From Wikipedia:
"In physics, a quantum leap or quantum jump is a change of an electron from one energy state to another WITHIN an atom".
Could anyone refer me to a free source about inter-atomic quantum jumps?
Lasand
I would say: in any semiconductor (as well as insulators and often in metals), jumping from a band to another is "inter-atomic" as all bands are delocalized to the whole crystal.
Just as good: take a molecule, excite a binding electron that belongs to at least two atoms.
Between different groups of atoms?
From a dopant atom to the whole crystal in a semiconductor.
From P-region to N-region in a Tunnel diode (any junction with a breakdown voltage under some 5V).
Between two single atoms, there must be examples in organic chemistry, when amine groups catch an electron from a CH3. Ask a better chemist.
Excimer laser?
O yes: in Bronsted acids, when they dissociate.
Just as good: take a molecule, excite a binding electron that belongs to at least two atoms.
Between different groups of atoms?
From a dopant atom to the whole crystal in a semiconductor.
From P-region to N-region in a Tunnel diode (any junction with a breakdown voltage under some 5V).
Between two single atoms, there must be examples in organic chemistry, when amine groups catch an electron from a CH3. Ask a better chemist.
Excimer laser?
O yes: in Bronsted acids, when they dissociate.
Hi Enthalpy,
Thanks , that's a start. I do have Optical Processes in Semiconductors, but my first read thru was some months ago before this thing got in my head.
I wanted to start with something easier like hydrogen and or helium close to a young hot star being ionized.
Would hydrogen and helium have the same signature? Would they have a signature?
Would Li...Be...B...C....N....O.....F..and..Ne be the same?
Don't know where to look.
Lasand
Thanks , that's a start. I do have Optical Processes in Semiconductors, but my first read thru was some months ago before this thing got in my head.
I wanted to start with something easier like hydrogen and or helium close to a young hot star being ionized.
Would hydrogen and helium have the same signature? Would they have a signature?
Would Li...Be...B...C....N....O.....F..and..Ne be the same?
Don't know where to look.
Lasand
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Mar 12 2008, 03:44 AM)
I would say: in any semiconductor (as well as insulators and often in metals), jumping from a band to another is "inter-atomic" as all bands are delocalized to the whole crystal.
Just as good: take a molecule, excite a binding electron that belongs to at least two atoms.
as you say: all bands are delocalized over all atoms. So, there's nothing "inter-atomic" in mounting from one band to a higher one.
Same for molecules: all electron states are delocalized over both atoms, so no excitation from one atom to the other.
That's general trouble with presence of several atoms: all eigenstates of Hamiltonian are delocalized over all atoms.
Just as good: take a molecule, excite a binding electron that belongs to at least two atoms.
as you say: all bands are delocalized over all atoms. So, there's nothing "inter-atomic" in mounting from one band to a higher one.
Same for molecules: all electron states are delocalized over both atoms, so no excitation from one atom to the other.
That's general trouble with presence of several atoms: all eigenstates of Hamiltonian are delocalized over all atoms.
Hi All,
Would the experiment with super-fluid helium be a good example of what your asking about also. I was absolutely floored when I first read of it.
Peace,
Ron
Would the experiment with super-fluid helium be a good example of what your asking about also. I was absolutely floored when I first read of it.
Peace,
Ron
Thanks for the input,
Electron bands delocalized and electrion states being delocalized are going to be veils I may not be able to lift in order to "see" what's going on.
Quantum uncertaincy and amplitude probability once again foil my attempt to see the clockworks.
If I got this right, then the old sea of free electrons in a conducter is now being called the electron states as being delocalized?
Electron bands delocalized and electrion states being delocalized are going to be veils I may not be able to lift in order to "see" what's going on.
Quantum uncertaincy and amplitude probability once again foil my attempt to see the clockworks.
If I got this right, then the old sea of free electrons in a conducter is now being called the electron states as being delocalized?
Without wanting someone to kill me.
I do like this explanation :)
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quant.../debroglie.html
I do like this explanation :)
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quant.../debroglie.html
Hi yor _on,
I can google "Bohr's quantum jumps" and learn about quantum jumps within an atom.
I want to google"so and so's quantum jumps" to see if there is a model for jumps between atoms.
Is somebody's name attached to this process?
It looks like this is not the case because of electron states being delocalized.
I thought the ionization of a hydrogen atom being closely followed by the capture of that electron by a nearby proton could be considered as a quantum jump, but I guess not. This process should result in the emission of a photon. Then we would have photons being emitted by the Bohr model and so and so's model.
Am I on the wrong track again?
Lasand
I can google "Bohr's quantum jumps" and learn about quantum jumps within an atom.
I want to google"so and so's quantum jumps" to see if there is a model for jumps between atoms.
Is somebody's name attached to this process?
It looks like this is not the case because of electron states being delocalized.
I thought the ionization of a hydrogen atom being closely followed by the capture of that electron by a nearby proton could be considered as a quantum jump, but I guess not. This process should result in the emission of a photon. Then we would have photons being emitted by the Bohr model and so and so's model.
Am I on the wrong track again?
Lasand
hej Yor On - Lasand
I may be completely wrong - but what puzzles me is the lack of definition of particle -
Everyone is discussing whether it is a particle or a wave -
I imagine that everything IS waves - and they can behave in a bosonic or a fermionic way.
In order for a harmonious wave to be stable it must have a minimum complexity - and that is the quant. In our physical scale - our Universe - the photon is the wave-quant which is probably performing most of the "job".
A quant is the same as a well defined amount of information, so the photon can be in many different wave-configurations with varying frequencies, but I imagine that the total amount of wave- so to speak - is the same for all photons. High frequency photons are intense and short and vice versa, so different energies of photons are a matter of their kinetics (their densities) and not informational amount.
Now - the "photon-informational-quant" can show itsself as light - when it propagates in a straight trajectory - no rest-mass - no angular momentum - just kinetic mass - kinetic energy - and with the speed being defined by the medium that express the wave - and this medium is the 3D pixel grid. So speed of light is pixels signaling their ON-signals with their characteristic and well defined frequency (Beat of Universe), speed of light is pixel "dimension" times "frequency-beat-of universe". We cannot measure light-waves when propagating in a straight trajectory.
But the "photon-informational-quant" can also present itsself as part of a particle, and that is when the light-waves propagate in a bended - a circular trajectory, and now we have angular momentum and we have rest-mass - potential matter - potential energy - because now the wave-system is either at rest (only potential mass) on the pixel grid or moving at a speed below c - with a mixture of potential and kinetic mass. It is not mass - matter that bend light, mass - matter IS created by bended light.
A photon with a high frequency can be extremely bended, and form the innermost "capsul-layers" of a particle, and the longer the wave- the lower the frequency of a photon - the more outer layer it will be of the particle. So what we attempt in accellerator science is to get the highest frequency quants - the most energetic in the sense that they are the most "concentrated" - and thus they represents the innermost - and most energetic constituents of particles. Lower frequency photons are involved in more distant layers.
Physical world is oscillating into existance in this constantly changing expressions where the informational quants interchange in the form of boson-waves - within atoms - from atom to atom and at distance. I imagine how the wave patterns at one moment is a fermionic circular trajectory in a well-defined distance from the particle center - and next moment is is propagating to a new place as a bosonic wave - and in a following moment it is being part in another particle structure. And everything is waves - just in changing trajectories.
In my eyes it is hard to understand that there is so much debating about particle / wave paradoxes, without trying to come up with an accurate definition about what a particle is.
I may be completely wrong - but what puzzles me is the lack of definition of particle -
Everyone is discussing whether it is a particle or a wave -
I imagine that everything IS waves - and they can behave in a bosonic or a fermionic way.
In order for a harmonious wave to be stable it must have a minimum complexity - and that is the quant. In our physical scale - our Universe - the photon is the wave-quant which is probably performing most of the "job".
A quant is the same as a well defined amount of information, so the photon can be in many different wave-configurations with varying frequencies, but I imagine that the total amount of wave- so to speak - is the same for all photons. High frequency photons are intense and short and vice versa, so different energies of photons are a matter of their kinetics (their densities) and not informational amount.
Now - the "photon-informational-quant" can show itsself as light - when it propagates in a straight trajectory - no rest-mass - no angular momentum - just kinetic mass - kinetic energy - and with the speed being defined by the medium that express the wave - and this medium is the 3D pixel grid. So speed of light is pixels signaling their ON-signals with their characteristic and well defined frequency (Beat of Universe), speed of light is pixel "dimension" times "frequency-beat-of universe". We cannot measure light-waves when propagating in a straight trajectory.
But the "photon-informational-quant" can also present itsself as part of a particle, and that is when the light-waves propagate in a bended - a circular trajectory, and now we have angular momentum and we have rest-mass - potential matter - potential energy - because now the wave-system is either at rest (only potential mass) on the pixel grid or moving at a speed below c - with a mixture of potential and kinetic mass. It is not mass - matter that bend light, mass - matter IS created by bended light.
A photon with a high frequency can be extremely bended, and form the innermost "capsul-layers" of a particle, and the longer the wave- the lower the frequency of a photon - the more outer layer it will be of the particle. So what we attempt in accellerator science is to get the highest frequency quants - the most energetic in the sense that they are the most "concentrated" - and thus they represents the innermost - and most energetic constituents of particles. Lower frequency photons are involved in more distant layers.
Physical world is oscillating into existance in this constantly changing expressions where the informational quants interchange in the form of boson-waves - within atoms - from atom to atom and at distance. I imagine how the wave patterns at one moment is a fermionic circular trajectory in a well-defined distance from the particle center - and next moment is is propagating to a new place as a bosonic wave - and in a following moment it is being part in another particle structure. And everything is waves - just in changing trajectories.
In my eyes it is hard to understand that there is so much debating about particle / wave paradoxes, without trying to come up with an accurate definition about what a particle is.
Hi bukh,
In my upcoming"final" post on an alternative particle physics. I will try to give an accurate'" speculative" description of what a particle is.
That's all I can do. it will just be thoughts and ideas not meant to replace the standard model, but will be the most simple possible model.
After that we can have a good laugh and see if it matches any of your ideas.
What do you think about the words quantum jump?
Should they only be used when considering Bohr's jumps WITHIN an atom?
I suppose that is the only proper usage.
Later,
Lasand
In my upcoming"final" post on an alternative particle physics. I will try to give an accurate'" speculative" description of what a particle is.
That's all I can do. it will just be thoughts and ideas not meant to replace the standard model, but will be the most simple possible model.
After that we can have a good laugh and see if it matches any of your ideas.
What do you think about the words quantum jump?
Should they only be used when considering Bohr's jumps WITHIN an atom?
I suppose that is the only proper usage.
Later,
Lasand
Hej Lasand
QUOTE: "What do you think about the words quantum jump?
Should they only be used when considering Bohr's jumps WITHIN an atom?
I suppose that is the only proper usage."
I see a quantum jump as informational reorganization, and that is the underlying dynamic - that is the change - in our Universe.
It has to do with the concept of motion - I cannot possibly imagine how two "particles" change their position relative to each other, except that it happens via informational reorganization - this oscillating tearing down and building up via wave-promoted "quantum jumps" - and dynamic and motion is taking place all over all the time, be it WITHIN atom, neighboring atoms or at distance.
Semantically we can reserve the word if we so like for its present meaning - but the principles they are the same irrespective where they take place on this 3D grid. And there is nothing except waves - or perhaps better to say that waves are a good way of picturelizing the patterns by which "energies" dynamically are being played around with.
Looking forward seing your speculative desription of what a particle is-
QUOTE: "What do you think about the words quantum jump?
Should they only be used when considering Bohr's jumps WITHIN an atom?
I suppose that is the only proper usage."
I see a quantum jump as informational reorganization, and that is the underlying dynamic - that is the change - in our Universe.
It has to do with the concept of motion - I cannot possibly imagine how two "particles" change their position relative to each other, except that it happens via informational reorganization - this oscillating tearing down and building up via wave-promoted "quantum jumps" - and dynamic and motion is taking place all over all the time, be it WITHIN atom, neighboring atoms or at distance.
Semantically we can reserve the word if we so like for its present meaning - but the principles they are the same irrespective where they take place on this 3D grid. And there is nothing except waves - or perhaps better to say that waves are a good way of picturelizing the patterns by which "energies" dynamically are being played around with.
Looking forward seing your speculative desription of what a particle is-
The quantum jump seems to be about discrete values, there are no smooth continuance to it right. also as you state it belongs to QM.
But if you check out the new ways of 'seeing' the electron it nowadays more represents a localization of probability than something created of 'rest mass'.
And those discrete jumps then, what would they be if the electron is a focused probability field?
But if you check out the new ways of 'seeing' the electron it nowadays more represents a localization of probability than something created of 'rest mass'.
And those discrete jumps then, what would they be if the electron is a focused probability field?
yor-on,
Don't know. I think Bohr got to the point where he said you are not supposed to ask questions anymore. Bohr was very concerned with what words could be used to describe physics.
I keep forgetting what realist and positivist mean. I think I am a realist. I think Bohr was a positivist. The positivist says that if you don't have a precise way to measure or locate something then you shouldn't say it is real. Of course that won't stop us from speculating.
So physics talks about particles being delocalized in one case and being probability amplitudes in another case.
I'm fanning my hand as fast as I can, but can't clear the fog away to see reality.
Lasand
Don't know. I think Bohr got to the point where he said you are not supposed to ask questions anymore. Bohr was very concerned with what words could be used to describe physics.
I keep forgetting what realist and positivist mean. I think I am a realist. I think Bohr was a positivist. The positivist says that if you don't have a precise way to measure or locate something then you shouldn't say it is real. Of course that won't stop us from speculating.
So physics talks about particles being delocalized in one case and being probability amplitudes in another case.
I'm fanning my hand as fast as I can, but can't clear the fog away to see reality.
Lasand
QUOTE (yor_on+Mar 12 2008, 11:05 AM)
Without wanting someone to kill me.
I do like this explanation
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quant.../debroglie.html
I like that link. I played with the wave on the circle.
I have known that particles are waves too, but just what that looks like has always been confusing.
Would this help to explain this image that came in the news:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23336318/
Someone gave this link a while back. Then things went into dispute as to whether this is an electron or not. Is it or isn't it? Or is it many electrons? (many waves?) The picture of the wave on the circle in that link made me think of this again.
I do like this explanation
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quant.../debroglie.html
I like that link. I played with the wave on the circle.
I have known that particles are waves too, but just what that looks like has always been confusing.Would this help to explain this image that came in the news:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23336318/
Someone gave this link a while back. Then things went into dispute as to whether this is an electron or not. Is it or isn't it? Or is it many electrons? (many waves?) The picture of the wave on the circle in that link made me think of this again.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.