Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 May 2007 09:50:54 -0700
On May 8, 11:45 pm, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 7, 6:07 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 7, 2:10 pm, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
That is incorrect. Electrons will radiate while *coasting* around an
accelerator ring at constant velocity.
But the significant difference is that electrons do not go in a ring
around the nucleus. They don't go in a circle around the nucleus at
all. This is precisely the problem with the Bohr model. If they did go
around in a circle, they would have to radiate.
PD
The cyclotron's field(s) are in the linear path of the electron
instead of a constant nucleur centre.
That's not so. If it were true, the electron would proceed in a
straight line rather than bending in a circle.
Does anyone dispute that electrons shed photons to get closer to a
nucleus?
Actually, they shed photons to get to a lower energy state. That is
closer to the nucleus in Bohr's model, but not necessarily in reality.
See a freshman chemistry text.
Does anyone dispute only "x" amount of electrons can be found at any
one time around a nucleus?
The three above are the answer.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- References:
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: bz
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: bz
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: bz
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: bz
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: bz
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: bz
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: PD
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- From: guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- Prev by Date: Re: Light Sources Simultaneously in Multiple Frames of Reference
- Next by Date: Re: V^2 = V1 x V2 anyone know his geometry??
- Previous by thread: Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- Next by thread: Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|