Science desk
< October 14	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 15

Audio Engineer vs. Music Engineer

Are these two things interchangeable? Or is there a meaningful difference? Trade (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audio is reciting too. 2A02:3032:302:3F8E:5531:CB3D:1EB2:F4FC (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are engineers, but we let them bask in reflected glory. Greglocock (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously tho both audio engineer and music engineer are sharing the same Wikidata item and i need to figure out if i should split them Trade (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a music engineer the same as a music producer? Some random website about careers thinks audio and music engineers are different, although it implausibly claims that the primary skill for an audio engineer is video, and I don't know why music engineers need to know R. Card Zero (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering in the recording industry can be very well defined. There are engineers who focus solely on drum kits and nothing else. There are engineers who focus solely on microphone gear and placement and nothing else. If you ask them for their title, they might say they are a sound engineer or recording engineer or audio engineer or music engineer. The title isn't important. The skill being implemented during the production of a recording is what is important. My short experience (installing Sony hardware in one studio) involved working with engineers in front of and behind the glass. The ones in front of the glass set up mics, cables, etc... The ones behind the glass worked on the audio levels, mixes, and such. They worked together, but did not do each other's jobs. Then, when finished, more engineers came in and worked on optimizing the mix for CD compression (this was pre-MP3 days). So, in summary, the title means whatever they want it to mean because the title is not directly related to the job performed. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The behind glass people can also be called "sound desk operators", if you want a less vain designation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been practising audio engineering at my college. When I’m in the studio, I would call myself a recording engineer or mixing engineer. Pablothepenguin (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electron energy level in atoms

Depending on the excited state of the atoms, some electrons are in a higher energy state than in their ground state. But what is the distance from the nucleus of an electron when its energy level increases, does it move away or does it move closer? Does its angular velocity increase or decrease? Malypaet (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The usual type of excitation is that that electron moves into a different atomic orbital. The mathematical definition of an electron's state does include among other things both angular-momentum details and something similar to the average distance from the nucleus. The exact types of change depend on which orbitals are involved. But remember that electrons are not objects that "orbit", so the idea of simple closer vs further or faster vs slower, as one might visualize planetary motion, is an incorrect model that leads to many incorrect thoughts. DMacks (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As in the naive Bohr model, the expected distance of an electron to the nucleus of an atom, given its orbital, is determined by the principal quantum number

n

of that orbital. Here, "expected distance" means the mean distance obtained by experimental measurements, which make the orbital wave function collapse. There is a relationship between the energy and this expected distance, although the precise picture is complicated; see Electron shell § Subshell energies and filling order. --Lambiam 06:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the naive person that I am, I understand that the electron is a particle with a mass and moves in a particular probabilistic way around an atomic nucleus having a kinetic energy (

{\frac {1}{2}}mv^{2}?

). So, if the most energetic electrons are the furthest away, what is the force that keeps them with the nucleus, an increase in their electric charge in relation to their energy level, , or whatever else? (I understand that with a soup of electrons rotating around a nucleus we are in a world of probability.) Malypaet (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a vibrating cloud of excitations to which you cannot assign a velocity. Perhaps the answers given here will help you. --Lambiam 15:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Malypaet (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to think about the energy of an electron in an orbital is by considering its ionization energy - the energy it would take to remove it. For hydrogen atoms, the energy needed to remove a ground state electron is 13.6 ~~MeV~~ eV, so we say the n=1 energy level has energy -13.6 ~~MeV~~ eV.

An electron in a higher level requires less work to knock it off. For n=2, the required energy is only 3.4 ~~MeV~~ eV, meaning an electron at the n=2 level is 10.2 ~~MeV~~ eV MORE energetic than n=1, at -3.4 ~~MeV~~ eV. PianoDan (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to a gravitational orbital system, in which a body in a more distant orbit needs less energy to extract itself from the system. Malypaet (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. And both the electromagnetic and gravitational forces are inverse square forces.

Although it is somewhat unsettling to consider a situation where the planets are actually smears of probability in circular harmonics rather than, you know, planets. PianoDan (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A gas giant is just a smear in many ways. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that electrons all have the same mass and repel each other. In addition, this energy level system must involve another physical phenomenon than that of electric charge. Malypaet (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All electrons DO have the same mass and repel each other. You don't need to "suspect" that, it's settled science.

And I was being silly when I compared planets to electrons. While electromagnetism and gravity are both inverse square laws, the energy level system is due to the Pauli exclusion principle, which absolutely does not apply on astronomical scales. PianoDan (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "suspect" was the wrong verb, bad translation, I meant "I know". Malypaet (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you confuse electrons with neutrons? MeV are nuclear, electrons are in the range eV to keV. 176.0.163.195 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just flat used the wrong units. I type "MeV" all day at work. :) PianoDan (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]