Re: Bohr's Atom still number one

"guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx" <guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1178773380.464933.87660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On May 9, 5:32 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1178686901.552915.67220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On May 8, 3:40 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The explanation given athttp://bethe.cornell.edu/
(if I understood it correctly) is that 'not even the electrons know
where they are' to a high enough accuracy to be able to 'accelerate'
while they are in their 'orbitals'.

Their location is so uncertain that the probability plots ARE the
correct 'picture'.

They say you can know when you know their location, you can't know
their velocity ....and vice-versa?

'they' are only approximately correct.



(and/or the more you know their location, the less you know their
velocity)

In order for electrons to 'orbit', the electrons must know their own
location and their own velocity, otherwise they can not follow the path
of an orbit, but they can not. Therefore they do not orbit.


Science fiction destroying the rule that ONLY when electrons change
******velocity****** (only when they accelerate or decelerate) do
photons radiate.
Thus velocity = orbit.

They ain't static. If they aint static they got an orbit and quantum
shells.

You are now redefining the word 'orbit' to 'make yourself right' rather
than looking at the way the word is commonly used and realizing that there
is a reason that QM uses the word 'orbital' rather than 'orbit'.

It is to help people see that thinking 'orbit' is wrong and gives the wrong
ideas.

Did you come here to learn something or to try to convince others that you
are right and the way physics is taught is wrong?

If you are trying to learn something, you are going at it wrong. You are
clinging to wrong opinions.

If you are trying to change others opinions, you are going at it wrong
because you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Go away and
learn physics and come back when you know what you are talking about.

But from what you wrote above it's saying only possible to know the
PROBABILITY of their location....this is conflicting from the
definition I wrote above??

Follow the references given. STUDY.





--
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

  • Re: Bohrs Atom still number one
    ... is that 'not even the electrons know ... their velocity ....and vice-versa? ... Therefore they do not orbit. ... If you are trying to change others opinions, you are going at it wrong ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Bohrs Atom still number one
    ... where they are' to a high enough accuracy to be able to 'accelerate' ... their velocity ....and vice-versa? ... In order for electrons to 'orbit', the electrons must know their own ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • 2. General Relativitys & Spacetimes TRUE MODEL
    ... In an electric circuit with a battery, the electrons move in a circuit ... are regarded as mass in the Spacetime model...therefore: ... Protons do not COMPLY with the present spacetime model ... since Two Protons will never orbit each other (Yet protons are mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Since k varies but not G suggests an Eather
    ... The charges are not fixed in space, ... protons don't orbit each other (because in another post you said they ... Do you have any evidence or links that electrons don't orbit ... orbitals, and even by looking at the pictures of them I still don't ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "archaic" view of atom structure
    ... states of atoms. ... > electrons, some electrons are forced into larger circular orbits, and ... It has no "orbit" at all! ... > nucleus as it travels around it (we all learned in elementary school ...
    (sci.physics)