What is the speed of electron movement in atoms at different temperatures?

[SovietComics]

TL;DR

Speed of electron going around the nucleus

I am just asking how fast an electron spins around the nucleus of the atom at lower temperature such as indoors? and at high temp such as explosion or fire?

I know that electricity electrons and energy transfer are much quicker, but I am just asking how fast an electron goes around the nucleus of a carbon based or gas form atom for example.

I have been interested in atoms and the transfer of energy since I learned how to work on engines and that the expanding gases make the piston move really quickly.

I tried looking it up online but didn't get a specific answer, just seeing if anyone on here knew, thanks

 

[PeroK]

Summary:: Speed of electron going around the nucleus

I am just asking how fast an electron spins around the nucleus of the atom at lower temperature such as indoors? and at high temp such as explosion or fire?

I know that electricity electrons and energy transfer are much quicker, but I am just asking how fast an electron goes around the nucleus of a carbon based or gas form atom for example.

I have been interested in atoms and the transfer of energy since I learned how to work on engines and that the expanding gases make the piston move really quickly.

I tried looking it up online but didn't get a specific answer, just seeing if anyone on here knew, thanks

The short answer is that electrons don't orbit the nucleus in a classical sense. Each electron has an expected value of kinetic energy and angular momentum.

Some electron "orbitals" have zero angular momentum.

You could look up atomic quantum numbers.

 

[Nugatory]

I am just asking how fast an electron spins around the nucleus of the atom

Electrons are not small objects orbiting the nucleus, so it makes no sense to talk about how fast they’re moving.

You can imagine electrons as fuzzy clouds surrounding the nucleus; that’s not quite right either but it’s a lot closer. Try googling for “electron orbital”.

 

[PeroK]

Fortunately I didn't say that, rather ... they don't exist as particles until measured. The electron *field* obviously exists, otherwise the electronic force fields on our feet would not repel the corresponding fields on the floor and we'd fall through.

The electron is a particle. It isn't sometimes a particle and sometimes not. The references you provide are popular science and may promote that misconception to a greater or lesser degree.

A proper undergraduate textbook is a better reference. There's no sense in modern QM that the electron is a "field" until you measure it and then becomes a "particle". It's always a particle. But it's dynamic properties (observables) are not well-defined until you measure them. And, even then, if an observable is measured, incompatible observables are not well defined.

That's a good reason why the division into "existing as a particle" and "not existing as a particle" is not really valid. It's always a particle. It's just what you can say about measurements of the particle that is not completely well-defined.

 

[PeterDonis]

The electron is a particle.

In non-relativistic QM, yes.

In quantum field theory, no, the electron is a field, and "particle" is a name we give to particular states of that field (the ones that, heuristically, "look like particles" when we do experiments).

There's no sense in modern QM that the electron is a "field" until you measure it and then becomes a "particle"

Yes, this is correct on either of the above views: in the non-relativistic QM case, it's always a particle, and in the QFT case, it's always a field.

 

[PeroK]

In non-relativistic QM, yes.

In quantum field theory, no, the electron is a field, and "particle" is a name we give to particular states of that field (the ones that, heuristically, "look like particles" when we do experiments).
Yes, this is correct on either of the above views: in the non-relativistic QM case, it's always a particle, and in the QFT case, it's always a field.

I took "field" in the previous post to be EM field created by an electron, hence the repulsive forces.

It is a B level post, so invoking QFT perhaps ups the ante in terms of understanding the hydrogen atom.

 

[PeterDonis]

I took "field" in the previous post to be EM field created by an electron

On reading that post again, I think it is using the term "field" with at least two meanings, the first of which could be (charitably) interpreted as you say, although "electronic force fields" gives me pause (and also opens up the can of worms of what actually does keep us from falling through the floor--the full answer is not simply "electromagnetic repulsion"). The second meaning is the QFT meaning, later on in the post; but it's possible that @joema does not realize that that meaning of "field" is not the one that applies to the "electronic force fields" that keep him from falling through the floor.

 

[PeterDonis]

Everyone, please note, discussions of QM interpretations are off topic in this forum; they belong in the Quantum Foundations and Interpretations Forum. Several posts discussing interpretations have been deleted from this thread.