Re: Bohr's Atom still number one

"guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx" <guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1178565027.742367.43960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On May 7, 12:40 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1178552820.243315.155320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On May 7, 5:58 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1178526326.486708.25780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Under Bohr's theory, that is correct. And under Bohr's theory,
they fall into the nucleus very quickly.

My point was your canon ball. The canon ball does NOT undergo
constant acceleration.

It does. 32 ft/sec^2 acceleration toward the center of the earth.
Absent that acceleration it would travel in a straight line.

Bohr's model is wrong.

#1. Your Franck-Condon says the electrons are almost inertia-free (=
acceleration free (= free of any new motion)

Yep. Bohr's model is wrong.

http://www.life.uiuc.edu/govindjee/biochem494/Abs.html
Quote: "According to the so-called Franck-Condon principle**, the
absorption of a photon is a practically instantaneous process, since
it involves only the rearrangement of practically inertia-free
electrons."

Rearrangement of the molecular orbitals, NOT the atomic orbits of Bohr.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- --------------------------------------- #2. Perhaps the amount of
radiation = the photons own pull towards the nucleus (same as light
bends gravity)?

NO. You are mixing raisins and elephants.


Why? I'm saying is if the electron is emitting radiation (photons)
then "perhaps" the nucleus is retaining it from actually being emitted
by the electron ...since photons and radiation bends from gravity then
perhaps likewise in the nucleus (for small amounts of acceleration
only).

Study the strong force, the weak force, the electrostatic force, and the
force of gravity.

Like me tiying you to a rope while your holding a spring(photon) as I
spin you around cowboy style *yeehaw) the spring bounces(Radiates)
back and forth...but not enough to spring(break) out of your hands. If
you change orbitals though then that would be enough to cause emission/
absorption.

#3. I never said other forms of orbitals are wrong,

You implied it very strongly, saying that Bohr was what should be
taught, not orbital theory. Do I need to dig back into your previous
posts and quote what you said?


Having photons swirl around electrons could negate the capacity to
determine certain attributes of the electron (uncertainty principle).

Having electrons associated with the nucleus means we can not determine the
exact location of the electrons (uncertainty principle). The most we can
know is the probable location of the electron. The uncertainty principle
says that even the electron can not know exactly where it is.

In fact the magnitude of the uncertaintly is so large that the electron can
NOT 'orbit' the nucleus because to follow an orbit would require that the
electron 'know' both its location and its velocity.

I said Bohr's is
#1 (the founding principle) where the Sun is at the center of a
circular orbital....but if the Sun is at a focal point of an
elliptical oribtal, the repulsion between electrons can cause
symetrie along the orbital..so as one is emiting the other is
absorbing (etc...) = radiation preservation.

Neither circular orbits nor elliptical ones are a good model for the
atom. Why teach something that is wrong and ignore what is right?


Cause it's the basic principle of all diverging/converging fields
acting on external particles and substantiating(quantum = substance)
that only these effects can occurs in integer quantum units of
energy(of force) and nothing less.

(Force weakens with 1/r^2 or 1/r^3 or etc.... from the center of the
force field and due to quantum mechanics (quantum principles cannot be
**disobeyed**) only "x" number of particles(or waves) are
**permitted** at specific interval distances from the center of the
same force field...thus other particles must move away).

Psi represents a probability, NOT a 'wave'. The plots of the probability
show that the electron can be (for the s orbital) ANYWHERE, including in
the nucleus). The p orbitals, on the other hand, have a node (a plane with
zero probability) passing through the nucleus. The electron 'travels' from
one lobe of the p orbital to the other lobe of the p orbital without ever
going 'through' that nodal plane.

Doesn't Bohr's equation form the "Table of Elements" using a concise
quantumized integer number of electrons per element? Are they now
using an other equation?

The Quantum equations have an parameter that corresponds to Bohr's 'atomic
number'.

Your questions show that you have not been doing your homework.
Assignment: WHICH Quantum parameter corresponds to Bohr's atomic number?

#4. I believe Bohr's is #1 because I believe all forces (skiping
curled fields) in fields (nucleus, magnetic, electric, etc..) should
behave the same way and that is PROPORTIONALLY WEAKEN with distance
from the center of the location excerting this force. Any complex
schema swaying from this pattern is due to multitudes of other forces
(particles or planets or moons) combined together.

Unfortunately your belief system is based on ignorance.


The quantum "limits" the amount of available force(energy) that is
dispersed in a field(force field). Particles must obey this quantum
principle and thus limit the *****number***** permitted to approach
the center of a force field. Otherwise there would be no such thing as
a neutral charge.

You are putting together words without understanding what they mean.

Are you trying to learn something about physics or show the world your
beliefs? Hint: the world doesn't care what you (or I) believe. It only
cares about what works.

....



IF THEY WERE TO FEEL ANYTHING AT ALL THEN THEY WOULD BE
****************SLOWING DOWN***********

The electrons in a cyclotron and in a magnetron are not slowing
down.

Cause the cyclotron/magnetron is an "accelerator".....faster and
faster = acceleration (not at all like nucleus) and acceleration =
photon emission.

You finally are close to a correct answer.


The point being you gave an incorrect comparison....the cyclotron
accelerates the electron(= electron has higher and higher velocity as
it travels in the cyclotron/magnetron) but the electron does not
accelerate(= constant velocity) around a nucleus if it is traveling in
a perfect circle.

WRONG. If you stand on a merry-go-round, you will feel a 'centrifugal
force' (does not really exist, it is really inertia) trying to throw you
away from the center of the merry-go-round.

In the mean time, your feet and the platform provide a real 'centripedal
force', a force accelerating you toward the center of the merry-go-round.

Gravity and electrostatic forces provide similar 'centripedal force' on the
earth and on the electron. Both are (under newtonian physics) undergoing
constant acceleration toward the center, just as you are while you stand on
the merry-go-round.

You do really need to study basic physics before you can discuss this stuff
with any intelegence.


ahhhh...so does their intensity become zero with time in the
cyclotron since they keep radiating energy (or does the electron
decay into other particles)?

Neither. Energy is added by the external electronic circuitry. As long
as the circuits are pumping in energy, the devices will be emitting
radiation.



So your saying in Bohr's atom, the electron would constantly be
needing to absorb radiation so as not to plunge into the nucleus.

Almost, I am saying that in the Bohr model, the electron would be
constantly radiating energy and WOULD plunge into the nucleus.

When
the electron decelerates for a quick instant due to acceleration
towards the nucleus, it quickly emits photon....***BUT*** it must just
as quickly (similar to your Franck-Coldron principle) RE-ACCELERATE in
order to maintain a constant velocity around the nucleus, therefore it
would re-absorb very quickly the photon it just shed away = wave and
spring like pattern of the photon.

There is no mechanism to capture and re-emit such photons.


In a frictionless world Newton's law is dominant:

yep


Exagerated version of your constant acceleration below here:

....meaning if a planet is moving away from the sun(= eccentric
elliptical instead of perfect circular orbit): IT DOES NOT SLOW DOWN
TO A STOP and quickly regains the velocity it lost. Likewise for the
electron: the photons it sheds whether instantaneous during a circular
orbit or after prolong deceleration during an elliptical orbit, it RE-
ABSORBS what it once shed away.

KE+PE = constant (planets)

No such formula for the electrons as there is no measurable 'motion'.

Come on throw me a bone....wether it is an instantaneous cirlcular
orbit or a prolonged elliptical orbit, the electron will re-absorb
what it once emitted(instataneous versus long term)...the same way a
planet in an eccentric elliptical orbit regains the velocity it once
lost.

Sorry, no banana. Bohr's theory is dead.





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages