On an atomic level what is the difference between a wave and a particle?
395975
The most difficult part of understanding things that happen at the microscopic and nanoscopic scale is that a lot of the rules that apply in our everyday lives simply don't work with elementary particles.  If you try to visualize these things, you'll probably end up with some wrong conclusions.\n\nThat said, light waves are fundamentally different from any other wave, such as water, sound, etc., because they do not travel through a medium.  A sound wave travels through air molecules, a water wave travels through water, but a light wave doesn't travel through anything.  To make matters even more confusing, light also has particle-like properties, yet it has no mass and no molecular weight.  A light particle, or photon, is considered an elementary particle, like an electron, proton, or neutron, so it has no molecular make-up, either.\n\nWaves that travel through a medium also do not have a molecular make-up.  Think of a Slinky, for instance.  If you shake one end of the Slinky, a wave travels through the Slinky to the other end, but there's no molecule form for that wave.  The wave basically just energy traveling down a line.  One molecule pushes another molecule pushes another molecule and so on and so on.
980642
light is (in a nutshell) waves of energy. Waves (in general) travel in a straight line. stars are so far away that not much of their energy or waves hit the planet.
232906
The energy is a single photon of a wave is given as,\nE = h * c / lambda\nwhere E is the energy, h is plank's constant, c is the speed of light in c a vacuum and lamba is the wavelength.\n\nSince h and c are constants, If you are trying to find the wavelength, you can calculate the energy using the following equation, then plug it back into the first and solve for lambda,\nchange in E = b[1/n_i ^2 - 1/n_f ^2]\nwhere change in E is the change in the energy level of the electron (how much energy it gives off) when the electron moves from its initial energy level (n_i) to its final energy level (n_f). b is a series of constants with an over all value of 2.18 E-18 J.\n\nI couldnt really type the formulas very well due to the limitations I have here, but there are nice versions show on this web site along with an explanation,\nhttp://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/background_knowledge/Spectroscopy.html
281903
zero to infinity.\n\nYou see hadrons (a kind of tiny particle smaller than an atom) have properties of both a solid particle, and a wave.\n\nA single quark can't really exist in nature (as far as scientists think for now), but anyway all particles have a wavefunction. Even your body has a wavefunction which is the sum of all the particles in your body.\n\nA probability wavefunction gives you an idea of how much time a thing is likely to be hanging around in a particular area.\n\nImagine a map of the word and you stick a red pin for every month you have been in a particular place. What would your wavefunction look like?\n\nA quark will have a wavefunction which is thickest (most red pins) near its locations inside a proton -- but it will also have some theoretically mathematically small probability of being on the other side of the moon for instance.\n\nThe wavefunction depends on mass, so we could just compare the electron mass to the quark mass -- but there is a fly in  the ointment. Quarks don't really have a real mass. They have various types of theoretical masses, but really they are measured by kooky-sounding properties like flavor, charm and color! Wacko huh? So there is no direct way to compare wavefunction/size to an electron.\n\nSo the answer is, it depends! zero to infinity.
504427
Actualy, I am an expert in this field, having a Ph.D. in Optical Sciences.\n\nI don't believe light is a particle, exactly.  It is a quantization of energy, but not really like a particle.  If it were a particle it would explain how it can propagate across nothingness.  The existence of something in space would just get into its way, so the nothingness only helps light to propagate.  But a particle implies rest mass and other physical properties which light does not have.\n\nI don't believe that empty space is something, contrary to the way some people interpret Einstein.\n\nI don't believe it is action at a distance.  Light takes a finite amount of time to cross space.  The action occurs where the light is.\n\nThe question was more of a problem when light was considered to be merely a wave.  A wave needed a medium to disturb or propagate across.  Sound moves molecules about as it propagates.  But light only bears a resemblance to a wave in the way it behaves.  It is not like a classical wave.\n\nThe best way I can think of to explain it is to understand that an electromagnetic wave carries with it its own medium.  The electric and magnetic fields oscillate, feeding on itself, so to speak.  The energy is launched into space and perpetuates itself according to the laws of physics.
600593
radiation according to me is due to excitation of electrons from lower energy levels to higher levels and vice versa.During exitation electrons obsorb or release energy in form of packets called quanta which will travel in form of waves
948808
Electron is simply the smallest and ligthest subatomic particle inside every atoms. as you know, atom consists of protons (positively charged), neutrons (no charge) and electrons (negatively charged). you can imagine atoms to be like a planet which has meteors orbiting around it. the planet represent the nucleus which consists of the protons and the neutrons. and the meteors around are representing the electrons. due to its light weight, electrons move around in an incredible speed around the nucleus. however, electrons do not escaped from the nucleus because they are bounded by forces which keep them in tracks. you can check it out in www.wikipedia.com if you need more info on electrons :D . GL for ur science fair anw.
482458
Wave-particle duality of light in particular is observed in a number of experiments but only one or the other form.  To show this you will to explain 2 or more phenomena, for matter the photoelectric effect is the best example for waves there are plenty to choose from.\n\nThat however is for light, if you are talking about matter for example electrons as a wave, then you will have to use debrogle equation and explain a experiment like electron diffraction, where is acts as a probablility wave and builds up a diffraction pattern rather that each electron actually being considered as a wave.\n\nHope this helps
308958
Because I am lazy, I will just post my answer from a similar question:\n\nA photon will keep going until it gets absorbed. By the essense of your question, I am guessing that you are thinking of photons in terms of a solid particle. True, it can be thought of as a particle, that is part of wave-particle duality. But the truth is, we cannot really understand wave-particle duality in an intuitive way. The mathematics are well understood, but as humans we cannot really grasp, it does not make sense to our everyday experiences. Don't think of it as a particle disappearing. A photon is merely a means of transmitting energy.\n\nMaybe this will help: An atom is in an energized state with an electron in a higher orbital. The electron drops to the ground state and a photon is emitted. That photon travels either 10 nanometers or one light year (doesn't matter) until it interacts with another atom of the same kind. That second atom absorbs the photon and an electron gets excited to the same state as the electron in the orginal atom. So in this sense a photon is just a means of transferring energy. No matter is created or destroyed.\n\n\nEdit:  An excited molecule can relax to a lower energy state through non-radiative processes or energy can be transferred to other parts of the molecule.  Typically though this happens through collision with another atom or molecule.  Generally the information is lost about what originally excited the molecule in the first place except under very controlled conditions.  In other words you cannot generally trace a photon back to the source once it is absorbed and then the energy is transferred to another form.\n\nAs far as the walls holding sound energy and then reemitting it, I don't see a mechanism for doing it.  If the wall could store what are called acoustic phonons (not photons, but phonons), there would be some mechanism for storing that energy.  However, that energy would be dissapated very quickly.  You would need a perfectly crystalline structure in your wall to do so.  Any imperfections in the wall would make that energy scatter and eventually be released as heat.    Wall material is fairly amorphous(no particular regularity to the molecular structure).  Let's say for example you have a small area of perfect crystallinity that stores a sound for a long period of time.  Then what mechanism would there be to suddenly make it emit the sound?  In the end, it would be hard to disprove this, but it is very very unlikely.
1107614
No.. and yet... Here we go into quantum physics. One of the interesting things about your question is that it really depends on how you look at it. The observer actually affects what an electron is observed to be: basically- if you look for the electron to behave as a particle- it will. You will find that it has mass, and a velocity, etc. If you look for it to behave as a wave- you will find that as well. :) So, when it is a wave, it does have an innate frequency. Actually, it has one of several 'quantized' energy levels. If an electron gets excited (yes, physicists really use that term) it jumps up to a higher energy level. If it finds a way to release that energy (electromagnetic radiation, or light) it will return to is normal state. This explains many things in the real world, such as flourescent colors, photoluminesence, etc. Anyway- thats the quick version. For more depth, grab a modern physics book. :)
1138753
This is a natural question if you think in terms of classical physics.  In fact, it's an even bigger problem than at first glance because, in classical physics, a charged object which accelerates will radiate energy.  So, in classical physics, all electrons would be expected to spiral in to the nucleus.  This puzzle cannot be addressed without quantum mechanics.\n\nHere's a very simple explanation.  It's not mathematically exact, but it carries the important concepts, and does give an answer fairly close to the mathematically correct one.\n\nFor simplicity, we'll consider hydrogen.  A single proton, no neutrons, and one electron.  There are no competing electrons to push each other apart, it really looks as if the best situation is for the electron to be squeezed right into the proton.\n\nRecall that in quantum mechanics, particles behave like waves.  Let's look at the electron that way.  What's the wavelength of this electron wave?  Well, we can't really say exactly, but a good approximation would be the wavelength is about the same as the width of the space in which you constrain the electron.  Put the electron in a large space, and it has a large wavelength.  Put it in a tiny space, and its wavelength is much smaller.  Ah, but remember, the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency, and the higher the frequency, the higher the energy.\n\nNow, you have two competing effects.  If the electron goes in very close to the proton, and stays there, then it will be lowering its electrostatic energy.  But to do that, it has to confine itself to an extremely small volume, which will give it a very high "wavelength energy".  It seems natural that there's a middle point somewhere such that if the electron got closer to the proton, its wavelength energy would increase faster than its electrostatic energy would decrease.  This sets a minimum distance for the electron from the proton.  It actually needs more energy to get closer to the proton after that.  So, the place the electron winds up is actually its lowest energy state, it's stable there, and doesn't require any injection of energy to maintain this position.\n\nAs I said, this is very non-mathematical, but it gives you an idea of what's happening in the quantum mechanics which explain the effect.
891339
It depends on what substance you're talking about as well as many other factors. In Quantum Mechanics, the observation of particles affects the observers ability to measure certain properties. For example: you can know the velocity of a particle, but you can't know it's position; or you can know it's position, but not it's velocity. It's like trying to find out where a grain of sand is by throwing other grains of sand at it. Once you find out where it is, it's been moved. It's also like trying to find an answer to the question of whether or not a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if nobody is there to hear it. Paradoxically, the only way to find out is to be there and hear it.
469512
an atom- it is the smallest possible particle of an element that retains the properties of that element.\n\nan atom, being the smallest particle of an element is still composed of smaller particles: \n          • protons - particles with a weight or mass of 1 \n            amu (atomic mass unit) and has 1 positive \n            charge \n          • neutrons - particles with 1 amu and no charge \n            (neutral) \n          • electrons - particles with almost no mass \n            (almost 0 amu) and has 1 negative charge
381267
according to the theory of quantum mechanics particles can exhibit a wave like behaviour, ie particles such as electrons which fundamentally are thought of as particles can infact difract and behave like a wave. for more info look up the wave-particle duality.
13297
Atoms have a nucleus ( composed of protons and neutrons) and a cloud of electrons. The number of the different components varies between different elements.\n\nElectrons can only have specific energy levels in an atom - that is the energy is not continious but quantized. This is different from, say, the solar system, because a planet could theoretically be in any orbit. But we know from quantum mechanics (and many, many experiments) that electons can only occupy certain "orbits."\n\nSometimes an electron can be bumped into a higher orbit (the higher orbits have less energy, because they are not as tightly bound) or kicked out of the atom altogether. If a second electron moves into the spot it will release energy as it falls into that level.\n\nHydrogen is the easiest element to study. The nucleus is a single proton, and it can have only one electron. The different energy levels can be illustrated like this:\nhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html#c2\n(though in reality electrons don't travel on nice orbits)\n\nIf an electron in the second lowest level does a "quantum leap" to the very lowest, it will emit energy - light - at a very specific frequency. In this case 656 nanometers, which is red. If, on the other hand, an electron falls from the 3rd level down to the 1st level the emitted light is blue.\n\nA "spectrum" will show all of these distinct levels, with the brighter ones being the most common. This shows the spectrum of hydrogen with a diagram of the quantum leaps:\nhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html#c4\n\nIn other atoms it becomes more complex, not every jump is allowed, and in the precense of a magnetic field a "fine structure" is seen in the spectrum, as some of the main lines look double.\n\nThe result of all of this is that each different atom will give a different characteristic spectrum. So, you can use this to identify different elements in anything from crime scene samples to distant galaxies.
971590
Just in case you wanted a nice simple answer:\n\nBoth particles are emitted from the nuclei of unstable atoms.\n\nA beta particle is a negatively charged particle equivalent to an electron\n\nAn alpha particle consists of two protons and two neutrons
241831
Light can be both a particle and a wave.