Telescope Reviews: What drives an atom?

I have not found a way to respond without referring to the math. Please excuse the awkward notation.

Exponents are shown as E^2 where this reads (E squared )
Multiplication signs are omitted.
M(0) reads M sub zero where this is the rest mass of an object M.

E is energy
p is momentum
c is the universal constant
m is the mass of the object

In relativity the total energy of a anything is given by E^2= p^2 c^2 + m(0)^2 c^4 ( call this equation #1)

In English the energy squared is equal to the momentum squared times c squared plus the rest mass squared times c to the 4th.

Consider the case of a stationary electron. The momentum is zero and this equation becomes

E^2 = m(0)^2 c^4th or
E = m(0) c^2 if I drop the subscript it is more recognizably E=M (c squared)

From this we learn that the famous equation is only the case when the object m is not moving. Which is usually what is assumed when we talk about the energy of an object. There is something more profound here as well.(1)

Now consider the situation of the photon which is mass-less.

Equation 1 becomes E^2 = P^2 c^2 or the momentum squared times c squared

We can rewrite this E = p c. The kinetic energy of a mass-less thing is equal to p times c.

Then we see that the momentum of a mass-less thing is p = E/c. Hence, mass-less things can indeed have momentum.

I am sorry for the math but it just falls right out of the equations and is non-intuitive. I do not know of any other way to reach these odd conclusions. This is why Einstein’s theory is recognized as so illumination.

QED. Mass is not required to have momentum.

Dane B

I do not understand your reference to the photoelectric effect. This theory shows that photons are quantized packets of energy. They are also mass-less particles. ( using the quantum definition of a particle. They are not little balls of stuff )

On the electron position. Assume that the wave function tells us everything that we can know about the electron. We know it position exactly. It is a mathematical model with the nucleus at the origin. It sits in an imaginary universe that contains only the one hydrogen atom. We know everything that there is to know about this situation.

Consider an electron in a hydrogen atom in the room next to your computer. Now we have a problem. To ask where the electron is relative to anything other than the nucleus of the atom we must write down the Schrödinger equation including the potential term the field of the proton and all other fields in the universe that are non-zero at the position of the nucleus. This is where the model becomes impossible to solve. We design test equipment to allow us to control these potentials and limit them to those for which we can do the math and where most of the universe does not contribute in a material way to the answer.

I choose the single H atom because it was not complicated by the rest of the universe. Because I do not know where the one atom universe is, I do not encounter the problem of placing it relative to anything else.

I remain concerned that you are looking for something that is not there. In my simple little one atom universe there is no little ball to photograph.

Thanks for making me think.

1) This equation is telling us that matter and energy are the same thing. Not that it can be converted from one form to another but actually the same thing.

--------------------
Michael

ATM: 6" F/9 Newtonian Travel Scope
ATM: 12.5" F/4.5 Real Soon Now...