| | Q: | Please note that I'm not trying to be argumentative. Rather, I'm trying to understand.
[answer #1, paragraph 2 (Tamara] Paraphrasing, 'Electrons exist as sort of a cloud. If the proton was the size of a grain of salt, then the electron cloud would be at a 10' radius.' I think this contradicts 'if you probe, you'll find the electron somewhere in that region', i.e., are we back to the orbital model or was the word "cloud" accidentally left out ('...find the electron *cloud* somewhere in that region')?
[answer #1, paragraph 3 (Tamara)] "the cloud can lower its potential energy by squishing in closer to the nucleus, but when it squishes in too far ***its kinetic energy goes up more than its potential energy goes down.*** So it settles at a happy medium, with the lowest possible energy..." How is the statement (within asterisks) reconciled with energy conservations laws? Where is the additional kinetic energy acquired from, if not from an equivalent reduction in potential energy?
[follow up answer #1 (Mike)] Paraphrasing, 'the electron isn't going anywhere at all. However, ***the cloud has the potential to show movement in any direction*** if something comes along to 'measure' that movement.' I'm trying to reconcile that statement with [answer #1, paragraph 3] regarding the kinetic energy of an electron. If it isn't going anywhere yet has KE (0.5mvv), then is the electron *cloud* spinning (presumably uniformly)? The last 2 sentences of [follow up answer #5 (Mike)] seem to suggest this interpretation.
[follow up answer #3 (Mike)] "The extra energy will radiate away as an electromagnetic field." My understanding is that an electric field is exhibited by charges, just as a gravitational field is exhibited by mass. The quoted statement implies that the electric field of a charge could be spent until it's gone. Or should I understand the quoted statement as 'the extra [KE] will radiate a stronger electric field'? But even that doesn't make sense since it implies that there are physically more charges present xor contradicts that charges are quantized. Please elaborate.
Best Regards,
Noel
-Noel Khan (age 31)
Victorville, CA | | | A: |
Noel- It's great you're trying to make sense of this. Before going further, I should say that I'm responsible for the passages you are concerned about, not Tamara.
point one: Yes, to be more precise what's left is a new cloud, more localized than the first one. Good point.
point two. Once again I wrote a little sloppily. The only way the cloud can squish in more is if something does work to squeeze it in. Otherwise, as you say, energy wouldn't be conserved.
point three: No, in the simple case of low-energy hydrogen the cloud isn't spinning at all. (Higher energy states can spin.) The kinetic energy term actually comes from the range of possible radial velocities implicit in the electronic state. However, this cloud is not changing in time. Imagine a classical standing wave, say on a string. The wave is a mixture of waves traveling left and right but overall does not move. The electron wave is a little similar, but in 3-d. I know this sounds very mysterious.
point 4: Electromagnetic waves are a subset of electromagnetic fields, just ones that actually carry energy around. There's energy in the static field from a charge, but it isn't going anywhere.
I hope this helps.
Mike W.
(published on 10/10/09) |
|