It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That depends.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Thank you. So the 'flow of electrons' is the key concept.
What are the properties of the atomic 'electron' that allows for this 'flow', in your opinion?
This is not true of many other materials where the electrons are in fact tied to particular atoms.
The conduction electrons in a metal are non-localized (i.e., they are not tied to any particular atoms). In conventional metals, each atom contributes a single such electron.
So in semiconductors, like the ones you're using to post on ATS, the dopant level affects the electron flow.
In semiconductor production, doping intentionally introduces impurities into an extremely pure (also referred to as intrinsic) semiconductor for the purpose of modulating its electrical properties....
Small numbers of dopant atoms can change the ability of a semiconductor to conduct electricity. When on the order of one dopant atom is added per 100 million atoms, the doping is said to be low or light. When many more dopant atoms are added, on the order of one per ten thousand atoms, the doping is referred to as heavy or high.
Because preconceived ideas concerning the electron suggest that it could be an atomic constituent, the evidence from the disintegrations is accepted as proof that it is, whereas similar preconceived ideas concerning the photon suggest that it could not be an atomic constituent, and exactly the same evidence is therefore taken to mean that the photon was created in the process. Actually, of course, the physical evidence does not distinguish between these alternatives, nor does it preclude the possibility that some other explanation may be correct. What the evidence shows is that the electron either
(a) was a constituent of the atom, or
(b) was preexisting within, but not a part of, the atom, or
(c) was derived from the surrounding space, or
(d) was created in the disintegration process, or
(e) originated from some combination of the foregoing, or
(f) had some other origin consistent with the evidence.
At the time the nuclear atom was originally conceived, the existing physical knowledge was not extensive enough to permit visualizing these alternatives that have been listed. The idea that electrons might be created in some physical process, for instance, was probably altogether inconceivable to Thomson or to Rutherford. But today this is commonplace. Such creation is currently being observed in a great variety of processes, ranging all the way from the production of a single electron-positron pair by an energetic photon to the production of a shower of millions of particles by a cosmic ray primary. This new information has made it apparent that the emission of electrons from radioactive material does not necessarily have the significance which was originally attached to it. Current thinking favors the creation hypothesis as the best explanation of this phenomenon, and the textbooks are slowly and reluctantly trying to incorporate this new viewpoint. Kaplan tells us, for example, “... it must be concluded that in beta radioactivity, the electron is created in the act of emission.”26
But the same textbook which gives us, on page 154, this conclusion based on up-to-date evidence, still repeats on page 39 the completely contradictory nineteenth-century judgment that the emission of electrons by matter is “convincing evidence that electrons exist as such inside atoms,” and it goes on to present the atomic theory based largely on that outmoded idea as if it were fully in accord with present-day factual knowledge. This is not a peculiarity of this particular text. Any other modern text which we might select gives us essentially the same contradictory picture. For instance, another text book tells us, “The disintegration experiments (which indicated emission of protons by atoms) provided definite proof that protons are components of nuclei of all elements.”27 Then on the very next page the text goes on to say, “It might be argued that if an electron can be emitted from a nucleus, it must have been there before,” but in spite of the fact that this is exactly the same argument which is characterized as “definite proof” on the preceding page, it is here dismissed with the statement, “This solution... could not, however, be upheld.” Here is a graphic example of what was meant in the introductory chapter when the present-day atomic theory was described as a curious and contradictory mixture of half-century old ideas with up-to-date conclusions. Any theory which is so confused that the textbook authors can “prove” a basic point of far-reaching importance on one page and flatly contradict this proof on the following page, without anyone seeing that there is a conflict, is badly in need of an overhauling.
The information now available makes it quite clear that the electron is not the permanent “building block” type of entity that was envisioned in 1911, but an evanescent particle that can be created or destroyed with relative ease. Recognition of this fact should carry with it the realization that it is not only radioactivity that has ceased to be evidence of the presence of electrons in matter; the appearance of electrons in any physical process can no longer be taken as an indication that these electrons existed prior to the initiation of that process. In fact, the weight of evidence is now strongly in favor of the conclusion that in most cases they are created in the process, and that where electrons do actually have a prior existence, they exist in, and not as a part of, the atoms of matter.
Summarizing the foregoing, it is now apparent that electrons, and electric charges in general, are easily created in physical processes of various kinds, and hence the emission of electrons from matter during such processes can no longer be considered as proof, or even as good evidence, that the electrons, as such, existed in the matter before the process took place.
One of the characteristics of a sound physical theory is that it leads in an easy and natural way “with the appearance of a certain inevitableness,” as Bridgman puts it, to explanations of physical phenomena other than that for which it was originally developed. Planck's original Quantum Theory, for example, was developed to explain the behavior of radiation from an energy distribution standpoint, but one of its first important consequences was a simple and logical explanation of the photo-electric effect: a related but totally different phenomenon. Similarly, we could expect that if the concept of the electron as a constituent of matter were valid, we would find it leading easily and naturally to solutions of other related problems. But the whole history of this concept has been just the opposite. Nothing has developed easily and naturally; every step that has been taken has been forced and artificial, and each advance into new territory has been made only by sacrificing some part of existing physical knowledge, so far as its application to the atom is concerned.
As one observer expresses it, “Bohr solved the problem of the stability of a system of moving electric charges simply by postulating that the cause of the instability... did not exist.”29 To the layman his might seem to involve a rather drastic redefinition of the word “solve,” but be that as it may, the ensuing history of the Bohr atom and its lineal descendants is one long series of problems for which there seems to be no solution other than to postulate that they do not exist. The orbits which Bohr postulated for the electrons could not be located specifically, hence it was postulated that no definite orbits exist; the theoretical momentum and position of an individual electron could not be reconciled, and a “Principle of Uncertainty” was therefore formulated, asserting that the electron could not have a definite momentum and a definite position at the same time; even with the benefit of this extraordinary principle, identification of positions was found to be impossible, so it was postulated that the impossibility was inherent and that the best that could be done was to calculate a probability that the electron might be found at a certain location; some of the theoretical consequences were inconsistent with the usual cause and effect relationships, and it was therefore postulated that causal relations are not operative at the subatomic level. Now in relatively recent years, the long list of assumptions and postulates has been climaxed by the assumption, sponsored by the Copenhagen school of theorists (who represent the “official” viewpoint of present-day theoretical physics), and expressed by Heisenberg in the previously quoted passage, that this atomic electron does not even “exist objectively.”
All of these “solutions” of the problems that have been encountered in the development of the concept of the electron as an atomic constituent have, of course, modified the characteristics of the atomic electron very drastically. As the nuclear atom was originally conceived, the negatively-charged constituent was presumed to be the same electron that is observed experimentally. This experimental electron is a definite and well-defined thing, notwithstanding its impermanence. We can produce it at will by specific processes. We can measure its mass, its charge, and its velocity. We can control its movement and we have methods by which we can record the path that it takes in response to these controls. Indeed, we have such precise control over the electron movement that we can utilize it as a powerful means of producing magnified images of objects which are too small for optical magnification. In short, the experimental electron is a well-behaved and perfectly normal physical entity. But such an electron cannot even begin to meet the requirements which have been established step by step for the atomic electron, as the concept of this particle has been gradually modified to “solve” one problem after another. The atomic electron, as it is now portrayed, is not a definite and tangible entity such as the experimental electron. It does not conform to the usual physical laws in the manner of its experimental counterpart, but has some unique and unprecedented behavior characteristics of its own, including a strange and totally unexplained ability to jump from one orbit to another (or to do something entirely incomprehensible which has the same effect) with no apparent reason and, so it seems, complete immunity from all physical limitations. We can deal with it only on a statistical basis, and even then, as Herbert Dingle points out, we can make our statistical methods for dealing with such particles effective “only by ascribing to the particles properties not possessed by any imaginable objects at all.”30 Furthermore, as already mentioned, the leading theorists of the present day tell us that the atomic electron cannot be accommodated within the three-dimensional framework of physical space; it must be regarded merely as a symbol rather than as an objectively real particle.
Just as it is natural to conclude that the existence of radioactive disintegration proves that the atom is composed of individual parts, so it is natural to conclude that the particles ejected from the atom in the process of disintegration are the parts of which the atom is composed. In fact, this conclusion seems to be implicit in the first. But this second of the natural and seemingly obvious conclusions turns out to be entirely erroneous. Three types of particles emanate from the disintegrating atom, and existing knowledge indicates that not one of these three existed as such in the atom prior to the disintegration. The alpha particles are positively charged helium atoms, and it was quickly realized that they could not be primary atomic “building blocks”; present-day opinion, as previously noted, is that the beta particles, which are electrons, are created in the disintegration process; and the gamma particles (if we stretch the definition of “particle” far enough to include them) are photons, units of radiation, and have always been considered to be products of the disintegration, not as pre-existing entities.
I already answered that question for a metal. Some people call the electrons in metal an "electron soup". One electron from each atom isn't attached to any atom so it doesn't move from atom to atom. The "electron soup" moves. In insulators, the electron normally doesn't move from one atom to the next, that's why they are insulators.
Originally posted by beebs
How does 'one electron' flow from one atom to another, in either case?
I read that following text but I don't think the distinction is all that sharp. Experimentation is one way we observe nature, aside from just plain old observing which is about all we can do in cosmology due to the distances involved.
Also, there should be a sharp distinction made between the electron we produce in experimentation, and the electron that is theorized to be a part of the functional atomic structure in nature:
The point being?
The atomic electron, as it is now portrayed, is not a definite and tangible entity such as the experimental electron. It does not conform to the usual physical laws in the manner of its experimental counterpart, but has some unique and unprecedented behavior characteristics of its own, including a strange and totally unexplained ability to jump from one orbit to another (or to do something entirely incomprehensible which has the same effect) with no apparent reason and, so it seems, complete immunity from all physical limitations. We can deal with it only on a statistical basis, and even then, as Herbert Dingle points out, we can make our statistical methods for dealing with such particles effective “only by ascribing to the particles properties not possessed by any imaginable objects at all.”
Doesn't that show it's the same electron in that statement alone (and in experiments which support that)? I fail to see the "sharp distinction".
When electrons are stripped from atoms and molecules, those particles change state and become plasma. Plasmas are naturally energetic because stripping electrons takes constant energy. If the energy dissipates, the electrons reattach and the plasma particles become a gas once again.
That bosons, the class of particles of which photon is a member, do not interact with each other is an observed fact.
The postulated electron in the atom is them imputed with strange characteristics as compared to a free electron, such as the lack of definite location, jumping from one orbit to another without traversing the intervening space, etc.
As the atom itself is found to be electrically neutral, the negative charge of the electron is assumed to be neutralized by an equal amount of positive charge in the nucleus. But in actuality a negative and a positive charge brought into mutual contact do not merely neutralize each other: they destroy each other, as is amply demonstrated (by the same science) in the annihilation reactions between matter and anti-matter!
The atomic electron, as it is now portrayed, is not a definite and tangible entity such as the experimental electron.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Tales from the loonie bin.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Arb,
I live that quote from that source your post:
The atomic electron, as it is now portrayed, is not a definite and tangible entity such as the experimental electron.
Experimental electron! What a jewel. There are neutrons and experimental neutrons, there are protons and experimental protons. There is milk and experimental milk.
Tales from the loonie bin.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Tales from the loonie bin.
reply to post by beebs
That reminded me of Carl Sagan talking about his limo driver, William Buckley (not THE William Buckley, just a limo driver with the same name).
Beebs, you reemind me a lot of what Sagan said about that limo driver.
Sagan said he was kind of impressed with the guy because he was widely read, in a way, except for the fact he had been reading all of the wrong sources and filling his head with nonsense.
But he had good qualities like an insatiable curiosity and a desire to understand things. Sagan tried to get the guy to read more reliable material, but I don't know if he succeeded.
Likewise Beebs, if you spent as much time reading reliable sources as you appear to spend reading unreliable sources, you'd be a force to reckon with.
Originally posted by beebs
An electron from an Electron gun is not the same thing as the wave function of a stable atom found in nature.
I didn't compare it to basketballs, I compared it to a basketball player but I see the basketball confused you so let me change the analogy to figure skaters instead. A figure skater can't do a death spiral in isolation, it requires a partner to interact with.
Originally posted by beebs
An electron from an Electron gun is not the same thing as the wave function of a stable atom found in nature.
I am sure you have been able to tell by now, that I understand the argument that electrons are like basketballs... I think that it is completely ridiculous.
I didn't compare it to basketballs, I compared it to a basketball player but I see the basketball confused you so let me change the analogy to figure skaters instead. A figure skater can't do a death spiral in isolation, it requires a partner to interact with.
I don't expect an individual skater to be able to do a death spiral just like I don't expect an individual electron not part of an atom to display an atomic wave function. To expect otherwise in either case is not logical.
Here we find that on the basis of exactly the same evidence, the physicist arrives at diametrically opposite conclusions. Because preconceived ideas concerning the electron suggest that it could be an atomic constituent, the evidence from the disintegrations is accepted as proof that it is, whereas similar preconceived ideas concerning the photon suggest that it could not be an atomic constituent, and exactly the same evidence is therefore taken to mean that the photon was created in the process. Actually, of course, the physical evidence does not distinguish between these alternatives, nor does it preclude the possibility that some other explanation may be correct. What the evidence shows is that the electron either
(a) was a constituent of the atom, or
(b) was preexisting within, but not a part of, the atom, or
(c) was derived from the surrounding space, or
(d) was created in the disintegration process, or
(e) originated from some combination of the foregoing, or
(f) had some other origin consistent with the evidence.
As one observer expresses it, “Bohr solved the problem of the stability of a system of moving electric charges simply by postulating that the cause of the instability... did not exist.”29 To the layman his might seem to involve a rather drastic redefinition of the word “solve,” but be that as it may, the ensuing history of the Bohr atom and its lineal descendants is one long series of problems for which there seems to be no solution other than to postulate that they do not exist. The orbits which Bohr postulated for the electrons could not be located specifically, hence it was postulated that no definite orbits exist; the theoretical momentum and position of an individual electron could not be reconciled, and a “Principle of Uncertainty” was therefore formulated, asserting that the electron could not have a definite momentum and a definite position at the same time; even with the benefit of this extraordinary principle, identification of positions was found to be impossible, so it was postulated that the impossibility was inherent and that the best that could be done was to calculate a probability that the electron might be found at a certain location; some of the theoretical consequences were inconsistent with the usual cause and effect relationships, and it was therefore postulated that causal relations are not operative at the subatomic level. Now in relatively recent years, the long list of assumptions and postulates has been climaxed by the assumption, sponsored by the Copenhagen school of theorists (who represent the “official” viewpoint of present-day theoretical physics), and expressed by Heisenberg in the previously quoted passage, that this atomic electron does not even “exist objectively.”
Originally posted by beebs
However, if we drop the erroneous concept of point-like 'particles'...