The inconsistent quantum physics and magnetic theory

In summary, the conversation discusses the challenges posed by the classic theory in explaining the stability of the electron-nucleus model and the role of electrons in creating magnetic fields. The quantum theory provides a satisfactory explanation, but there are still unanswered questions and different interpretations. In the end, it is acknowledged that accepting the quantum description of magnetic fields is necessary, even if it may be difficult to comprehend or visualize.
  • #1
hds123523000
16
0
This question bothers me a long time and finally I decided to ask here.

The classic theory fails to deal with electron orbiting around atomic nucleus because energy has been emitted if we assume electron continuously orbits which leads to the collapse of the electron-nucleus model. But in real life the model is really stable. So, physicist proposed that electrons don't orbit continuously, instead, appear with possibility (quantum theory), which seems solved this problem perfectly.

However, in magnetic theory, the origin of the magnetic field of atoms is from the current of electrons. I am wondering if it is consistent with the quantum theory mentioned above, which is the possibility of electrons and doesn't generate current. It is quite difficult for me to think that electrons appear in possibility (at not completely random position) and generate current at the same time.

Is any expert can explain it to me? Many thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
There are still quantities such as "orbital angular momentum", spin, etc... that generates magnetic fields (in fact, that's how these are defined), but if you look at what they are, these are not in the same classical sense.

The problem here is that ALL our measurements are classical. So we have this thing called a magnetic field, we know that some atoms have magnetic moment, but the quantum description that produces such field does NOT look like charges moving around in circles. So at some point, we have to accept, at least for now, that magnetic fields is the measurable outcome of such a description.

Zz.
 
  • #3
Perhaps this just gives more interesting questions rather than an answer, but the zitterbewegung interpretation of electron movement at least is more readily visualizable than the usual non-explanations.
 
  • #4
ZapperZ, I think you spotted out more interesting points. Yes, we can't explain orbital angular momentum in a quantum concept.

So, this is something you think unsolvable, at least now. Does everyone agree? Or I missed something? Thanks for suggestion.
 
  • #5
hds123523000 said:
ZapperZ, I think you spotted out more interesting points. Yes, we can't explain orbital angular momentum in a quantum concept.

So, this is something you think unsolvable, at least now. Does everyone agree? Or I missed something? Thanks for suggestion.

I gave the standard answer based on what you can find in QM texts. I assumed that this is what being asked for here. There are many other formulation and interpretation of QM that will offer varying explanations.

Zz.
 
  • #6
hds123523000 said:
However, in magnetic theory, the origin of the magnetic field of atoms is from the current of electrons. I am wondering if it is consistent with the quantum theory mentioned above, which is the possibility of electrons and doesn't generate current.
1. The magnetic field of a iron atom is due to the aligned intrinsic spins of the valence electrons, and not their orbital motion.

2. There are also orbital magnetic moments given by mu=-e L/2mc, even though the electron is not moving in a classical orbit.
 
  • #7
Hi, Meir Achuz

Can you explain your point 2 more deeply. For example, why it has such magnetic momentum but doest obey the classic orbit? Where this magnetic moment originally from?
 
  • #8
hds123523000 said:
Can you explain your point 2 more deeply. For example, why it has such magnetic momentum but doest obey the classic orbit? Where this magnetic moment originally from?

We get these numbers by solving Schrodinger equation which does not describe any orbital motiom for the electrons. However, in the smiclassical limit, Schrodinger equation provides us with "picture" consists of something that look like "orbital motion" plus quantum correction. For this reason we still use the term "orbital angular momentum" to describe that part of ANGULAR MOMENTUM which (mathematically) looks like the classical angular momentum.

Sam
 
  • #9
If you calculate the energy shift in a uniform magnetic field B, the answer is
[tex]\Delta E=-e{\bf L\cdot B}/2mc}[/tex]. No mention is said about the electron's classical orbit. Thinking classically about a quantum system is like trying to understand a fluorescent light in terms of a kerosene lamp.
 
  • #10
Hi, Sam

Your reply is interesting and a little beyond my understanding. You think the megnetic can be generated without electron orbiting? I think everything is out of a physical reason. But what is the physical reason of that magic equation.

You mentioned the semiclassical limit. I am wondering what is that?
 
  • #11
Meir Achuz said:
If you calculate the energy shift in a uniform magnetic field B, the answer is
[tex]\Delta E=-e{\bf L\cdot B}/2mc}[/tex]. No mention is said about the electron's classical orbit. Thinking classically about a quantum system is like trying to understand a fluorescent light in terms of a kerosene lamp.

Meriz
In your opinion, if I abandon the classic theory. Where is magnetic moment from physically in quantum theory? The possibility can generate magnetic moment? It is difficult to convince me in that way.

Best
 
  • #12
hds123523000 said:
Meriz
In your opinion, if I abandon the classic theory. Where is magnetic moment from physically in quantum theory? The possibility can generate magnetic moment? It is difficult to convince me in that way.

Best
The assertion"God does not play dice!" was found to be wrong many years ago. Time to move on(or find a more comprehensible reality :-p).
 

FAQ: The inconsistent quantum physics and magnetic theory

What is the inconsistent quantum physics and magnetic theory?

The inconsistent quantum physics and magnetic theory is a theory that attempts to reconcile the laws of quantum mechanics with the laws of electromagnetism, which were previously thought to be incompatible. It proposes that at the quantum level, particles behave differently than they do at the macroscopic level, and that magnetic fields play a fundamental role in this behavior.

2. What evidence supports the inconsistent quantum physics and magnetic theory?

There is a growing body of evidence from experiments in quantum mechanics and electromagnetism that supports the idea of an inconsistent quantum physics and magnetic theory. For example, the double-slit experiment has shown that particles exhibit wave-like behavior, which is consistent with the theory's idea of quantum particles being influenced by magnetic fields.

3. How does the inconsistent quantum physics and magnetic theory differ from traditional quantum mechanics?

The inconsistent quantum physics and magnetic theory differs from traditional quantum mechanics in that it includes the role of magnetic fields in the behavior of particles. Traditional quantum mechanics does not take into account the influence of magnetic fields on particles, and therefore cannot fully explain certain phenomena at the quantum level.

4. What are the implications of the inconsistent quantum physics and magnetic theory?

If the inconsistent quantum physics and magnetic theory is proven to be true, it could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe. It could potentially lead to advancements in technology, such as more efficient energy production and storage, as well as a deeper understanding of the fundamental laws that govern our world.

5. What is the current status of research on the inconsistent quantum physics and magnetic theory?

The inconsistent quantum physics and magnetic theory is still a highly debated and controversial topic in the scientific community. While some researchers have found evidence to support the theory, others have raised criticisms and alternative explanations. Further research and experimentation is needed to fully understand the validity and implications of this theory.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
871
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
856
Back
Top