# Thread: Bohrs hypothesis and quatum mechanics. Help!

1. I'm learning quantum mech for the first time and was intreigued by bohrs steady state hypothesis. The major draw back of Rutherfords model was due the loss of energy of the orbitting(accelerating) electron, how is this simple hypothesis justified. I mean electrons are probability waves right, so do they even orbit the nucleas.

And what is the rational behind Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Is this a physical limitation due to inaccurate equipments or a theoretical barrier that can never be broken.

Also I read of triplet pairs in atoms(electrons of same spin occuping the same energy level) doesn't this violate Pauli exclusion principal.

2.

3. Originally Posted by newton
I'm learning quantum mech for the first time and was intreigued by bohrs steady state hypothesis. The major draw back of Rutherfords model was due the loss of energy of the orbitting(accelerating) electron, how is this simple hypothesis justified. I mean electrons are probability waves right, so do they even orbit the nucleas.
now ya thinkin

look up what Milo Wolff did (see the simulation)

http://www.quantummatter.com/space_resonance.html

The simplest resonance is the electron whose mathematical physical structure is exactly known. Electron waves (comprising all charged particles) extend to infinity serving as the 'communicator' of the natural laws. In contrast, the hadrons exist in a closed, high density region of high-frequency waves analogous to waves inside a drum or a hollow sphere. No one is sure. It is thought that the many modes of possible vibration in the closed space correspond to the many types of hadron particles. All the qualitative properties point to this conclusion. But no mathematical solutions of these 3D wave modes have been investigated. Mathematicians, please rise to the challenge
food for thought

notice the integrity of milo, he don't claim the math of the sciences, is complete; HE is calling upon the 'community' of people to overcome the challenge.

And what is the rational behind Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Is this a physical limitation due to inaccurate equipments or a theoretical barrier that can never be broken.
there is no way to capture the wavelength and amplitude within the model. (total power)

ie... there is no such thing as an electron 'particle' of mass; it is a unit of measured energy.

Also I read of triplet pairs in atoms(electrons of same spin occuping the same energy level) doesn't this violate Pauli exclusion principal.
that pauli is violated in every atom above a H and the proof is to observe the bohr model suggesting shells of electrons having any shell with more than one electron.

so most every element on the chart breaks them per se laws

look up what Milo Wolff did (see the simulation)

http://www.quantummatter.com/space_resonance.html

The simplest resonance is the electron whose mathematical physical structure is exactly known. Electron waves (comprising all charged particles) extend to infinity serving as the 'communicator' of the natural laws. In contrast, the hadrons exist in a closed, high density region of high-frequency waves analogous to waves inside a drum or a hollow sphere. No one is sure. It is thought that the many modes of possible vibration in the closed space correspond to the many types of hadron particles. All the qualitative properties point to this conclusion. But no mathematical solutions of these 3D wave modes have been investigated. Mathematicians, please rise to the challenge
food for thought
Junk food. What does any of it actually mean? The electron is a resonance of what, in what medium? What do you mean by 'electron wave'? What evidence do you have that they comprise all charged particles?

there is no such thing as an electron 'particle' of mass; it is a unit of measured energy.
Electrons are both particles and waves. They do have mass.

5. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

there is no such thing as an electron 'particle' of mass; it is a unit of measured energy.
Electrons are both particles and waves. They do have mass.
Reminds me of the Catholic theory of the trinity.

Apparently all matter exhibits wave properties, so maybe a "particle" is just an illusion created by a certain kind of wave interaction, and everything is a wave moving in some kind of medium. (After allowing for relativity, and Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, etc)

6. Originally Posted by newton
I'm learning quantum mech for the first time and was intreigued by bohrs steady state hypothesis. The major draw back of Rutherfords model was due the loss of energy of the orbitting(accelerating) electron, how is this simple hypothesis justified. I mean electrons are probability waves right, so do they even orbit the nucleas.

And what is the rational behind Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Is this a physical limitation due to inaccurate equipments or a theoretical barrier that can never be broken.

Also I read of triplet pairs in atoms(electrons of same spin occuping the same energy level) doesn't this violate Pauli exclusion principal.
Well, I can at least comment on the uncertainty principal. It is actually a theoretical limit. Basically, if you imagine a particle having a specific position and momentum, and then you imagine trying to measure one, you can't help but mangle the other in the process. For example, the way you measure position is to bounce a photon (or some other particle) off of it, and in doing so, you necessarily change its momentum. You can measure both, but only to a limited degree of accuracy.

7. Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
look up what Milo Wolff did (see the simulation)

http://www.quantummatter.com/space_resonance.html

The simplest resonance is the electron whose mathematical physical structure is exactly known. Electron waves (comprising all charged particles) extend to infinity serving as the 'communicator' of the natural laws. In contrast, the hadrons exist in a closed, high density region of high-frequency waves analogous to waves inside a drum or a hollow sphere. No one is sure. It is thought that the many modes of possible vibration in the closed space correspond to the many types of hadron particles. All the qualitative properties point to this conclusion. But no mathematical solutions of these 3D wave modes have been investigated. Mathematicians, please rise to the challenge
food for thought
Junk food. What does any of it actually mean?
apparently reading and knowledge is not what you eat.

did you read up on what Milo shared before asking me any questions?

or do you rant for aliving?

The electron is a resonance of what, in what medium?
some like the aether (even einstein did for years)............... i don't

are you tinking there is an aether?

but to use your type of slow thinking, what is a string? Where's the mass in that (M theory) (string theory)?

or like James R asked; what makes a sphere? (don't believe JR knows the importance but damn it was a sharp inquiry) (edit; JR is on another forum, sorry..... but the question is one of the most valid (for students to observe)...

perhaps anther thread on that one............ ?!?!? (ie.. i will know when the mods let go, that i can share to real thinking souls)

What do you mean by 'electron wave'? What evidence do you have that they comprise all charged particles?
the same thing i ask; what do you mean a particle? (graviton is a particle??????????? how stupid can someone get?)

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
there is no such thing as an electron 'particle' of mass; it is a unit of measured energy.
Electrons are both particles and waves. They do have mass.
notice the issue; that barrier between what is mass and what is energy? (remember E=mc2; they one of the same)

that transistion is what you need

8. Originally Posted by kojax
Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

there is no such thing as an electron 'particle' of mass; it is a unit of measured energy.
Electrons are both particles and waves. They do have mass.
Reminds me of the Catholic theory of the trinity.
in a sense, they knew too.

mass (the corporeal)

energy (light/ the spirit (life of all mass)

time (transcendent)

them three are the trinity; mass, energy, time...........

the three do combine mathematically into a frame which i am here to say is 'the last word'.

it is where i find this comment being self explanitory:

If existence operates only ONE way, then the math is the name to know!

call it religion but i call it fact!

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement