayomii

Try to follow the steps on the links which I posted on the thread which I linked you to. Also, the language of physics is math, so sometimes things are not 'intuitive' in an ordinary life manner. It's just how things is, eventually, you'll understand what is meant by binding energy and mass defect etc.

If you are in the 8th grade and asking questions on how radiation is created in quantum mechanical systems, you must know that such things are done in advanced graduate classes at university level (things you when you are doing your PhD). IF these things could be understood by an 8th grader without any academic physics, then I could just tell you which books you could pick up, but now things in real life is that in order to understand something, you must understand something else, which requires something else, etc. It is a gradually increasing process in knowledge.

 

[Eraniamayomii]

Dear Malawi_Glenn

I am currently under the impression that a photon can be made several ways. The main way is through inverse beta decay when a protium in the sun has it's proton transformed into a neutron while it loses a positron, and a neutrino. The positron then finds an electron, and forms a photon.

Currently I am working to understand how a an electron can change levels from one level of an orbital to another, and create a photon.

I have read that as an electron changes states in an electron cloud, a photon is picked up or lost.

My question for the moment is; where does the mass come from when a photon is emited in an electron cloud?

I realize that this is advanced stuff, but I have a great interest. I want to be able to look at the sun and know exactly what I'm seeing. I want to be able to look at fire, and completely understand what is happening down to an atomic level. Please don't make me wait until grad school to learn this.


Love,

Eraniamayomii

 

[Dale]

when an electron moves from one level around the atom to another, and produces a photon, there has to be mass lost.

I just read that photons and gravitons are massless. I don't believe that an electron loses mass when disturbed...If I am wrong, the mass will return the next time the electron is bumped,,,Comments..right? wrong?

Well when an electron in an atom goes into a lower state and emits a photon, the atom will be more bound and hence have lower mass that it had before, so you are correct here.

Hi Eraniamayomii and D.Richmond

This principle, mentioned by malawi_glenn, is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy" , and is a general principle that occurs in all physical systems including nucleii, atoms, molecules, and macroscopic systems like solar systems and galaxies. I recommend going over the Wikipedia link and trying to understand that, and ask any follow-up questions you have.

The mass of an unbound electron (or proton, etc.) is constant, it is only when you consider an atom as a whole that you find that the mass of the whole atom is less than the sum of the masses of the various unbound constituents. So it is not that the electron specifically loses mass, but rather the atom as a whole loses mass when the electron drops to a lower-energy orbital. Thus, there does not need to be the anhilation of any particle nor the involvement of any anti-particles in order to create these photons.

 

[Eraniamayomii]

Dear DaleSpam

You are basically telling me that when an electron drops to a lower orbital, it loses mass. When an electron rises an orbital level, it gains mass.

Is this correct?

If so, then is it safe to say that the atom as a whole becomes more dense as it loses mass due to the electron dropping a level in it's orbital?

It almost makes sense that as an electron drops a state, it loses a photon simultaneously in order to keep its energy-mass ratio correct. I believe this is called the uncertainty principle, though I may be wrong.

It makes sense also, that as an electron rises a state, it gains a photon in order to keep its, in a way of saying; balance. Is this correct?

None the less, the photon that is emited must come from somewhere specific within the atom. Am I correct?


Love,

Eraniamayomii

 

[Dale]

You are basically telling me that when an electron drops to a lower orbital, it loses mass. When an electron rises an orbital level, it gains mass.

Is this correct?

Almost. When an electron in an atom drops to a lower orbital the atom loses mass. Since the protons, neutrons, and electrons are all bound in an atom you cannot measure one or the other independently in order to determine if the mass was lost in one particular part or the other. Instead, all that you can really say is that the atom as a whole has less mass than the sum of the parts.

I think there is a certain elegance in the idea that an atom is, in such a fundamental way, not just a collection of subatomic particles.

 

[Eraniamayomii]

So. In the process of nuclear fusion, photons are produced from inverse beta decay. This happens when a proton is transformed into a neutron releasing a neutrino, and positron. The positron combines with an electron, and makes a photon.

In the process of blackbody radiation also known as thermal radiation, a photon is emitted when an electron inside an orbital cloud changes its state becoming less energetic. The atom loses mass. This mass is converted into energy or a photon.

Correct?

If so, my question would have to be; what stimuli is needed to change the state of an electron in an orbital?


Love,

Eraniamayomii

 

[edguy99]

If so, my question would have to be; what stimuli is needed to change the state of an electron in an orbital?


Love,

Eraniamayomii

None, as I understand it, unless there is an energy barrier stopping the electron from falling into the lowest level. Ie. if an electron is hit by a photon and knocked to a higher level, it simply falls back and emits a photon unless some other electron beats it into that level or it is knocked a very long ways away.

BTW, nice questions - I learned something too.

 

[Eraniamayomii]

Dear edguy99

There has to be a stimuli for an electron to change its state. There has to be some kind of external force. If not, we would have spontaneous energy emitting from everything. Maby I havn't the understanding toward what your trying to say. Can you please elaborate?


Love,

Eraniamayomii

 

[Dale]

edguy99 is correct. Remember that in quantum mechanics things happen probabilistically. So let's say that an atom starts in an "excited" state where one electron occupies a higher orbital than its ground state. Then, even if that atom does not interact with anything else, there is a constant probability per unit time that the atom will drop to its ground state, emitting a photon in the process.

 

[Eraniamayomii]

Dear DaleSpam

Do you believe that this is the answer I am looking for? Or is there another answer you can give me? I understand that things can happen randomly, but I'd like to learn some of the conventional everyday stimuli such as heat, other atoms, accelerators.

I know that not all photons are made spontaneously. Can you please be so kind as to tell me exactly the stimuli that can force an electron to change its state other then spontaneity?


Love,

Eraniamayomii

 

[Dale]

is there another answer you can give me? ... I know that not all photons are made spontaneously. Can you please be so kind as to tell me exactly the stimuli that can force an electron to change its state other then spontaneity?

Sure. What I described earlier is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission" , which is the principle behind lasers. Again, the photon is emitted because the atom drops from a high-energy state to a low-energy state and energy must be conserved. If the atom were not already in the high-energy state it could not be "stimulated" to produce a photon.

 

[Eraniamayomii]

Dear DaleSpam

After talking to my father, I think I finally know what is wrong. I have been getting upset that the responses I have been receiving seem to completely divert my question. The problem is, I havn't the intelect to ask the question in a manner that an intelectual can understand. I think I have a solution though.

I believe that maby this is an extremely simple answer. I think that you assume that I know the answer due to its extreme simplicity. For this reason, you answer my question with unconventional, and less common ways.

My blatent guess is that, heat, pressure, electricity, and other simple factors like these are majorly responsible for the state an electron is in. I am not sure though. The reason I ask is for this.

What I plan to get to is fire. I know that heat makes particles expand. This, in-turn should make an atom expand. It seems to me though that the complete opposite would happen. Seeing as heat is the result of photons, which are given off when an electron lowers its state, we can conclude that heat is the result of electrons losing energy while the atom overall becomes more dense.

I know that in a typical fire, heat makes carbon atoms expand which gives oxegen a chance to combine with the carbon. I believe this is the process of ionization. What my thoughts would be are; ionization somehow releases photons. Photons heat the carbon atoms which makes the electrons raise a state. As the electrons cool, the electrons lower a state giving off a photon. For this, my thoughts are that fire is the result of electrons changing their state to a lower level whilst emitting a photon in the process.

Please note that this is only speculation, and I havn't muxh scientific data to back it. I only explain this in an attempt to help you understand my thought process, so that I can get a desirable answer.


Love,

Eraniamayomii

 

[vanesch]

What I plan to get to is fire. I know that heat makes particles expand. This, in-turn should make an atom expand. It seems to me though that the complete opposite would happen. Seeing as heat is the result of photons, which are given off when an electron lowers its state, we can conclude that heat is the result of electrons losing energy while the atom overall becomes more dense.

I know that in a typical fire, heat makes carbon atoms expand which gives oxegen a chance to combine with the carbon. I believe this is the process of ionization. What my thoughts would be are; ionization somehow releases photons. Photons heat the carbon atoms which makes the electrons raise a state. As the electrons cool, the electrons lower a state giving off a photon. For this, my thoughts are that fire is the result of electrons changing their state to a lower level whilst emitting a photon in the process.

Please note that this is only speculation, and I havn't muxh scientific data to back it. I only explain this in an attempt to help you understand my thought process, so that I can get a desirable answer.

First of all, try to avoid speculations like these (no, unless the fire is really hot, carbon atoms do not really "expand" due to heat, and the way they do is probably not the way you imagine it: some carbon atoms might get excited and hence have "larger" electron clouds).

To come back to the OP: the issue is that for a bound system, the mass of the system is simply not equal to the sum of the masses of the components. So if you have an atom which has "lost" some energy, you should not try to attribute the corresponding mass loss of the *ATOM* to any of its components (say, mass loss of the electron) to justify the bookkeeping. It's pretty counter intuitive that a "collection" of objects doesn't have as a total mass, the sum of the masses of its constituents, but that's the way nature seems to work. In as much as the following analogy works out (it doesn't completely), think of mixing two liquids. The volume of the mixture doesn't have to be the sum of the volumes of the individual liquids before you mixed them - in fact for most mixtures, it will be slightly different.

However, this analogy still breaks down a bit, because when you mix liquids, you might eventually still assign a "new volume" to each of the components and say that the volumes of the constituent liquids have changed by themselves - although it will be difficult to define these volumes - while this is something that you cannot do with the mass loss of a bound system.

The reason why you cannot attribute the mass loss of a bound system to one of its components, is that what "causes" the mass loss is the negative binding energy, which is "in between" the components. It is the "negative mass" of the forces that keep the system together.

 

[Dale]

After talking to my father, I think I finally know what is wrong. I have been getting upset that the responses I have been receiving seem to completely divert my question. ...
What I plan to get to is fire.

I am sorry that you find this frustrating. The reason that my responses divert from your overall question is that your specific questions really have nothing to do with fire. If your interest is fire then anti-particles, nuclear fusion, atomic density, stimulated emission, and spontaneous emission are all largely irrelevant. All that you really need to know is binding energy.

Fundamentally, the combustion products are more tightly bound than the combustion reactants. This means that the products have less energy than the reactants, so the remainder of the energy goes into heat or light.

 

[edguy99]

Dear edguy99

There has to be a stimuli for an electron to change its state. There has to be some kind of external force. If not, we would have spontaneous energy emitting from everything. Maby I havn't the understanding toward what your trying to say. Can you please elaborate?


Love,

Eraniamayomii

As I understand it, there is a "lowest" energy level in an atom. Take a Hydrogen atom that is ineffect, 1 proton. The lowest energy level is -13.6 EVolts and that in the Bohr model occurs at 52.9 Picometers from the proton center. An electron inside this "shell" is "who knows where", but if you want to get it completely out, you need to apply 13.6 Evolts of energy.

If a passing (free) electron happens to run into a passing proton and drops into this level and is in effect "trapped" by the proton in this energy level, it will emit a photon of 13.6 Evolts of energy and the proton/electron will act as a unit with the electron "stuck??" to the proton.

The electron cannot "drop" to a lower level as this is the lowest one that exists for Hydrogen.

I do not know if this is worded quite right, but I am happy to see how this is better stated.

Regards