/sci/ - Science & Math

[Electron Quest No.7148456]

So, apparently, Electrons are ripples on a particle field that...

-Behave like they're spinning even when they're not spinning.
-Would only complete a full revolution on their axis at 720 degrees.
-Sometimes behave/travel like a wave.
-Have an indeterminate position around an atom, forming a "cloud" or big vibrating sphere or some shit.
-Can't be in the same place as other electrons with the same four data properties (don't quite understand those), causing varying orbitals.
-Can have some kind of variation on their spin? (1/2 or -1/2?)
-Look like a particle if you hit them with enough photons to bounce back the image of a little ball?

The above could be wrong, but that's what I've gathered so far. What the fuck?

Getting an intuitive understanding of these things will take a long time. Any great resources that explain these things as clearly as possible to laymen starting at step 1? I can jump straight into Wikipedia and get bombarded with terms and math it would take too long to remotely understand, or maybe you guys can give me a resource or a few tips to help me out. Maybe there's someone who has a miraculous explanation that a kid can understand, even though it's 50 paragraphs long.

I realize these things don't necessarily make sense without learning models and calculus and equations, but there has to be some kind of simple-worded explanation out there, even if it has 50 steps to it.

Thanks!

[Anonymous No.7148467]

bump for understanding

[Anonymous No.7148468]

>>7148456
the more math you know the better you will understand electrons. I studied chemistry for 2 years but now I've stopped just to study math.

Until you are familiar with the math of QM then you can't really understand electrons.

[Anonymous No.7148469]

>>7148456
>>7148456
>>Getting an intuitive understanding of these things will take a long time.
you best give up on an intuitive explanation now. The only way to remotely understand them is with math. Everything else is pretty much just trying to explain sex to a virgin.

[Electron Quest No.7148481]

If anyone knows, please correct the following explanation where it's wrong.

An electron can be viewed as an "Electron Point," like a stat in a video game, even though it locks into many different forms based on the situation. It will travel like a wave until it hits a positive charge (from protons) to orbit around, then it'll "add one electron point" to that atom, as if it were "equipped," and it'll function like an indeterminantely-located vibrating sphere around it. The atom will have the mass and charge of an electron effectively added to it. Add more electrons and they'll form different layers in the sphere vibration station because they tend to not want to occupy the same space. Roll a positively-charged ion by and the electron might jump off as a wave, attach itself to the ion's positive charge, switch to sphere mode and start orbiting. Moving electrons will open up an anal tear in the magnetic field and allow you to power electric devices.

All I'm saying is that, even though these things are fundamentally programmed to be complex, there should be something LIKE that, even though it was so incredibly flawed, that will explain the basics of their behavior, right?

If that's true, where does the above go wrong?

[Anonymous No.7148828]

>>7148456

All Matter Is Merely Energy Condensed To A Slow Vibration

[Anonymous No.7148834]

>>7148481
>where does the above go wrong?

See:
>It will travel like a wave until it hits a positive charge (from protons) to orbit around
>Add more electrons and they'll form different layers in the sphere vibration station
>Roll a positively-charged ion by and the electron might jump off as a wave, attach itself to the ion's positive charge, switch to sphere mode and start orbiting.
>Moving electrons will open up an anal tear in the magnetic field and allow you to power electric devices.

[Anonymous No.7148837]

>>7148481
>It will travel like a wave until it hits a positive charge
an unbound electron can be treated as a particle. when it binds to a nucleus it then needs to be treated as a wave

[Anonymous No.7148840]

>>7148828
>>7148481

Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment
https://youtu.be/DfPeprQ7oGc

The first ever photograph of light as both a particle and wave
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

[Anonymous No.7148845]

>>7148828
>>7148840

Quantum Relativity
http://youtu.be/zVSe8JZ_eag
http://stormcloudsgathering.com/quantum-relativity

There Is No Time. There Never Was and There Never Will Be
http://themindunleashed.org/2015/02/time-never-never-will.html

Through the Wormhole- Tracking Souls to the Afterlife
http://youtu.be/MJBmWvuTrVY

[Anonymous No.7150223]

>>7148456
You've pretty much got it all figured out.

>Behave like they're spinning even when they're not spinning.
Yeah, it's called "intrinsic angular momentum," which pretty much means that it's spinning around, but both professionals and autists on /sci/ don't like using that term (hell, even I only use it for simplicity's sake), so instead we say it's not spinning. Don't give up hope on this property, though, because there's a mathematical basis behind the difference. Just remember that it's "angular momentum."

>forming a "cloud" or big vibrating sphere or some shit.
Okay so basically we use what's called "90% contour," which is the area around a nucleus where we can statistically predict an individual electron to be located in 90% of the time. It can be all over space, but we choose where it spends about 90% of its existence. See pic related.

>Can't be in the same place as other electrons
It's called the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which states that Fermions (e.g. quarks and leptons, like the electron) cannot occupy the same quantum state at the same time. Kind of like how Bob and Joe can't both sit in the exact same seat in a movie theater at the same time.
>variation on their spin? (1/2 or -1/2?)
There isn't really a "negative spin," per se, but there is a difference between what is called "spin up" and "spin down." Basically, it's the same amount of energy, but the spin of one electron can cancel out the spin of another, provided they spin opposite to one another.

There can be only one electron in a subshell, but in a p subshell (which looks like an infinity symbol; a lemniscate), for instance, there can be three different configurations, therefor three electrons. But in an s subshell, which is essentially just a sphere, there aren't other angles to position it, so there can be only one electron in an s subshell.

However, if there is one electron in a subshell, then another electron can actually occupy the same subshell by having the opposite spin.

[Anonymous No.7150224]

>>7150223
p subshell for reference. See how the loop can exist on an x, a y, and a z plane?

[Anonymous No.7150226]

>>7150223
QM is statistics.
It doesn't tell you what the electron actually does, only what it's likely to be doing.
That's why
1. QM is extremely unintuitive
2. you get shit like "omg things happen only when you observe them xDDD"
The wavefunction collapse is you learning about the state.

[Anonymous No.7150237]

>>7148456
"E minus" beta decay is loss of an electron. This means the particle loses an electron and an antineutrino. I'm not clear what exactly an antineutrino is, I'm sorry to say.

[Anonymous No.7150246]

>>7150223
Are the various letters and symbols in the formula in your image fixed values, or do they vary within ranges from one particle to another? Slightly confused about what the formula is supposed to do with regard to electrons.

[Anonymous No.7150335]

>>7150237
It's possible that neutrinos are their own antiparticles, or maybe if there are antineutrinos they'd have the same traits as a standard neutrino but have an oppositely charged "X charge"

>>7150246
This actually has a lot to do with hydrogen alone. Bohr did a lot of work on electron orbitals but my understanding is that he's typically not hailed as a genius for doing so because his models only worked for hydrogen. That's what I remember from Gen Chem I, at least. For now I'll tell you that the three numbers, in order, are likely:
>Principle Quantum Number
>Subshell
>Magnetic Quantum Number

I'll write out more in just a sec

>>7150226
Did I sound like I wasn't using statistics? I thought I explained the statistics of the 90% contour pretty well, but do you not think so?

[Anonymous No.7150360]

>>7148456
The "four data properties" you mentioned are as follows:

1. Principal Quantum Number - denoted as "n" (describes the energy level and size of the orbital).

2. Angular Momentum Quantum Number - denoted as "l" from zero to n minus 1 (describes the shape of the orbital).

3. Magnetic Quantum Number - denoted as "m sub l" from negative l to positive l (describes the orbital's orientation in space).

4. Spin Quantum Number - denoted as "m sub s" with either +1/2 or -1/2 value (describes the spin of the electron).


In essence, every electron in an atom is described by a unique set of quantum numbers, where the first three is analogous to "a person's address," and the electron itself is "the person living there." This statement is summarized/founded in what's known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle, showing how each orbital can only hold two electrons.

[Anonymous No.7150371]

>>7150335
>>7150246
I didn't notice the equation in the picture, I though you meant the (X,Y,Z) by every diagram. In any case, I have the equation here.

To answer your question, some of the values are variables, while others are constants. Like y=mx+b, with x being our variable, or 100 centimeters/meter, which doesn't change.

Do you see the little harp or trident on the far left of the equation? This symbol is called "psi" and is a letter in the Greek alphabet. It is used to represent probability. The three letters next to it, nlm, represent the three values I gave earlier:
>principle quantum Number
>azimuthaL quantum number AKA anguLar momentum quantum number
This one's abbreviation I don't get. Maybe it's because it ends in L, or maybe it means something in a Germanic language I don't speak.
>Magnetic quantum number
Those three values represent different quantum states (*not* including the spin of the electron), which I briefly mentioned earlier.

The next three values describe the spherical coordinates. They are as follows:
>radial distance
>polar angle
>azimuthal angle
I also have an image to show what these values mean.

So now we know at least what the left side of the equation means; probability with regards to electrons with certain quantum values at certain spatial coordinates. With higher level math, we can also solve for the right side of the equation, but it doesn't seem like we need to know about that yet.

The spherical coordinates can change by either moving our relative origin (i.e. by changing from where we measure) or by moving the quantum system itself (i.e. moving the atoms around). Coordinates don't seem like a big deal, because they can pretty easily changed, but they are important to take into account in this case, especially for accurate calculations. The quantum states of electrons can change, and certain values like a0, which is the Bohr constant, never change in the equation, and other values change based on our information that we have.

[Anonymous No.7150372]

>>7150360
Adding something I forgot to mention, electron itself (i.e. the person living there) is only unique to the orbital via its spin quantum number.

I should also mention that paramagnetism (magnetism expressed only within a magnetic field) is caused when substances have orbitals that are partially filled (ex: a +1/2 or -1/2 spin electron without a partner electron of opposite spin). Therefore, if you were to push, say, hydrogen gas through a magnetic field tunnel, the distribution of hydrogen particles that would contact a sensor wall on the other side of the tunnel would be split. If you did the same thing with helium gas, or any dimagnetic substance with equalled-out spin in every orbital, the distribution of particles hitting the sensor would fit the perspective of the tunnel itself as if they went straight through.

[Anonymous No.7150376]

>>7150371
>I also have an image to show what these values mean.
See pic.

Also, everything this anon said is true
>>7150360
I liked that you said "address." It's a very good analogy. I'll have to remember that. Additionally, it was good of you to show the mathematical potentials of the four values, and how Ml relates to l relates to n. Electrochemistry can be one of the hardest concepts to understand at first, but the math of it clarifies very well.

[Anonymous No.7150387]

>>7148456

>Behave like they're spinning even when they're not spinning.
Intrinsic angular momentum. It's generally attributed to being relativistic effect since spin isn't a quantum number hat comes out of the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation. they're not spinning, they just have angular momentum.

>Would only complete a full revolution on their axis at 720 degrees.
This is basically what it means to have 1/2 spin. It is a result of the math used to describe the systems involving complex numbers.

>Sometimes behave/travel like a wave.
This is true for everything not just electrons. It's called the de Broglie wavelength.

>Have an indeterminate position around an atom, forming a "cloud" or big vibrating sphere or some shit.
Remember they are waves now and waves do not have definite positions. The wavefunction or 'orbital' exists around the atom. Usually the probability is plotted though, which is the norm square of the wavefunction. It tells you how likely you are to find the electron at some point in space.

>Can't be in the same place as other electrons with the same four data properties (don't quite understand those), causing varying orbitals.
All fermions must be anti-symmetric with exchange. The four quantum numbers you are thinking of are the hydrogen quantum numbers. But electrons not bound to atoms may have different quantum numbers. However, they must always be antisymmetric with exchange so no two electron can ever have the same set of quantum numbers.

>Can have some kind of variation on their spin? (1/2 or -1/2?)
They can spin in one direction or the opposite way.

>Look like a particle if you hit them with enough photons to bounce back the image of a little ball?
This is also true of everything.

[Anonymous No.7150392]

So, quick question, liquor has gotten to me, what is the complex conjugate for this: psi = (exp-Zr/2anot)(cos theta) I have the variables r and theta. It is fucking with me and I need it for an expectation value. I am using this for working with generalized one electron atom

[Anonymous No.7150396]

OP, the fact is these monkeys dont understand it.

They spout their retarded gobblity-gook and they have no idea what they are talking. about.

The fact is, no one understands it. Oh yeah sure we have all sort of fancy maths and physics to describe it, even to make predictions that can be scientificially verified.

Yeah, just like those mathematicans in the midieval times invented a whole array of maths and models that explained perfectly the way all the observed objects in the Universe orbit AROUND THE EARTH.

Yeah, its just like that.

We are like dogs chasing after cars. We are very interested in these cars. After watching them for a while we can even figure out a few things about these car's behaviour. But we dont understand exactky what the cars are or even how they work. And we never will.

Thats how it is and dont let any of these pompous arrogant dickheads here try to convince you otherwise.

[Anonymous No.7150493]

>>7150396
>Yeah, just like those mathematicans in the midieval times invented a whole array of maths and models that explained perfectly the way all the observed objects in the Universe orbit AROUND THE EARTH.
This array of maths led to the conclusion that earth orbits the sun, because it DID NOT explain perfectly how everything orbits earth.

[Anonymous No.7150507]

What you are looking for is a visceral understanding of a phenomenon from a human point of view. I think it just isn't possible. The more you try to get a "feeling" for how quantum mechanics work, the more foreign it becomes. The more metaphors you have to invent to explain these physics, the more nonsensical the comparison becomes. Using words like "vibrates" or "spins" already imposes certain limitations on the idea. You would have to create new terms for which there is no analog in the world of human perception.

[Anonymous No.7150518]

>>7150387
>However, they must always be antisymmetric with exchange so no two electron can ever have the same set of quantum numbers.
Maybe this is just popsci bullshit but I always thought that electrons are identical to each other, ei. you can't determine one electron from another. But you are saying each and every electron has it's own distinct coordinates. Could you explain in a little more detail what
>be antisymmetric with exchange
means?

[Anonymous No.7150527]

>>7150518
You can't "mark" them and say electron A has spin up and electron B has spin down, but you know that one of them has spin up and the other has spin down. It's also not coordiantes, orbitals tell us where we probably find an electron, they are still delocalized and by finding an electron you still don't know if it's the electron that also has the highest probability to be there, it could also be another electron with a smaller probability.

[Anonymous No.7151616]

>>7150396
>Yeah, just like those mathematicans in the midieval times invented a whole array of maths and models that explained perfectly the way all the observed objects in the Universe orbit AROUND THE EARTH.