Absorption/Emission of photons of specific frequency (Doppler Effect)

feynomite
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I recall being taught that electrons in various "orbitals" or "energy states" absorb and emit photons of a specific frequency. I also learned that relative speed changes the observed wavelength of photons, due to the Doppler Effect.

So, how is it that some electron can "absorb" a photon of a specific frequency if there is always going to be some movement relative to the electron and from where the photon was emitted? What is the "margin of error" in the frequency of a photon that a specific electron wil still absorb it?

In other words, assume that some bound electron in atom A1 moves from state S to S' and emits a photon of wavelength X. There's another electron A2 in state S' which absorbs X and switches to state S. I don't see how this can happen. I'm saying that A2 and A1 will nearly always have some motion relative to each other, and thus X leaving A1 is different from X arriving at A2 (unless there is some margin of error where the electron can absorb frequencies in the range Y to Z, and X is within this range).

Could anyone provide insight into this? I must be misunderstanding something.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
feynomite said:
I recall being taught that electrons in various "orbitals" or "energy states" absorb and emit photons of a specific frequency. I also learned that relative speed changes the observed wavelength of photons, due to the Doppler Effect.

So, how is it that some electron can "absorb" a photon of a specific frequency if there is always going to be some movement relative to the electron and from where the photon was emitted? What is the "margin of error" in the frequency of a photon that a specific electron wil still absorb it?

In other words, assume that some bound electron in atom A1 moves from state S to S' and emits a photon of wavelength X. There's another electron A2 in state S' which absorbs X and switches to state S. I don't see how this can happen. I'm saying that A2 and A1 will nearly always have some motion relative to each other, and thus X leaving A1 is different from X arriving at A2 (unless there is some margin of error where the electron can absorb frequencies in the range Y to Z, and X is within this range).

Could anyone provide insight into this? I must be misunderstanding something.

No, when A1 leave new state the A2 not SAME. It different, must be that when absorbs.
 
I'm hoping someone will be able to shed some light on this question... it's pretty straightforward and I'm sure someone has the answer.

Thanks
 
Atomic transitions have a natural "linewidth" because of the energy-time uncertanity principle, so there is actually a small range of allowable energies.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top