THE QUANTUM JUMP Atomic electron transition is a change of an electron from one quantum state to another within an atom or artificial atom. It appears discontinuous as the electron "jumps" from one energy level to another in a few nanoseconds or less. It is also known as atomic transition, quantum jump, or quantum leap. Electron transitions cause the emission or absorption of electromagnetic radiation in the form of quantized units called photons. Their statistics are Poissonian, and the time between jumps is exponentially distributed. The damping time constant (which ranges from nanoseconds to a few seconds) relates to the natural, pressure, and field broadening of spectral lines. The larger the energy separation of the states between which the electron jumps, the shorter the wavelength of the photon emitted. The observability of quantum jumps was predicted by Hans Dehmelt in 1975, and they were first observed using trapped ions of mercury at NIST in 1986. The optical Bloch equations are not consistent with quantum jumps. Although changes of quantum state occur on the sub-microscopic level, in popular discourse, the term "quantum leap" refers to a large increase. From Wikipedia

Yes. It is worth noting that the "jump", or more properly "transition", is not instantaneous, nor in any way mysterious. It is modelled by the time-dependent form of the Schroedinger equation. (The time-independent form is the one we are more familiar with, that deals with stable atomic states). In an absorption or stimulated emission, the oscillating dipole (or quadrupole) of the incoming radiation couples to the initial electron state and enables it to turn progressively into the final state. In spontaneous emission it couples to vacuum fluctuations (I believe, though I am not good on QED). And, indeed, the popular term "quantum leap" is a total misapprehension of what goes on. The whole point is that the transitions occur on the atomic scale as as such are almost infinitesimally tiny.

THE 4DP QUANTUM PRINCIPLE Albert Einstein drove time as the fourth dimension of space to offer an explanation of gravity in his General theory of relativity. It appears that a fourth dimension is the explanation for some strange phenomena that occur in reality. This quantum principle is placed in the Sibilianism. 4DP means that particles exist in the fourth dimension. The particles are not subjected to the 3D space. The principle 4DP is a hypothesis that attempts to explain the quantum phenomena of the electron jump from one orbit to another one and quantum entanglement. The 4DP quantum principle is originated from the following dimensional model: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But, as I've just pointed out, we do not need a theory to explain the quantum "jump". We already have an excellent one: quantum theory! So your idea fails the test of Ockham's Razor, being an unnecessary additional hypothesis.

Yes, most theories are incomplete, including QM. But QM most definitely CAN and does account, fully, for transitions between quantised energy states in matter. Nothing remains to be solved, in that respect. So if you are searching for something to contribute, there is no point in looking there. Try somewhere else.

Beyond The Cosmos - Quantum Mechanics Content: The quantum leap, the quantum entanglement, the quantum computer and the parallel universes.

I enjoyed the video because it covers the history of QM, spooky action at a distance, faster than light information transfer, Niels Bohr, Einstein, Bell, Clauser, Aspect, and the off shoots of teleportation and quantum computing, as presented by many worlds advocate, Brian Green. All are topics that have been of interest to me over the years. He starts right out by introducing the weirdness of QM by asking, "Why don't we ever see things occur in reverse order", because according to the laws of QM, "this can happen". That means that there is no way to rule it out, and if you allow all possibilities, the premise is that a particle can be in many places at once until it is observed by measurement. Green acknowledges that the quantum realm is all "fuzzy" territory, and the consensus of the QM professional community, in Green's school of thought at least, might include a "many worlds" explanation. That premise states that there is a probability associated with every possible location, and that all those possible locations are actual locations of the particle in some other universe; the many worlds interpretation says every possible location has it own reality in some parallel universe, making an almost infinite number of universes for every quantum particle that exists. He explains that the multiple parallel universe scenario applies at the atomic and sub atomic level where the laws of Quantum Mechanics apply, and as you go up scale to objects composed of many particles, the fuzziness begins to resolve into macro level laws of one particular universe. Hence in any one universe like ours, we see objects that aren't fussy on a macro scale, like as Einstein proclaimed, he likes to believe that the moon is still there when he is not observing it. In regard to your topic, the discovery of spectral lines goes back to Hubble, and the earliest days of QM, and the "quantum leap" is not interpreted as being instantaneous, so there is acknowledgement of a time duration during which it occurs. You have been talking about the duration time line between events, and so I ask where you are going and how the video fits in.

I have visualized certain analogy between the electron jump from one orbit to another and the dimensional model of the image (post #3). The difference is that the electron jump is instantaneous. It is as if the 3D space between two orbits does not exist. This is why I thought that the particles are in a fourth dimension. The same applies to the quantum entanglement between two particles.

I see you are thinking about a 4D universe and how electron jumps and entanglement would look from a 3D perspective, and to help with that visualization, you are using the dimensional model in post #3 where you have a 3D universe and you are visualizing what it would look like in 2D. Do I have that right? That makes me wonder about what role the video plays in your presentation. For you to be visualizing a 4th dimension where the particles may exist is not too far removed from the parallel universes interpretation of QM. And if it were true that particles in the 4th dimension resided in some parallel universe, I would say that then you could make a speculative case for an instantaneous quantum leap from the 3D universe to the 4th dimension just like you can when going from 3D to 2D. Is that what you are visualizing? That "many worlds" interpretation of QM goes as far out as we can go, in my opinion. Rather than going that far, shouldn't we try to stay within our one universe, and explore "as yet unknown natural laws" to explain what we observe. For example, instead of an infinite number of parallel universes, we could look at the uncertainty principle and wave function as being a mathematical representation of the possibilities of where a particle might be located, instead of making a theoretical leap that says that the particle is in all of those places at once (until observed). The difference is, "the particle can be anywhere", vs. "the particle is everywhere"; I'm for "a particle is always in only one place at any given time, but that place can be anywhere in the scope of the local wave function (stipulating that "local" is in our universe)", vs. "is everywhere at once" where everywhere is spread out to an infinite number of parallel universes. That simple step back from a "parallel universes" interpretation brings us back to one universe where there is still plenty of room for as yet unknown natural laws to explain the spookiness of QM. So clear it up for me; are you going along with the "parallel universes" explanation Of QM in your discussion, or do you think that there still can be explanations for the "spookiness" of QM while staying with the one universe scenario?

Look, I've told you already it is untrue that the jump is instantaneous. In an absorption, the lower energy state is perturbed by the radiation and is transformed, OVER TIME, in a way that the mathematics of the interaction models accurately, into the higher energy state. There is no mystery here. It is a very fast process, sure, but it is not instantaneous, and there are no mathematical discontinuities in it. Furthermore there are no "orbits" in an atom. That idea has been out of date for a century. What you have is orbitals, which is different. And we know exactly the regions of space occupied by these and the relation between the lower and higher energy ones involved in a transition. They overlap to a large degree, actually, i.e. they share a lot of the same space. (The key difference between them in fact is that they must have different symmetry. An electron in a symmetric orbital can only be promoted into an antisymmetric one, and vice versa. That is because the radiation is antisymmetric and when you multiply something symmetric by something antisymmetric you get an antisymmetric product, while if you multiply 2 antisymmetric entities, you get a symmetric product. Perhaps you can make something interesting out of that insteadPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) You are welcome to construct personal theories, but if you do so without understanding the current science first, you are going to risk making yourself look rather silly.

Sent by Quantum-wave: "I see you are thinking about a 4D universe and how electron jumps and entanglement would look from a 3D perspective, and to help with that visualization, you are using the dimensional model in post #3 where you have a 3D universe and you are visualizing what it would look like in 2D. Do I have that right?" Yes, you do. "That makes me wonder about what role the video plays in your presentation. For you to be visualizing a 4th dimension where the particles may exist is not too far removed from the parallel universes interpretation of QM. And if it were true that particles in the 4th dimension resided in some parallel universe, I would say that then you could make a speculative case for an instantaneous quantum leap from the 3D universe to the 4th dimension just like you can when going from 3D to 2D. Is that what you are visualizing?" Me: Parallel universes is just a possibility. Our universe consists of five dimensions: three spatial, one quantum and time.

Sent by Quantum-wave: "For example, instead of an infinite number of parallel universes, we could look at the uncertainty principle and wave function as being a mathematical representation of the possibilities of where a particle might be located, instead of making a theoretical leap that says that the particle is in all of those places at once (until observed). The difference is, "the particle can be anywhere", vs. "the particle is everywhere"; I'm for "a particle is always in only one place at any given time, but that place can be anywhere in the scope of the local wave function (stipulating that "local" is in our universe)", vs. "is everywhere at once" where everywhere is spread out to an infinite number of parallel universes. That simple step back from a "parallel universes" interpretation brings us back to one universe where there is still plenty of room for as yet unknown natural laws to explain the spookiness of QM." Me: I think in a single universe. 4D particles can be in several places in the 3D space.

Sent by Exchemist: "Look, I've told you already it is untrue that the jump is instantaneous. In an absorption, the lower energy state is perturbed by the radiation and is transformed, OVER TIME, in a way that the mathematics of the interaction models accurately, into the higher energy state. There is no mystery here. It is a very fast process, sure, but it is not instantaneous, and there are no mathematical discontinuities in it." Me: Then, is it faster than the speed of light? "Furthermore there are no "orbits" in an atom. That idea has been out of date for a century. What you have is orbitals, which is different. And we know exactly the regions of space occupied by these and the relation between the lower and higher energy ones involved in a transition. They overlap to a large degree, actually, i.e. they share a lot of the same space. (The key difference between them in fact is that they must have different symmetry. An electron in a symmetric orbital can only be promoted into an antisymmetric one, and vice versa. That is because the radiation is antisymmetric and when you multiply something symmetric by something antisymmetric you get an antisymmetric product, while if you multiply 2 antisymmetric entities, you get a symmetric product. Perhaps you can make something interesting out of that instead." Me: Do electrons orbit around the nucleus or not?

I'm open minded when it comes to such ideas. My model is a 3D + time that simply passes, but where there is variable wave energy density in space, and that density coupled with quantum action acts to produce gravity and the curved paths of moving objects, thus replacing spacetime and geodesics. There is no need for 4D particles or for them to be in multiple places in my model ... yet Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, but as my model evolves, I may hit a wall when dealing with entanglement and Bell's Theorum that requires some such imaginative thinking. However, I still think that there is a complete set of natural laws to explain it all, and some portion of those laws are "as yet unknown". I speculate about the "as yet unknowns" in terms of hypotheses that would fill the gaps. Keep going and fill in some of the details that you hypothesize about for us.

No. They do not orbit round the nucleus. They occupy standing-wave like zones of probability, distributed about the nucleus. As a matter of fact in some of these orbitals, (called s orbitals) they have no orbital angular momentum at all. As for your first question, this has no meaning. If an event takes a finite time, that has nothing necessarily to do with velocity. What we are talking about is the time it takes for the wavefunction describing the probability distribution of the electron to change. In any case, since electrons have rest mass they themselves obviously cannot move faster than light.