We understand that moving particles have wave properties and waves have particle properties. Acceleration of particles in mono- or multiple target context creates waves, but wave creation includes constructive or destructive interference.
Can we explain the existence of radiation free multi particle objects like atomic nuclei, atoms or molecules with destructive interference of waves corresponding to the movement of the particles (atomic nuclei and electrons in case of atoms or molecules), which span the object?
Would this view be equivalent to or deeper as the view with the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonean or the Dirac operator?
Can we extend this view (for atomic nuclei and quarks) to a potentially endless series of higher order particles and higher order radiation? (The higher order radiation has to include destructively interfering particle emission.)
Dear André,
the major difference between the wave function solution and a "resonance phenomena" solution would be the consideration of possible particle paths which lead to the same density profile as the wave function solution and additionally to zero radiation.
In the 1920's it was obvious that considering possible paths inside a density distribution would be leading to a complexity not manageable with available means.
Now considering particle movement paths becomes manageable and eventually leads to new findings because new degrees of freedom are considered. A new finding even could be, that the model of moving particles is not applicable at all. For atom physics this would mean that atomic shells are specific fields, which have nothing to do with moving electrons. But the analysis of the dynamics of the transition between two atomic states can lead to new knowledge. Are there oscillations or does it occur in an aperiodic way?
Well my believe is that, understanding of matter and radiation as either particle or wave is a creation of our mind according to the needs and the context of interpretation. Both particle and wave nature are physical and mathematical models created in our mind.
According to your explanation, you are trying to interpret particles and collections of particles as merely results of destructive or constructive interference of waves, where the destructive interference resulting in voids are radiation-less particle collection, and constructive interference resulting in filled areas in space and there for radiate particles such as radionuclides.
When coming to wave interpretation of particles, my believe is that is that we cannot forget the concept of wave actually arose with particles waves, defined as the distribution of energy (kinetic) of particles spread accross space in a certain pattern, initially in sinewave form. This sinwave form is actually a graphical drawing in mathematics and it is actually the repetitive spread of dots on the paper.
Therefore there is no concrete view about the concept of wave even, and the wave in you case can even be again another particle. That is why we speak of wave particle duality.
The reason why i say this is I have feeling most people who like the wave theory explanation of particles does not define what a wave is.
@Wolfgang Konle: "waves have particle properties"
You mix things from different domains. Which waves have particle properties?
Quantum objects behave as waves, i.e. can produce interference patterns, however, when detected, such an object leaves on a photographic plate a single spot, as if we had to do with a particle. So, the property of behaving as a wave and also as a particle belongs to quantum objects. One shouldn't generalize this property to any objects and phenomena.
"Acceleration of particles in mono- or multiple target context creates waves"
If you accelerate your car, do you create a wave? What is its wavelength?
"wave creation includes constructive or destructive interference"
When you pour water into a cup, you have a wave of water. Where is the included interference? Where do you see it? The stream of water is just a running wave - which interference?
"Can we explain the existence of radiation free multi particle objects like atomic nuclei, atoms or molecules with destructive interference of waves corresponding to the movement of the particles (atomic nuclei and electrons in case of atoms or molecules), which span the object?
Interference appears when two waves of the same type of object (i.e. two waves of water, or, two waves of light, or two waves of sound, etc.) cross one another. Which waves cross one another in the case of your atomic nuclei?
"Would this view be equivalent to or deeper as the view with the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonean or the Dirac operator?"
Of which view with eigenvalues you talk about? View about what?
"The higher order radiation has to include destructively interfering particle emission"
If you have destructive interference of the wave of a given particle, it is not emitted.
You have to put some order in your knowledge.
Dear Sofia,
it seems as you are interpreting the question about matter and radiation in the macroscopic world. But I am addressing the microscopic world in which we notice the existence of photons, electrons... One of the questions is: Can we interpret an atomic shell as (electron) particles with a specific movement pattern canceling radiation by destructive interference.
Dear Wolfgang
you write "but wave creation includes constructive or destructive interference. "
In context of resonance phenomena, "constructive" and "destructive" must not be taken literally.
Constructive interference refers to particles caught up in resonance processes gaining energy while destructive interference only means that the particles involved loose energy, at the limit becoming practically immobile in least action resonance state.
This is indeed what happens to electrons caught up in least action atomic orbitals and to up and down quarks in nucleonic orbitals.
These are processes that de Broglie and Schrödinger were studying in the 1920's that led to the introduction of the wave function.
Unfortunately, this line of research was neglected almost from the start.
Best Regards
André
Dear André,
the major difference between the wave function solution and a "resonance phenomena" solution would be the consideration of possible particle paths which lead to the same density profile as the wave function solution and additionally to zero radiation.
In the 1920's it was obvious that considering possible paths inside a density distribution would be leading to a complexity not manageable with available means.
Now considering particle movement paths becomes manageable and eventually leads to new findings because new degrees of freedom are considered. A new finding even could be, that the model of moving particles is not applicable at all. For atom physics this would mean that atomic shells are specific fields, which have nothing to do with moving electrons. But the analysis of the dynamics of the transition between two atomic states can lead to new knowledge. Are there oscillations or does it occur in an aperiodic way?
Dear Wolfgang
You write "the major difference between the wave function solution and a "resonance phenomena" solution would be the consideration of possible particle paths which lead to the same density profile as the wave function solution and additionally to zero radiation. "
You are absolutely right on all counts. In fact, the introduction of the wave function by Schrödinger was just a first step in exploring this very possibility of a precise axial resonance trajectory of the electron that would cause its motion to be contained within the volume defined by the wave function.
For example, the Heisenberg density probability profile of the hydrogen ground state orbital is consistent with a localized electron being stabilized in axial resonance state about a mean distance corresponding to the classical Bohr orbit in the hydrogen atom, which is why it could be circumscribed within the volume defined by Schrödinger's wave function.
De Broglie wrote in 1924: " the wave of frequency ν with velocity c/β must be in resonance on the whole length of the trajectory. "
De Broglie L. (1923). Ondes et Quanta. Comptes rendus T.177 (1923) 507-510
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Broglie/Broglie_pdf/CR1923_p507.pdf
When you write "But the analysis of the dynamics of the transition between two atomic states can lead to new knowledge."
A little later , de Broglie published two more notes, in one of which he mentioned that from this viewpoint, Bohr's famous "frequency condition law" could be interpreted as involving some sort of "beat", that is, a resonance state associating the frequency of the emitted wave to the initial electron stationary state and to the final electron stationary state.
This is precisely what Schrödinger and de Broglie were proposing in 1924, but as soon as Heisenberg's statistical distribution gained favour, all research in this direction were let go.
Schrödinger did not hide his frustration about this in a book written in 1952:
" To produce a coherent train of light waves of 100 cm length and more, as is observed in fine spectral lines, takes a time comparable with the average interval between transitions. The transition must be coupled with the production of the wave train... For the emitting system is busy all the time in producing the trains of light waves, it has no time left to tarry in the cherished "stationary states", except perhaps in the ground state."
And also:
"For it must have given to de Broglie the same shock and disappointment as it gave to me, when we learnt that a sort of transcendental, almost psychical interpretation of the wave phenomenon had been put forward, which was very soon hailed by the majority of leading theorists as the only one reconcilable with experiment, and which has now become the orthodox creed, accepted by almost everybody, with a few notable exceptions"
Einstein A., Schrödinger E., Pauli W., Rosenfeld L., Born M., Joliot-Curie I. & F., Heisenberg W., Yukawa H., et al. (1953). Louis de Broglie, physicien et penseur. A Tribute to Louis de Broglie for his 60th birthday, each colleague providing one chapter, Einstein even collaborating to 2 distinct chapters, the complete text drafting a detailed overview of the state of knowledge in fundamental physics in 1952. Éditions Albin Michel, Paris.
And also in :
Schrödinger E. (1952). Are there quantum jumps? Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 3 109,233.
You write: "A new finding even could be, that the model of moving particles is not applicable at all. For atom physics this would mean that atomic shells are specific fields, which have nothing to do with moving electrons. "
Right on again. From the electromagnetic mechanics perspective, an electron is not required to be in translational motion about nuclei, but can be stabilized in a least action axial resonance state in an atomic orbital within the volume to be described by a wave function. It does not involve that the electron be forced to travel a closed orbit about the proton.
Even Zitterbewegung can be related to an apparently stochastic (apparent only, in reality driven by interacting different frequencies harmonic oscillating electromagnetic quanta) magnetic interplay between the magnetic energy of the rest mass of the electron and the magnetic energy of its carrying energy.
I have a final paper coming up that will discuss in detail these considerations, but the essence of the development is given in this recent paper starting on page 14, if interested:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf
Understanding this new mechanics however involves complete reconsideration of the traditional concept of conservative momentum, and understanding adiabatic energy induction in all charges strictly as a function of distance by the Coulomb force.
Best Regards
André
Dear Wolfgang
If I have addressed your question, you are trying to understand whether there is a systematic, universal and unified way of dealing with the radiation problem in different spheres: molecular, atomic, nuclear, and subnuclear. Is this correct? Because you express this question within molecules, atoms, nuclei and explicitly quote the quarks.
Dear Wolfgang
Forgive me for my sincerity. It seems to me that there is a problem at the outset with respect to the basic conception of your formulation: you do not differentiate the concepts of radiation and matter (I know there are ambiguous terminology questions here), the nature of the fundamental forces and particles emitted, the range of these forces, the different physical phases associated with the existence of different quantum-mechanical interpretations of "physical reality", the existence of different formulations directed to the theoretical treatment of these different phases and dynamics (Schrödinger, Dirac, Bethe-Salpeter, Quantum Chormodynamics, etc.) , the uncertainties related to formulations based on interaction potentials and formulations based on field theories, such as effective theories for example, the need in the same cases to consider Special Relativity in the description of the dynamics of the systems and so on. That is, in order to give some aid in the elucidation of your question, it is necessary for you to unravel this tangle of aspects presented in your question. It is not the simple dual nature of the problem that allows for a unified solution. And due to the nature of the problem, from the physical point of view, we will not find practical solutions based on philosophical conceptions (although they may represent an interesting starting point for organizing thinking). In practical terms, the treatment of the problem by means of models is crucial for its elucidation.
It's a good question, "matter" is an ill-defined term. In the field of cosmology, the answer can be simple, a definition of matter is that it is anything whose energy density scales as (1+z)3 while radiation scales as (1+z)4.
Dear Cesar,
the physical models for atoms, molecules and even nuclei consider a static solution, usually an eigenvalue of an energy operator. But we know that additionally there must be a dynamic interaction between the components involved. Electromagnetic radiation is only one kind of dynamic interaction between elementary particles/objects. We are neglecting or even ignoring those dynamic aspects and therefore I ask this question how we understand matter and radiation.
Dear George,
the question addresses the micro cosmos and the way to describe interactions between elementary particles and radiation.
Dear Wolfgang
Let's start with a non-relativistic quantum description of a bounded system. For instance, the general description of the ground state and excitation states of a quantum system. The schrodinguer equation of the system is represented basically as a sum of two kind of terms, the free kinetic energy operators for each (real) particle of the system and interaction operators (potential energy operators). The potential energy operators descrive the presence of virtual exchange particles, the interaction. The dual wave-matter nature of the particles of the system is consistently taken into account in the inner structure of the kinetic energy operators.
We do not use the nomenclature static for the well behaved solutions of the spectation values of the Hamiltonian of the system. We use the word "stationary" which means non-static but related to well determinated physical states, ie, the ground state and excited states, which correspond to several energy eigenvalues of the system, for instance.
Now, caution because well determinated means the association to a probabilistic description, not an absolut description, of the ground and excited states of the system.
So in this kind of description, the transition between excited states and the ground state corresponds to the emission of free particles (radiation) as for instance gamma rays in case of the transition between different nuclear excited states. Those gamma rays (radiation), they have also the same intrinsic wave-matter nature of the particles of the system. So, this is a simple example of how the conception of "matter and radiation" should be considered on basis of a model description of physical systems. In this case the dynamical quantum description of the structure of the ground and excited states of the nucleus and the transition probabilities associated to the different excited energy levels characterize different "phases", configurations, or "photographs" of the system: the nucleus, composed by real particles, and radiation, also composed by real particles. The timing of the configurations are however different. And the origin of the radiation, which corresponds to some kind of "materialization" of the energy released in the quantum transition process, thanks to the equivalence between matter and energy.
Dear Wolffang
Correction: Schrödinger... typing in a cell phone in the midle of the night is not so easy...best regards
Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos
The formulation of the interaction operator in the Hamiltonian describing the electron shell of atoms and molecules is still open. From chemistry and solid state physics, there are indications that a multiple electron cloud has free disposal on mass, charge and spin contributions of all electrons contained in the cloud. There are also indications, that the concept of density distribution is only applicable to the mass contributions and the charge density should be described as a standing wave. The relation between mass density distribution and charge density in such a cloud is not absolutely rigid.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Particle Physics