Do Electrons travel as wave? If they do, can their path be described by the sinuisoidal function?
954846
Actually, electrons do have wave properties.  The wavelength is equal to h/mv, where h is Planck's constant, m is the mass, v is velocity.  With this equation you can find the wavelength of any matter.\nAlthough the wavelength of an electron is usually less than a nanometer, we can still detect it.
13643
I have a partial answer for you.  In Hydrogen, the electron can be thought of as having a velocity of c/137 (the speed of light times the fine structure constant).  So it's barely relativistic.\n\nRemember that thinking of the electron as a point particle moving around a nucleus, like a planet in orbit, is not realistic.\n\nIn larger (higher Z) atoms, the electrons closest to the nucleus will have much higher "velocities" (getting closer to c).
369573
I think if you put that sort of question you are familliar with SCHRODINGER ecuation. It is a complex ecuation simply described by\n\nNabla (a small triangle with the basis on the upper side) of H (hamiltonian - a complex math analysis operator) equals to zero.\n\nThis equation was solved only for the Hydrogen atom (in my physics books from college the solution occupy 8 A4 pages ...) and the results were extrapolated for others atoms (helium, lithium, berylium, etc.) but is just an extrapolation. \n\nFor other atom than Hydrogen the Schrodinger equation can not be solved with the mathematical apparatus we dispose today ...\n\nSo, the Schrodinger equation describes the POSSIBILITY to find an electron in a region of space at one moment. The shape of this spatial arrangement is called orbital (wave function) and we have S orbitals (spherical shape - maximum 2 electrons), P orbitals (spatial simetry over Ox, Oy and Oz with a shape similar to mathematical sign for infinitum on every axis - maximum 6 alectrons in 3 pairs), D orbitals (maximum 10 electrons in 5 pairs) and F orbitals (maximum 14 electrons in 7 pairs)\n\nSo the Sulphur electronical configuration is:\n1S(2)2S(2)2P(6)3S(2)3P(4)\n\nFrom the last shell is probably the easier to extract an electron. The distance from the nucleus dictate the strenght of atraction ... So, an 3S electron is harder to remove than an 3P electon but easier to remove than a 2P electron\n\nDONE!
69398
In some sense, it could be made up of individual particles.  But if you break down the particles far enough, they start to take on properties of waves as well as particles.  But the question is, if they are waves, what is there to do the waving?\n\nIf we observe the particles very closely, we can determine their exact positions - but the more precisely we determine their positions, the less we know about their momentum!  We can only draw a graph to represent the probability of a given particle's momentum _if_ it happened to be at a particular position, and there does not seem to be any way to exactly predict what its position or momentum might be at any given point in time, without measuring it.\n\nSo it could be that matter does not exist at all, unless it is being measured, or observed.  Could it be that what matter is made up of is...mind?
93061
I didn't give it a thumbs down, and I think the answer is fine as far as it goes.  However, one problem that I noticed is that you have a circular definition.  You said electromagnetic waves are oscillating electric and magnetic waves.  I assume you meant to say electromagnetic waves are oscillating electric and magnetic *fields*, which is correct.
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.
715376
It means that electrons have both particle-like and wave-like behaviour (for example they demonstrate interference).\n\nwavelength = planck's constant/(mass x velocity)
413107
I will have to answer your question in two parts.\n\nElectrons in a piece of metal move around randomly with speeds of about 10^5 m/s. This is just the thermal velocity associated with the energy the electrons possess without any electric field present.\nWhen an electric field is applied, the electrons acquire a miniscule drift velocity. This velocity is miniscule compared to both the thermal velocity AND the speed of light.\nElectrons flowing as a current have speeds no where near the speed of light, whether you speak about the thermal or drift velocities.\n\nHOWEVER, the SIGNAL DOES travel close to the speed of light. Signal speeds are typically about 2/3 the speed of light. Just do a simple coaxial cable calculation to find a wave equation, and you can find the conduction speed.\nThe reason for this is that the Electric field applied can cause electrons ALL THROUGHOUT the circuit to move, and thus the speed of the signal is greater than the drift speed of the electrons.\n\nThe other answers are wrong in saying that ELECTRONS travel close to the speed of light.\nIt is correct to say that ELECTRICAL SIGNALS travel close to the speed of light, however.
419125
I think you mean diffraction of light.\n\nIf so then you need to consider light as an electromagnetic  wave form, not as a form of particles - small energy packets called photons. The light, you see, has duel nature - it acts in certain situations as a wave whereas in other situations it is observed to behaves as if it is made of tiny particles.\n\nNow in its electromagnetic wave form light behave very much like water waves. The water waves, for example, when emerge from a narrow openings spread out in form of arcs or semicircles into a wider region.\n\nLight too has this property. It tends to bend round sharp edges and spread into regions where it is not supposed to be. On the other hand if light were composed of particles a burst of particles would always follow a straight line trajectory.
689936
electron is Negatively charged particle that revolves around the nucleus of an atom.IT shows dual character i.e; it has both wave character and particle character...one electronic charge is 1.609 * 10^-19......the wave length of an electron can be found using the formula lamda= h/mv..where h is the plank's constant 6.626*10^-34...m is mass of an electron 9.1*10^-31...v is its velocity...when supplied energy it gets excited and moves to high enegry orbital...then slowly radiate the energy and then move to their position...these radiations araethe colours seen when we heat substances...the color is due the wavelength of the radiations....the energy of an electron at infinity is 0...when it is near the nuclues...it does some work and energy is spent therefore near the nucleus he charge of an electron is -ve...thats all i can  remember...hope you slect mine...thanks....
824668
Yes it sort-of works for a hydrogen atom.\nYou do need to know about electric field attraction.\n\nthe attraction of charges pulls the electron in, the angular motion holds it from being pulled all the way.\n\nAlthough this model (planetary model) is wrong, it is amazing how close it comes considering that it is so far from what we believe to be true!!
164457
The way light particles travel is  in a ray sequencce at the same velocity.\nThe ray path light follows looks like traveling beads at the same spacing and travelig period. When the traveling period of the particles is shorter the frequency that  they cross at agiven point is higher. If the period is longer the frequency is lower.  It is at the lower frequency that our eyes see light radiation ray towardsred .This is what is called the red shift.  So light appears to follow the rules of a waves yet its not a wave.(I am not going to explain oscillatory motion in this answer.)\n\nIn the wave there are two types of effects; one is called the Doppler effect on which the assumption that the galaxies are receeding is made.\nThe other is called the Dispersion Effect.This case shows also a red shift but has nothing to do with the recession of the galaxies.\nInitially this was the belief of Einstein .On that basis he used a constant called the cosmological constant to account for the stability of the Universe. Later he reversed his belief and thought he had made a mistake.  HOwever the Dispersion theory showed other wise; Hence Einstein may have not been wrong in the first Place. Even Einstein was swayed to change his mind and believe wrong.\n\nIt is a matter of preference whether you choose which is the correct theory about recession of the galaxies.He did believe that the Universe is a finite Creation. That makes sense other wise motion could not take place and the Energy Phenomena would not exist.( I am not going to explain how the Energy Phenomena takes place in this answer)\n\n\nTo Understand the motion of galaxies it is necessary to know how much mass loss or gain is experienced by a paticular galaxy. If the galaxy increases in mass ,it will increase its radius from the center of mass of the Universe.If the galaxy looses mass the reverse occurs.This is my Theory. It is a Theory of Equilibrium for rotation. You can you choose to expand on it or believe the Gauges theories or quantum Mechanic theory.  But none offer this answer. The is quite  a shift and I doubt that the main stream of physics would believe me, because they believe their theory of the red shift is the only right one!
317881
Such a pulse produces a standing wave. In such standing wave energy is not transferred from one place to another.\n\nAt each instant we see a wave, but the waves do not move.\n\nThere are certain points which never move, they are called nodes.\n\nBut between nodes the points are displaced.\n\nAt one instant, all points are motion less.\n\nAfter this instant, points that previously went up will now come down and vice versa.\n\nExcept the nodal points, all points are oscillating between potential and kinetic energy. \n\nThe maximum displacement corresponds to potential energy and the mean position corresponds to kinetic energy.\n\nAt the instant when all points are motion less, ALL POINTS EXCEPT THE NODAL POINTS have kinetic energy, by which they continue their oscillation.
128025
This is a relativistic problem The answer depents on the viewpoint of the observer. oscillation is a factor of time-mass-energy all of which are distorted relativisticaly. you are probably looking at an inverse square solution.\n\nContrary to popular belief electrons do not travel at relativistic velocities only their electromagnetic wave. This problem is further out there than you think.
387758
Of course they do! This is why electrons orbit the nucleus which is positive due to the proton's positive charge. They are constantly moving towards the nucleus but because its a curved path they never get there (just like how planets orbit the sun due to gravity).
960070
Two dimensions should be explanation enough. Assume the de Broglie wavelength of an electron is some distance in nanometers. If we draw the nucleus as a dot and draw the electron as a continuous wave around the nucleus, the wave has to be the length of some multiple of its wavelength. If the wave were not the length of a discrete multiple of its wavelength it would not be continuous because a full circle's rotation would cause the wave to jump. If we constrain the atomic model to behave like this, then the answer is simple. \n\nConsider the electron wave that is four wavelengths long. This wave is a function which describes electron density. The next energy level has to correspond to a wave that is five wavelengths long. In this way, the wave cannot increase gradually, but rather the levels are split into discrete shells, one for each number of wavelengths in the wave.
1032772
The point to realise about electrons is that they don’t objectively exist anywhere while they are in motion. There is a probability of them existing in multiple locations but they don’t fully exist in any of those.\n\nSo electrons aren’t really in more than one place at one time. Rather they exist ‘smeared’ over a range of points in space with a probability the decreases with distance form the nucleus. They aren’t really in more than one place at once, rather they exist to some extent in all places simultaneously but the probability of their existence in any one place is always finite.\n\nIt might help to think of an electron like a global jetsetter, Such a person could possibly anywhere in the world on any given day but they are more likely to be found in one of a few favoured locations. You won’t actually know where they are until you go and look for them but you know they are most likely in St. Tropez or Rio at any given moment. Electrons are much the same. Any individual electron could be in St. Tropez or Rio at any point in time, or they could be at any other point in the universe.  The only way to know where they are is to go and have a look.\n\nThe crucial difference is that when dealing with electrons it is the act of looking that actually defines the location.  They can potentially exists in both St. Tropez and Rio but if you look in St. Tropez and find it then it will have been there all the time.