If in relativity time dilation occurs more noticeably the closer one reaches the speed of light, then, does not time dilation occur within atoms? As electrons move near the speed of light? Or still not close enough? Any thoughts?

Why do you think electrons move at all, in a classical sense, when bound to an atom?

If in relativity time dilation occurs more noticeably the closer one reaches the speed of light, then, does not time dilation occur within atoms? As electrons move near the speed of light? Or still not close enough? Any thoughts?

Electrons don't move at anywhere near the speed of light. For example, during current flow through copper, the individual electrons only move at a about 0.024 cm/sec.

You are thinking of the speed of the "electrical effect" which is just about 2/3 c. That's because a conductor is filled with electrons and a good analogy is water moving through a pipe to a faucet in you home. When you turn on the faucet, water appears almost immediately - but thats only because the pipe is already filled, just like a copper wire is with electrons. You know full well that the individual water molecules that appear at your faucet did not come just at that moment from the water source miles away. It's the same with electricity and electrons.

...the individual electrons only move at a about 0.024 cm/sec...
This is just an average speed of electron cloud, i.e. drift velocity.

..As electrons move near the speed of light? Or still not close enough? Any thoughts?
The relativistic effects of electron speed in atoms manifests by number of ways, especially at the case of huge atoms, where the electrons are moving along long path, like those of polonium or plutonium. The well known sodium dublet is relativistic effect as well (the spin-orbit splitting (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/sodzee.html#c1) due the electromagnetic field inside of atom).

http://www.science-projects.com/fes/SpectrumNa.GIF

This is getting confusing. An atom in it's ground state does not emit - no spectral lines. Right? Spectral emissions occurr when an electron in an excited state returns to it's ground state. The energy of this transition yields a photon of a certain wavelength.

This has nothing to do with electrons "moving" around an atom.

Yeah...electrons move. Wtf mate? Just read it out of my Biology book.

Yeah...electrons move. Wtf mate? Just read it out of my Biology book.

I don't see where anyone said the didn't move. And that has nothing to do with the question you asked because the do NOT move fast enough to experience any relativistic effects - and THAT'S what we've been trying to tell you.

So this topic is finished. On to the next question.

Yeah...electrons move. Wtf mate? Just read it out of my Biology book.
Do they? Or is it the quantum probability that moves? An electron is not regarded as a point particle (unless it's pinned down and measured) but a "cloud" of probability surrounding an atom in various "lobes".

I honestly don't know if there is a "speed" associated with an electron that is bound to an atom.

Maybe Read Only knows or Ben or JamesR, or BillyT? Little help here?

Do they? Or is it the quantum probability that moves? An electron is not regarded as a point particle (unless it's pinned down and measured) but a "cloud" of probability surrounding an atom in various "lobes".

I honestly don't know if there is a "speed" associated with an electron that is bound to an atom.

Maybe Read Only knows or Ben or JamesR, or BillyT? Little help here?

SL,
Consider that in most instances bopund electrons ahve somne temperature and kinetic energy. Given this they must be moving, or vibrating. Is the motion within limits detectable as relativistic?

One cannot really detect an alectron without concluding its quality as a very small point mass. What is discarded in the analysis of this observation is the fact that the electron has a charge field which is carried along with the mass point. Therefore, this field must also be vibrating. The question then moves to when we recognize the fact that an accelerating electron radiates Em waves, but a stationey non-accelerated electron does not radiate, otherwise it would lose energy and eventually decay into who knows what. However, heating a massive subtance will result in heating the electron within the substance but EM radiation is not detected emitting from a pot of boiling water, or burning reefer..

I would think that electrons buried within matter that are accelerated as a part of the total mass do not radiate, relativistically or otherwise. It is only free accelerated electrons that are detectable from their radiation. Milikans oil drop experiment allegedly accumulated single electron on oil drops detectable by applying a direct voltage difference between the plates thereby moving the electron embedded in the oil, but here we are far from relativistic effects.

Conclusion: Relativistic qualities of electrons can only be detected if accelerated and free.:shrug:

Electrons in atoms obey Heisenberg's uncertainty principle:

\Delta x.m \Delta v \ge \hbar / 2

Let's do a rough calculation. The width of the electron cloud is around 10^{-10} metres. Therefore, the uncertainty in the velocity of an electron is at least

\Delta v = \frac{\hbar}{2m\Delta x} = \frac{6.63 \times 10^{-34}}{4 \pi (9.1\times 10^{-31})(10^{-10})} = 5.8 \times 10^5~\text{m/s}

This is about 0.1% of the speed of light.

What this means is that an electron with zero angular momentum in the atom could be regarded as travelling at 0.1% of the speed of light in any direction at any given time.

Electrons in atoms obey Heisenberg's uncertainty principle:

\Delta x.m \Delta v \ge \hbar / 2

Let's do a rough calculation. The width of the electron cloud is around 10^{-10} metres. Therefore, the uncertainty in the velocity of an electron is at least

\Delta v = \frac{\hbar}{2m\Delta x} = \frac{6.63 \times 10^{-34}}{4 \pi (9.1\times 10^{-31})(10^{-10})} = 5.8 \times 10^5~\text{m/s}

This is about 0.1% of the speed of light.

What this means is that an electron with zero angular momentum in the atom could be regarded as travelling at 0.1% of the speed of light in any direction at any given time.
Thanks James.

I seem to recall reading that relativistic corrections do need to be applied to nucleons in the nucleus. Is that right James?

Electrons in atoms obey Heisenberg's uncertainty principle:

\Delta x.m \Delta v \ge \hbar / 2

Let's do a rough calculation. The width of the electron cloud is around 10^{-10} metres. Therefore, the uncertainty in the velocity of an electron is at least

\Delta v = \frac{\hbar}{2m\Delta x} = \frac{6.63 \times 10^{-34}}{4 \pi (9.1\times 10^{-31})(10^{-10})} = 5.8 \times 10^5~\text{m/s}

This is about 0.1% of the speed of light.

What this means is that an electron with zero angular momentum in the atom could be regarded as travelling at 0.1% of the speed of light in any direction at any given time.

James R,

Correct me if I err.

1. The electron cloud is the volume space in which the electron may be found.
2.Experimentally, electron clouds have not been observed.
3.Is the the .1% c velocity temperature dependent?
4. Considering electrons in heavy metals such as Uranium, then . are the lower embedded electrons moving the same velocity as the upper electrons, those near the valence band? Or does electron density play a role in the instantaneous velocity of each depending roughly on the band level of each, temp, etc?
5. Was it proper to disregard the angular momentum when the rapid direction changes that are necessary to create an electron cloud in the first place would be in a more or less constant flux of magnetic monopole creation, as well as angular momenta?

Wouldn't angular momenta contributions from all bound electrons establish, at some equilibrium point, an angular momentum that is conserved for each individual atomic (atom) system? If so methinks the .1%c figure is somewhat erroneous, Too large or too small, I know not, ignoring angular momentum however, must skew your calculations as well as Heisenberg's theory, as applied here at least. A conservation of angular momentum throughout the atom structure imposes a level of orderliness that detracts from the unlawful randomness assumed in the Heisenberg theory, at least as applied here. And then the magnetic monopole question must be integrated into the solution, perhap?:shrug:

I seem to recall reading that relativistic corrections do need to be applied to nucleons in the nucleus. Is that right James?

Yes. In fact, to get electron energies more accurately from theory you need to apply certain relativistic corrections, too.

1. The electron cloud is the volume space in which the electron may be found.

Yes.

2.Experimentally, electron clouds have not been observed.

Not sure what you mean by this. If you mean directly observed, we've managed to image atoms with scanning tunnelling microscopes, but even they can't see subatomic structure because they rely on tunnelling by electrons.

3.Is the the .1% c velocity temperature dependent?

I don't think so. Electron energies are determined by their confinement in the atom. Temperature is a concept most often applied to collections of atoms or molecules.

4. Considering electrons in heavy metals such as Uranium, then . are the lower embedded electrons moving the same velocity as the upper electrons, those near the valence band? Or does electron density play a role in the instantaneous velocity of each depending roughly on the band level of each, temp, etc?

You'd expect electrons at higher energy levels to move at a different speed than those at lower energy levels. However, at the atomic level the uncertainties in the speeds are quite large, as I showed above. Moreover, electrons don't follow defined orbits.

5. Was it proper to disregard the angular momentum when the rapid direction changes that are necessary to create an electron cloud in the first place would be in a more or less constant flux of magnetic monopole creation, as well as angular momenta?

You can include angular momentum if you want to. My calculation was only a rough one. Angular momentum, remember, is quantised.

You can include angular momentum if you want to. My calculation was only a rough one. Angular momentum, remember, is quantised.

The reason I mentioned the angular momentum which results from turning motion, which trapped electrons seem to have a plethora of, is to emphasize the the fact of quantized angular momentum and also to indicate the multi-parameter conservation laws being satisfied within non-dissipating systems.

If the electron is in a state of rapid flux, velocity wise, then it would seem that the dE/dt which is an intrinsic quality of the electron's physical state and producing magnetic monopoles of various levels depending of the length of travel in the near collisions, and whatever is occurring, and all of this without radiating energy outside the electron, it would seem that the radiation is occurring with more than trivial repetition.

The absorption of the radiated EM must be spread throughout the host atom.

Further, the magnetic monopoles associated with the electron must be radiating and absorbed by neighboring electrons and even the nucleus while all the time maintaining a most strict adherence to conservation of energy, conservation of angular momentum and conservation of magnetic monopole radiation in a flawless adherence to the profit and loss statement maintained at zero flux for each of the three named qualities of the atom.

I am making a point so bear with me. Without reference to Heisenberg who has a "lawless random picture" of the electron motion, the fact that the atom and all constituent parts have an extremely ordered construction cannot be easily swept away.

I agree that no direct observation of electron motion within host atoms is an easy task to accomplish. However, assuming the laws that pertain to accelerated free electrons which results in EM radiation easily measured, that such radiation must also be occurring on the deep level within host atoms.

Finally, from the picture just drawn which may be tainted with a tad overindulgence, for the most part if has the ring of physical reason. This suggests that Mssr. Heisenberg may perchance have been painting with an excessively broad and therefore obscuring brush.

:shrug: