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

  • Thread starter Thread starter daisey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electric
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.)
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top