Notices
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Collapse Of HA

  1. #1 Collapse Of HA 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Hydrogen Atom

    According to classical physics, the hydrogen atom is composed of an electron orbiting a proton and the assumption here is that the electron would eventually plunge into the proton because the velocity could not keep it in orbit because of its loss of some energy.
    Using classical physics though, I would like to explain why that does not happen.
    The electrons revolution around the proton causes the proton to spin in the same direction as its motion and the closer the electron approaches the proton, the higher its velocity and subsequently, the higher the proton spin. This proton spin generates a magnetic field of its own and this field creates a repulsion toward the electrons magnetic field which results from its motion around the proton. These magnetic fields reach a balanced state in the ground state orbit of the electron and this repulsion keeps the electron in that state until some disturbing force changes that state.
    The only reason why classical physics failed here is that the calculations were incomplete. If the proton spin and resulting magnetic field interactions were taken into account, this formula would be complete and it would not fail. As long as there is no excitation, the hydrogen atom will remain in its ground state indefinitely.

    So this is a failure of the math because a component (magnetic force) is left out of the formula.

    By ‘visualization’, I determined that these magnetic fields within the HA are involved in stabilizing the ground state orbit by use of the ‘right hand rule’ and the ‘left hand rule’. The RHR involves the electron magnetic field and the LHR involves the protons ‘spin’ magnetic field.
    This can be easily proven by ‘clenching ones hands into fists’ and placing them close to each other in front of you with your thumbs extended outward. The thumbs represent the movements of the particles. The protons spin side toward the electrons is moving in the same direction as the electrons motion synchroneously..

    Notice that the bent fingers of both fists move upward and outward relative to each other into each hand. These fingers represent the magnetic field lines of the particles and how they are oriented by their motions relative to each other.

    Since the field lines of both particles are moving in the same direction relative to each other, they REPEL each other. This magnetic repulsion than enhances the electrons orbital momentum to keep the electron in suspension in the ground state of the HA indefinately.

    Cosmo


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Some questions and problems I'd like to add:

    1. How does the revolution of the electron cause the proton spin? The proton is symmetric. Where does the electric force of the electron produce a torque on the proton?

    2. How does the electron spin interfere?

    3. What is the energy level (in eV) of the electron in the ground state assuming your model?

    4. What happens after a spin flip?

    5. How do you explain the discrete energy levels of the electron? Why isn't it continuous? Why doesn't it depend on the energy of the exciting photon?

    6. The proton spin vector is not necessarily (anti-)parallel to the vector of angular momentum. How does that fit into your model?

    Moderator Mode (Astronomy):
    By the way, this is rather a physics topic than related to Astronomy or Cosmology. So, I move it to the Physics section. I'll keep a "ghost" in the Astro section for a while, so that everybody knows, where the thread went.

    Dishmaster


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    I don't think the electron orbits.

    That's just high school analogy.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    This still fails to address the main issue, that according to classical mechanics, an accelerating charge, such as an orbiting electron orbiting a nucleus, will emit electromagnetic radiation. This radiation removes energy from the electron, and the atom as a whole.

    Using classical mechanics, the whole system would still have to lose energy and eventually girnd to a halt. You can't solve the problem using classical mechanics by just ignoring the mechanisim in classical mechanics that leads to the problem.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    This still fails to address the main issue, that according to classical mechanics, an accelerating charge, such as an orbiting electron orbiting a nucleus, will emit electromagnetic radiation. This radiation removes energy from the electron, and the atom as a whole.

    Using classical mechanics, the whole system would still have to lose energy and eventually girnd to a halt. You can't solve the problem using classical mechanics by just ignoring the mechanisim in classical mechanics that leads to the problem.
    Indeed. And in Cosmo's picture, the magnetic fields would get weaker while the electron slows down until it collapses completely. So, nothing is gained with the magnetic field approach.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Some questions and problems I'd like to add:

    1. How does the revolution of the electron cause the proton spin? The proton is symmetric. Where does the electric force of the electron produce a torque on the proton?

    Reply
    There is a coulomb force binding the two particles
    You will notice that in all the major satellites of our Solar System, there is no spin
    because these satelites have liquid centers that distorts their spheres to prevent this.
    For this resean, I also concudedd that electrons do not spin because of their very low density to the protons. But as a body, it will cause the proton to spin because of the powerful force involved.

    2. How does the electron spin interfere?

    Reply -
    It does not spin as mentioned above.

    3. What is the energy level (in eV) of the electron in the ground state assuming your model?

    Reply
    Since this ground state is considered to be zero (potential) and the freed electron is at 13.7(?) EV, then that is the way it is as kinetic energy.

    4. What happens after a spin flip?

    Reply -
    In this case that I considered was a difficult question to resolve. But my opinion or guess would be that a close approach by a free electron could cause the proton to flip or disturb the electron into an elliptical orbit to create a 21 cm continuous wave that eventually ends when the conditions are restored to normal ground state.

    5. How do you explain the discrete energy levels of the electron? Why isn't it continuous? Why doesn't it depend on the energy of the exciting photon?

    Reply -
    I explained on other threads that in the GS of the HA, it is radiating a cotinuous alternating wave of one 'angtrom'. This wave is transformed to the entire electron field and moving with the electron. Since it is a neutral wave, it does not transfer any energy.
    On the other hand, the Planck Constant has transformed the principle of a continuous wave into a quanta or pulse of energy as explained by the Bohr Atomic Model.
    These photons have a frequency of one but their single wavelength can be determined by dividing that wavelength into 'c' to give it a frequency and energy level.

    6. The proton spin vector is not necessarily (anti-)parallel to the vector of angular momentum. How does that fit into your model?

    Reply
    Are you saying here thst the proton spin axis is not perpendicular to the electron orbital plane?
    The binding force of the electron to the proton would, IMO, make both vectors parrallel, as far as I could determine, since this is a straight line bind,

    Moderator Mode (Astronomy):
    By the way, this is rather a physics topic than related to Astronomy or Cosmology. So, I move it to the Physics section. I'll keep a "ghost" in the Astro section for a while, so that everybody knows, where the thread went.

    Dishmaster
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    This still fails to address the main issue, that according to classical mechanics, an accelerating charge, such as an orbiting electron orbiting a nucleus, will emit electromagnetic radiation. This radiation removes energy from the electron, and the atom as a whole.

    Using classical mechanics, the whole system would still have to lose energy and eventually girnd to a halt. You can't solve the problem using classical mechanics by just ignoring the mechanisim in classical mechanics that leads to the problem.
    Indeed. And in Cosmo's picture, the magnetic fields would get weaker while the electron slows down until it collapses completely. So, nothing is gained with the magnetic field approach.
    Janus
    What you say here is that the electron emits a photon when returning to its original orbit .
    But it absorbed a photon when it got bumped into the outer orbit. So there is no loss of energy.

    Dish
    When the electron got bumped into the outer orbit, its velocity decreased causing its magnetic field to be reduced in strength. This bump also reduced the spin of the proton causing its MF to also be decreased.
    So this scenario causes the coulomb force to pull the electron back into its original orbit that it had. So this again restores the respective MF's to stop any further reduction in the electrons orbital position.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Janus
    What you say here is that the electron emits a photon when returning to its original orbit .
    But it absorbed a photon when it got bumped into the outer orbit. So there is no loss of energy.
    No, you are assuming discrete energy levels. But any classical charged particle emits radiation constantly, hence continuously. This leads to a continuous breaking of the electron, because the radiation energy is taken from the kinetic energy. Eventually, the electron would come to a halt. This would lead to a collapse of magnetic fields you propose. So, the electron would crash into the nucleus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    This still fails to address the main issue, that according to classical mechanics, an accelerating charge, such as an orbiting electron orbiting a nucleus, will emit electromagnetic radiation. This radiation removes energy from the electron, and the atom as a whole.

    Using classical mechanics, the whole system would still have to lose energy and eventually girnd to a halt. You can't solve the problem using classical mechanics by just ignoring the mechanisim in classical mechanics that leads to the problem.
    Indeed. And in Cosmo's picture, the magnetic fields would get weaker while the electron slows down until it collapses completely. So, nothing is gained with the magnetic field approach.
    Janus
    What you say here is that the electron emits a photon when returning to its original orbit .
    But it absorbed a photon when it got bumped into the outer orbit. So there is no loss of energy.



    Cosmo
    No, that is not what I am saying.

    Again, according to classical mechanics a circling charge, such as an electron in orbit around a nucleus, will constantly emit EMR at the cost of its own circular motion.
    How can you propose a model to prevent the collapse of an atom using classical mechanics, when you don't even seem to understand why classical mechanics predicts that the atom will collapse?
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dish and Janus

    The electric fields surround the charged particles. The electrons EF as can apply to others are surrounding the charged particles in all directions. They are distributions of 'real field particles' (my opinion), that are commomly known as 'virtual' particles. These fields move with the electrons and are NOT radiating any energy. They are known as STANDING waves.

    If you claim that these fields are radiating energy, then where is this energy going?
    Hydrogen gas at universal temperatures repel each other because of the interactions of these fields.
    If what you say is true, then these HA's would collapse to form NEUTRONS.
    Is there any research done that neutrons are forming in space?
    Neutrons are formed in the star fusion process because they need another proton to stabolize as neutrons. These stabilized nuclei are known as deuterons and formed in the stars.
    So your argument is fallaceous.

    HA's in space are stabilized in the 'ground state' and only REradiate a photon when they have absorbed a photon.
    Energy is ONLY formed in the stars.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Oh my, I'm such a biologist that when I saw HA, I thought of hemagglutinin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Oh my, I'm such a biologist that when I saw HA, I thought of hemagglutinin.
    It seems to be only Cosmo who uses such obscure abbreviations. I have never seen the Hyrdogen Atom ever referred to as HA in any text book, research paper, or popular science work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The electric fields surround the charged particles.
    Yes, but they have an opposite sign. So they attract each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The electrons EF as can apply to others are surrounding the charged particles in all directions. They are distributions of 'real field particles' (my opinion), that are commomly known as 'virtual' particles. These fields move with the electrons and are NOT radiating any energy. They are known as STANDING waves.
    Here is my answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung
    Free accelerated charged particles must radiate photons constantly. This is a fact and well documented. A rotating electron is a charged particle under constant acceleration. Therefore, it should radiate also in a hydrogen atom all the time, IF IT WERE A CLASSICAL PARTICLE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    If you claim that these fields are radiating energy, then where is this energy going?
    No, we don't. This was just the necessary consequence of your classical approach to the hydrogen atom. The fact that this radiation does not exist clearly demonstrates that electrons and other (sub)atomic particles do not behave in a classical way. The production of magnetic fields (also considered in quantum mechanics) do not prevent a classical electron to decelerate and eventually collapse into the proton. But again, this does not happen, hence it's not a classical particle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    If what you say is true, then these HA's would collapse to form NEUTRONS.
    Yes, they would. If they were classical particles, because they must radiate all the time. But they don't. That's the reason, why quantum mechanics was developed. But there is something like that called inverse beta decay. In exceptional cases, an electron can be caught from the atomic nucleus and overcome the energy barrier beyond the ground state forming a neutron.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Is there any research done that neutrons are forming in space?
    Neutrons are formed in the star fusion process because they need another proton to stabolize as neutrons. These stabilized nuclei are known as deuterons and formed in the stars.
    Neutron stars (=pulsars) are the result of the gravitational collapse of a star in which the electrons of the plasma are pressed into the ions to form neutrons. How could a classical particle do that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    HA's in space are stabilized in the 'ground state' and only REradiate a photon when they have absorbed a photon.
    Yes, indeed. This is exactly what quantum mechanics is about. Isn't it puzzling that there is a ground state in the first place? Like we both said: It can only be stable, because electrons and protons are not classical particles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    This still fails to address the main issue, that according to classical mechanics, an accelerating charge, such as an orbiting electron orbiting a nucleus, will emit electromagnetic radiation. This radiation removes energy from the electron, and the atom as a whole.

    Using classical mechanics, the whole system would still have to lose energy and eventually girnd to a halt. You can't solve the problem using classical mechanics by just ignoring the mechanisim in classical mechanics that leads to the problem.
    This piques my curiousity.

    So, the motion of an electron moving around the nucleus of an atom continually creates a very small alternating magnetic field? Does this have any connection to our general theories of gravity?


    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Janus
    What you say here is that the electron emits a photon when returning to its original orbit .
    But it absorbed a photon when it got bumped into the outer orbit. So there is no loss of energy.
    No, you are assuming discrete energy levels. But any classical charged particle emits radiation constantly, hence continuously. This leads to a continuous breaking of the electron, because the radiation energy is taken from the kinetic energy. Eventually, the electron would come to a halt. This would lead to a collapse of magnetic fields you propose. So, the electron would crash into the nucleus.
    I thought discreet energy levels was an assumption of modern physics. I mean, at least in the sense that there is supposed to be a smallest unit of energy.

    Does the electron still have to abide by this rule, and lose energy in discreet amounts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I thought discreet energy levels was an assumption of modern physics. I mean, at least in the sense that there is supposed to be a smallest unit of energy.

    Does the electron still have to abide by this rule, and lose energy in discreet amounts?
    Yes, it is modern. It was just mentioned to demonstrate that Cosmo is mixing things up. On one hand, he wants to describe the electron in an atom as a classical particle, on the other hand, he agrees that there are discrete energy levels. Both things are excluding each other mutually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Oh my, I'm such a biologist that when I saw HA, I thought of hemagglutinin.
    What term would you use?

    My operating system does not have an advanced text system like 'Word'. It only has Wordpad.
    So the proper way for identifying the HA would be a ^1 before H. I do not have a down arrow to bring the H back down.

    Whats your opinion for this ID?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by dish
    Yes, indeed. This is exactly what quantum mechanics is about. Isn't it puzzling that there is a ground state in the first place? Like we both said: It can only be stable, because electrons and protons are not classical particles.
    I just chose to reply to one item. The rest are too time consuming.

    What kind of particles did Bohr use for his planetary model?
    The proton and the electron have been given a size, mass and their respective charges.
    They both exist as separate particles in varios devices.

    How do you identify a classical partical?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dish

    In your reply to Kojax,

    Yes, I say the electron is a real particle and it does radiate at different energy levels from the Lyman series to the long infrared series.

    I give total credibility to the Bohr model. The Schroedinger wave function does not replace the electron as a particle, IMO.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    How do you identify a classical particle?
    That's a particle that does not follow classical electrodynamics and mechanics, but behaves according to quantum mechanics. Just as Janus and I explained: In classical ED and mechanics, a charged particle must radiate as soon as it changes its state of movement. Since the electron in an atom does not radiate while it orbits the nucleus, it is not a classical particle.

    And even the Bohr model already postulates that the electron behaves strangely just because of that reason. Classical theories cannot explain, why an atom has discrete energy levels on which the electrons are located. Yes, the electron produces a magnetic moment, but this does not explain, why the orbits are stable and discrete. The Bohr model needed an extension to the Bohr-Sommerfeld theory, as you might know, because simple circular orbits do not explain the nature of all atoms. It is all connected. You cannot just take one element of a theory you like and reject all the others. Either you agree with QM, what you partially do, when you accept discrete energy levels, or you don't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    How do you identify a classical particle?
    That's a particle that does not follow classical electrodynamics and mechanics, but behaves according to quantum mechanics. Just as Janus and I explained: In classical ED and mechanics, a charged particle must radiate as soon as it changes its state of movement. Since the electron in an atom does not radiate while it orbits the nucleus, it is not a classical particle.

    And even the Bohr model already postulates that the electron behaves strangely just because of that reason. Classical theories cannot explain, why an atom has discrete energy levels on which the electrons are located. Yes, the electron produces a magnetic moment, but this does not explain, why the orbits are stable and discrete. The Bohr model needed an extension to the Bohr-Sommerfeld theory, as you might know, because simple circular orbits do not explain the nature of all atoms. It is all connected. You cannot just take one element of a theory you like and reject all the others. Either you agree with QM, what you partially do, when you accept discrete energy levels, or you don't.
    I do not agree with ED because it does not apply to the universe in any way nor have anything to do with the star formations and radiations.

    All Plancks formula does is to reduce the continuous light waves to Quanta or pulses. The electric fields are the carriers of these pulses. Bohrs energy levels of these pulses have been adequately explained and were confirmed by the Schroedinger energy levels .
    So the Bohr model is all I need to be concerned with as far as Cosmology is concerened.

    I believe in Occams Razor that promotes the princile of simplicity as generally the most probable truth to most theories.

    So I generaly discard any other complex theories that do not apply to the universe.

    The simple application of the 'right' and 'lrft' hand rules is sufficient enough to tell me that the HA is completely balanced in the 'ground state' and remains that way indefinately.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Huh? Now I am confused. Isn't this thread about how you, Cosmo, think the hydrogen atom remains stable and the electron does not collide into the nucleus of the atom? How is that relevant to cosmology? So, do you accept quantum mechanics, or not? If so, why do you need the magnetic fields to keep the hydrogen atom stable? If not, how do you explain discrete energy levels and the non-radiating electron?

    And now you also defy electrodynamics (ED)? Is that true?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I thought discreet energy levels was an assumption of modern physics. I mean, at least in the sense that there is supposed to be a smallest unit of energy.

    Does the electron still have to abide by this rule, and lose energy in discreet amounts?
    Yes, it is modern. It was just mentioned to demonstrate that Cosmo is mixing things up. On one hand, he wants to describe the electron in an atom as a classical particle, on the other hand, he agrees that there are discrete energy levels. Both things are excluding each other mutually.
    So, to be clear: The accepted explanation for why an electron occupies orbitals that correspond only to discreet energy levels is that.... it's not a classical particle?

    Do they mean that just in the sense that it's small enough to be affected by QM principles? I mean, for example, that it's small enough that its wave properties are apparent (whereas large bodies of matter usually don't exhibit wave properties we can observe easily). And, it follows the uncertainty principle, while large bodies of matter usually don't have any noticeable uncertainty associated with their location.

    Or... do they mean that it's not a classical particle just in the plain sense that designating it as such gives it the freedom to break classical laws?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, to be clear: The accepted explanation for why an electron occupies orbitals that correspond only to discreet energy levels is that.... it's not a classical particle?

    Do they mean that just in the sense that it's small enough to be affected by QM principles? I mean, for example, that it's small enough that its wave properties are apparent (whereas large bodies of matter usually don't exhibit wave properties we can observe easily). And, it follows the uncertainty principle, while large bodies of matter usually don't have any noticeable uncertainty associated with their location.

    Or... do they mean that it's not a classical particle just in the plain sense that designating it as such gives it the freedom to break classical laws?
    Sorry it was not clear enough. "Classical" in physics means every theory that does not include quantum mechanics. So, yes, an electron is strongly affected by QM properties and therefore the electron does not radiate while it changes its state of movement on one orbit. If fact, it was the other way around. The discovery that standard electrodynamics cannot explain the stable orbits was the starting point of QM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Huh? Now I am confused. Isn't this thread about how you, Cosmo, think the hydrogen atom remains stable and the electron does not collide into the nucleus of the atom? How is that relevant to cosmology? So, do you accept quantum mechanics, or not? If so, why do you need the magnetic fields to keep the hydrogen atom stable? If not, how do you explain discrete energy levels and the non-radiating electron?

    And now you also defy electrodynamics (ED)? Is that true?
    I already explained that Shroedingers wave mechanics are applied to chemistry rather than the universe.
    How do you apply SWM to the universe? I believe these orbitals apply to the heavier elements and molecules.
    Bohr already explained the nature of the HA and the various energy levels that apply to quanta light pulses.
    The continuous light waves do not radiate any Quanta pulses. These QP are explained by the electron transitions between orbits. In the standing continuous waves, there is no quanta energy being produced because the electrons remain in their one orbit.

    The HA is the element of the universe that creates the stars with its fusion to form helium. That is all I need to know.

    I have been educated in radio mechanics and have a thorough understanding of electricity. The EMF is both magnetic and electro in nature.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    I already explained that Shroedingers wave mechanics are applied to chemistry rather than the universe.

    Cosmo[/quote]

    You haven't explained anything. You've made unsupported assertions based on personal opinion and vague hand-waving, with some tossed word salad on the side.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I already explained that Shroedingers wave mechanics are applied to chemistry rather than the universe.
    How do you apply SWM to the universe? I believe these orbitals apply to the heavier elements and molecules.
    Bohr already explained the nature of the HA and the various energy levels that apply to quanta light pulses.
    The continuous light waves do not radiate any Quanta pulses. These QP are explained by the electron transitions between orbits. In the standing continuous waves, there is no quanta energy being produced because the electrons remain in their one orbit.

    The HA is the element of the universe that creates the stars with its fusion to form helium. That is all I need to know.

    I have been educated in radio mechanics and have a thorough understanding of electricity. The EMF is both magnetic and electro in nature.

    Cosmo
    I agree that the simple Bohr model gives very accurate results for the hydrogen atom, if you only regard transitions between the main orbitals. It already fails completely for the helium atom. I also agree that hydrogen dominates the universe. But it is not only present in the atomic form. It is bound to form hydrogen molecules () in dense clouds, where the stars are formed. So, chemistry is involved. Not to mention all the other molecules in those clouds, in particular CO, that are key ingredients in the star formation process. So, you cannot neglect chemistry. Furthermore, the best way to directly measure atomic hydrogen is making use of the 21cm spectral line that is generated by the spin flip of the electron. This is definitely not part of the Bohr model.

    As long as you are only interested in the simple orbital transitions of the hydrogen atom, you can assume the Bohr model. Yes. However, it is completely insufficient to explain the real processes involved in key processes like star formation. You need quantum mechanics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Janus

    Are you familiar with the Shroedinger orbitals?

    I do not think they are applicable to the HA

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dish

    My Theory of Everything deals with the central region of stars.

    Besides this subject matter, can you believe this?
    I was trying to resurrect this article to paste elsewhere and discovered that someone stole the last half of this article that gives 'proof' of the magnetic interaction to keep the HA in a permanent GS unless disturbed by another photon.

    And then, to top it off, the upper half was 'boxed' in an editing resizing border to keep me from restoring the article.
    I still do not know how to delete this border?

    I think that former 'hacker' did this.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Hi Cosmo,

    do you plan to comment on my arguments, or did you just sneak out of the discussion? Just the remark that you were referring to the interior of stars does not help. It is the same kind of hydrogen atom everywhere, regardless of where you find it. There are no atoms in stars anyway, just ions.

    The Schrödinger equation is just a means to calculate energies; the phase function squared describes the probability of the electron location. It is an extension and generalisation to the very naive approach of Bohr. Why should the hydrogen atom be intrinsically different to all the other elements? Why does the Bohr approach give totally wrong results when it comes to atoms different to the hydrogen atom?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Hi Cosmo,

    do you plan to comment on my arguments, or did you just sneak out of the discussion? Just the remark that you were referring to the interior of stars does not help. It is the same kind of hydrogen atom everywhere, regardless of where you find it. There are no atoms in stars anyway, just ions.

    The Schrödinger equation is just a means to calculate energies; the phase function squared describes the probability of the electron location. It is an extension and generalisation to the very naive approach of Bohr. Why should the hydrogen atom be intrinsically different to all the other elements? Why does the Bohr approach give totally wrong results when it comes to atoms different to the hydrogen atom?
    I checked back to this post because for a while, there were no responses.

    I want to emphasize here again that my priority is Cosmology. That is why I ignore the Schroedinger orbitals that apply more to molecular chemistry than to the universe that is predominently hydrogen (HA) and helium.

    There are just two particles in existence and that is the proton and the electron that constitute the universe.
    The neutrons are bound electrons and protons that in isolation decay back to reform again to the HA. The quarks are also not real particles.

    The Bohr model of the HA is complete enough for me to ignore the rest of the elements in open space and the Sun that Bohr explained the HA spectrum.
    This does not apply to the HA plasma that is below the ourside surface of the Sun IMO.
    As I said before, Bohrs 'energy' levels of the HA has explained the energy levels that were cionfirmed by Schroedinger.
    So why I need to go any further when the Sun is mostly all hydrogen and the helium is concentrated more in the central region of the Sun's fusion of the HA's.

    My Theory of Everything is the result of the nature of the Bohr HA concept and the Plasma in the center of the Sun.
    Like I say, what happens in the center of the Sun has to be 'visualized since math here would not be applicablec because of the nature of the fusion process.

    I also explained the 'right and left hand rules' to prove why the HA does not collapse.

    I wrote above about how this explanation was STOLEN from my computer by a HACKER that was giving me trouble in the past.

    I still say that the R & L hand rule is still the viable explanation for the HA stability.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •