Understanding Nuclear Fusion and the Role of Photons in Energy Production

[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

 

[vanesch]

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

Yes, this is about right. What's not so exact, is that you give a precise "distance" (52.9 pm) between both, as in fact the electron's a "cloudy beast" on that scale, and the 52.9 pm is in fact the average distance on which one would find the electron if one were to measure its distance. But that's nitpicking. You're essentially right.

In relationship to the OP, it is the emission of the 13.6 eV photon that makes that the couple electron-proton is now bound, because in order to be free again, it misses 13.6 eV. And it turns out that such a bound system has a smaller overall mass than the mass of its constituents, by exactly the mass equivalent of 13.6 eV. But one cannot say that "the electron got lighter" or "the proton got lighter". It's the fact that they make up a bound system that makes that the mass of the whole is not equal to the mass of the constituents.

 

[edguy99]

Yes, this is about right. What's not so exact, is that you give a precise "distance" (52.9 pm) between both, as in fact the electron's a "cloudy beast" on that scale, and the 52.9 pm is in fact the average distance on which one would find the electron if one were to measure its distance. But that's nitpicking. You're essentially right.

You are right. Perhaps "the electron will get stuck pretty much within 52.9 pm, basically the size of the 1s1 orbital for Hydrogen" is better?