Question about electrons

FattyCatty · 29th December 2011, 09:44 AM

I have a question about electrons. I'm reading a science fiction series, and the basis for one of the spaceship drives is

Quote:

"...the amusing tendency of electrons to show up in orbit elsewhere before they quite leave the orbit they are departing. Left to behave naturally during alterations in energy levels, this eccentricity goes unremarked by the larger universe, the trick being omni-directional."

Sharon Lee & Steve Miller, Korval's Game, (I Dare), pp 647-648

I was wondering if they made up the arriving before departing characteristic of electrons, or if that was true. I couldn't find anything Googling, which leads me to believe it's a made-up thing; then again, I don't have great Google skills in science subjects.

Dancing David · 29th December 2011, 09:52 AM

I am not a physics major.

In my understanding electrons do not normally appear somewhere before they have 'left'. Now given Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle, they can sort of be in a place you might not expect them and even within a small margin of HIP arrive before they should at the speed of light (I am only aware of photons doing this).

As far as I know an electron can not be two places at once, other than the possible waveform it occupies.

Crossbow · 29th December 2011, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by FattyCatty

I have a question about electrons. I'm reading a science fiction series, and the basis for one of the spaceship drives is I was wondering if they made up the arriving before departing characteristic of electrons, or if that was true. I couldn't find anything Googling, which leads me to believe it's a made-up thing; then again, I don't have great Google skills in science subjects.

Well, I think what they are referring to is when the electrons in orbit about the nucleus, they orbit in discrete levels of energy.

For example, there are quite a few objects in orbit about our sun (planets, comets, asteroids, etc.), and basically there is no real limits on how close these object can be to the sun or how far they can be from the sun; provided that there are not any ohter complicating factors.

However, when electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom, they do so in something called "shells" and when they change from one shell to another, the electrons "tunnel" from shell to the next as opposed to simply moving from one shell to the other. So, for just a brief moment, the electron is actually in two places at once.

You can get more details about this phenoma at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling

Anyway, it sounds as if the writers are knowledgeable about this fact as well, but that they are applying it over a very large scale for their space craft. Which really does not work, but it makes for a nice fliver all the same.

I hope this helps!

FattyCatty · 29th December 2011, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Well, I think what they are referring to is when the electrons in orbit about the nucleus, they orbit in discrete levels of energy.

For example, there are quite a few objects in orbit about our sun (planets, comets, asteroids, etc.), and basically there is no real limits on how close these object can be to the sun or how far they can be from the sun; provided that there are not any ohter complicating factors.

However, when electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom, they do so in something called "shells" and when they change from one shell to another, the electrons "tunnel" from shell to the next as opposed to simply moving from one shell to the other. So, for just a brief moment, the electron is actually in two places at once.

You can get more details about this phenoma at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling

Anyway, it sounds as if the writers are knowledgeable about this fact as well, but that they are applying it over a very large scale for their space craft. Which really does not work, but it makes for a nice fliver all the same.

I hope this helps!

That was very helpful, thank you. Although I didn't understand a lot of the link, the section on "Faster than light" describes "a frame of reference in which it arrives before it has left," which seems to jibe with the quote from the book I'm reading. The quote in the OP goes on to say of the nice flivver (aka Electron Substitution Drive) that:

Quote:

...it had been found that motion could be induced in certain plasmas and fields -- and by extension, to entire macroscopic bodies -- simply by imposing direction upon the electron's absurd little dance.

Terran and Liaden researchers had struggled mightily, and had at last managed, by dint of applying outrageous amounts of energy to a test object about the size of a human head, to propel said object for very short distances. Having achieved this double-edged success, they had then thrown up their hands and conceded that the drive was less than cost-effective. For humans.

In the meanwhile, the Clutch had solved the scale problem, and effortlessly moved worldlets through space, one electron at a time.

So, as you say, the authors seem to be tweaking reality by enlarging the scale as opposed to making it all up from whole cloth. This always seems to make it more interesting to me. There is the wild hope that the writer has come upon something new that can steer science in a new direction (didn't Heinlein do this, if not for science, then for technology?).

quarky · 29th December 2011, 03:49 PM

A single, isolated electron is full of longing. Sadder than Ol' Yeller.

Crossbow's discreet energy levels description is what quantum is all about.
In between-ness, though counter-intuitive while observing planet-size orbital units, rules the day in the teeny-tiny.
The 'leap' appears to require no time; just energy.
Though the leap is rather small.

Dancing David · 29th December 2011, 03:51 PM

Yeah, you can't use quantum weirdness on macroscopic objects, except as literary fiction. So sorry no quantum FTL drives.

R Heinlein and Arthur Clark both had patents.

Acleron · 29th December 2011, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Yeah, you can't use quantum weirdness on macroscopic objects, except as literary fiction. So sorry no quantum FTL drives.

R Heinlein and Arthur Clark both had patents.

Some quantum weirdness on macroscopic objects.

Dancing David · 30th December 2011, 05:17 AM

Sure at close ranges and the like. That does not mean the diamond will be quantum tunneling.

29th December 2011, 09:44 AM	#1
FattyCatty Picky V. Nitty Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Southern California Posts: 2,441	Question about electrons I have a question about electrons. I'm reading a science fiction series, and the basis for one of the spaceship drives is Quote: "...the amusing tendency of electrons to show up in orbit elsewhere before they quite leave the orbit they are departing. Left to behave naturally during alterations in energy levels, this eccentricity goes unremarked by the larger universe, the trick being omni-directional." Sharon Lee & Steve Miller, Korval's Game, (I Dare), pp 647-648 I was wondering if they made up the arriving before departing characteristic of electrons, or if that was true. I couldn't find anything Googling, which leads me to believe it's a made-up thing; then again, I don't have great Google skills in science subjects.
	__________________ You can't teach an old dogma new tricks -- Dorothy Parker The sceptics continued to look sceptical and the believers believing -- Catherine Aird _{[/grammar nazi][/Dept of Grammar Security] ftfy -- Wudang Proud member of SCOFF (SoCal Opposing Feline Filleting)}

29th December 2011, 09:52 AM	#2
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,716	I am not a physics major. In my understanding electrons do not normally appear somewhere before they have 'left'. Now given Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle, they can sort of be in a place you might not expect them and even within a small margin of HIP arrive before they should at the speed of light (I am only aware of photons doing this). As far as I know an electron can not be two places at once, other than the possible waveform it occupies.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

29th December 2011, 10:20 AM	#3
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,294	Originally Posted by FattyCatty I have a question about electrons. I'm reading a science fiction series, and the basis for one of the spaceship drives is I was wondering if they made up the arriving before departing characteristic of electrons, or if that was true. I couldn't find anything Googling, which leads me to believe it's a made-up thing; then again, I don't have great Google skills in science subjects. Well, I think what they are referring to is when the electrons in orbit about the nucleus, they orbit in discrete levels of energy. For example, there are quite a few objects in orbit about our sun (planets, comets, asteroids, etc.), and basically there is no real limits on how close these object can be to the sun or how far they can be from the sun; provided that there are not any ohter complicating factors. However, when electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom, they do so in something called "shells" and when they change from one shell to another, the electrons "tunnel" from shell to the next as opposed to simply moving from one shell to the other. So, for just a brief moment, the electron is actually in two places at once. You can get more details about this phenoma at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling Anyway, it sounds as if the writers are knowledgeable about this fact as well, but that they are applying it over a very large scale for their space craft. Which really does not work, but it makes for a nice fliver all the same. I hope this helps!
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

29th December 2011, 11:38 AM	#4
FattyCatty Picky V. Nitty Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Southern California Posts: 2,441	Originally Posted by Crossbow Well, I think what they are referring to is when the electrons in orbit about the nucleus, they orbit in discrete levels of energy. For example, there are quite a few objects in orbit about our sun (planets, comets, asteroids, etc.), and basically there is no real limits on how close these object can be to the sun or how far they can be from the sun; provided that there are not any ohter complicating factors. However, when electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom, they do so in something called "shells" and when they change from one shell to another, the electrons "tunnel" from shell to the next as opposed to simply moving from one shell to the other. So, for just a brief moment, the electron is actually in two places at once. You can get more details about this phenoma at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling Anyway, it sounds as if the writers are knowledgeable about this fact as well, but that they are applying it over a very large scale for their space craft. Which really does not work, but it makes for a nice fliver all the same. I hope this helps! That was very helpful, thank you. Although I didn't understand a lot of the link, the section on "Faster than light" describes "a frame of reference in which it arrives before it has left," which seems to jibe with the quote from the book I'm reading. The quote in the OP goes on to say of the nice flivver (aka Electron Substitution Drive) that: Quote: ...it had been found that motion could be induced in certain plasmas and fields -- and by extension, to entire macroscopic bodies -- simply by imposing direction upon the electron's absurd little dance. Terran and Liaden researchers had struggled mightily, and had at last managed, by dint of applying outrageous amounts of energy to a test object about the size of a human head, to propel said object for very short distances. Having achieved this double-edged success, they had then thrown up their hands and conceded that the drive was less than cost-effective. For humans. In the meanwhile, the Clutch had solved the scale problem, and effortlessly moved worldlets through space, one electron at a time. So, as you say, the authors seem to be tweaking reality by enlarging the scale as opposed to making it all up from whole cloth. This always seems to make it more interesting to me. There is the wild hope that the writer has come upon something new that can steer science in a new direction (didn't Heinlein do this, if not for science, then for technology?).
	__________________ You can't teach an old dogma new tricks -- Dorothy Parker The sceptics continued to look sceptical and the believers believing -- Catherine Aird _{[/grammar nazi][/Dept of Grammar Security] ftfy -- Wudang Proud member of SCOFF (SoCal Opposing Feline Filleting)}

29th December 2011, 03:49 PM	#5
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	A single, isolated electron is full of longing. Sadder than Ol' Yeller. Crossbow's discreet energy levels description is what quantum is all about. In between-ness, though counter-intuitive while observing planet-size orbital units, rules the day in the teeny-tiny. The 'leap' appears to require no time; just energy. Though the leap is rather small.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

29th December 2011, 03:51 PM	#6
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,716	Yeah, you can't use quantum weirdness on macroscopic objects, except as literary fiction. So sorry no quantum FTL drives. R Heinlein and Arthur Clark both had patents.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

29th December 2011, 09:40 PM	#7
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,932	Originally Posted by Dancing David Yeah, you can't use quantum weirdness on macroscopic objects, except as literary fiction. So sorry no quantum FTL drives. R Heinlein and Arthur Clark both had patents. Some quantum weirdness on macroscopic objects.

30th December 2011, 05:17 AM	#8
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,716	Sure at close ranges and the like. That does not mean the diamond will be quantum tunneling.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager