Re: Kerr Model for Hydrogen


"Steve Bell" <sb635@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:df94f$481ea905$943f641c$19246@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I parameterized an electronic Kerr field for ground state hydrogen. The
electron started at the Schroedinger/Bohr radius and stayed there for the
creation of a shell. Let me stress I imposed the nonrelativistic initial
conditions, I wanted see to if they could merge with the electronic Kerr
frame dragging effects and not disturb the energy. During the entire time
in
the shell, if struck by a photon equal to the nonrelativistic Schroedinger
energy, it would jump, ionizing the atom. Even though nonrelativistic in
energy, the electronic Kerr frame dragging effects (magnetism) caused a
change in plane and a shell gets filled in. Bear in mind, one of these
orbits completes in only about 2 x 10^-16 of a second, so a shell
completes
in a phenomenally small time. This might be the reason why an atom looks
solid. The following are plots, the first at 25% full:

http://sb635.mystarband.net/kerr25.pdf

The next at 50% full:

http://sb635.mystarband.net/kerr50.pdf

And the last at 100% full:

http://sb635.mystarband.net/kerr100.pdf

These are completely deterministic models, no perturbations were
introduced.
Next I hope to add some type of chaotic nonlinear dynamics, the whole time
maintaining the nonrelativistic energy. I'm hoping the nonrelativistic
energy will be found as an attractor in (pos,vel) phase space, it will
have
to be for any model to physically work, or else the atom would fly apart.

Steve Bell



Let's consider Schroedinger's theory as made probabilistic per Born's
hypothesis. It is this first step that introduces the key characteristic of
QM, that is, stochasticism. Specially relativistic effects were next
introduced by Dirac, but the core characteristic is simply probabilistic
Schroe theory. The probability cloud for n = 1 in hydrogen is a standing
wave, completely spherically symmetric from any direction from the center of
the proton outward. The pdf for the radius is well know, and simply called
the radial pdf. It is a "Rayleigh-looking" pdf. The pdfs for direction,
theta, phi, are each uniform. This situation is for a "pure" hydrogen atom,
where one envisions a completely isolated hydrogen atom not interacting with
anything. According to QM, it's just sitting there in this time-invariant
spherically symmetric probabilistic state until the atom does interact. A
photon of the right wavelength comes along, and the electron makes a jump. I
view the above plots as what an isolated electron is doing from a purely
perfect deterministic state and orbit theory point-of-view. Here also the
shell is completely spherically symmetric, and the same thing happens, a
photon comes along and the electron jumps. So, the curious thing is that, at
least for this simple scenario, there is no way to tell which is true. I
think one or the other is true, though, they can't both be true, and this
shows why I feel no union can be made of a fundamentally stochastic theory
and a fundamentally deterministic theory. A deterministic theory can be
"made stochastic" by simply adding in errors terms, but if you believe in
true determinism, you must view such an introduction as resulting in only an
approximation. Well, you may say, let data decide. Yes, absolutely, and this
is the only way I know of to begin explaining the "non-relativistic data" of
the Balmer/Rydberg experiments. There is overwhelming evidence that a
"non-relativistic" ground state binding energy is the physical truth. I even
found another paper that says some aspect of QFT is wrong, and refers to a
"ban on natural H" the author feels is prevalent, apparently, in the physics
community.

You may say the electron is rotating so it must irradiated and
deterministically fall into the nucleus. Sommerfeld addressed this issue to,
and relied on the simple physical fact that conservative bound systems must
follow Planck's quantization laws, and so do I. When the system is small
enough, like a hydrogen atom, where the needed angular momentum to maintain
constancy of orbital elements is of the order h, the only way the system can
maintain following the Planck's law is to make quantum jumps of states. I
feel there are indeed, small deterministic bound conservative systems where
the particles travel on geodesics and no energy is irradiate away, in the
sense that irradiation of such energy would change the "purity" of the
necessarily conserved motion in the purely deterministic theory, where
orbits "run forever." Having said that, I do understand what I am referring
to is a "perfect world" and the real world is essentially never in this
condition. But the Balmer/Rydberg data says non-relativistic Schroedinger
energy is close to true hydrogen, and I feel this fundamentally needs to be
addressed.

These differential geometry representations of the electromagnetic field
generated by the proton are, to me, the natural extension of Sommerfeld's
specially relativistic-only extension of Bohr's non-relativistic orbit
theory. There is a closed form solution for an electronic Schwarzschild
field, but the added degree of non-linearity added by Kerr theory, really
makes going to computer modeling a necessity. The added tremendous orbital
plasticity of Kerr over Schwar is very well likely all we need, from a
deterministic standpoint, for a purely orbital theory for an atom. I believe
these models can serve as the core deterministic models upon which an atomic
chaos theory can be built. The search for the correct attractors is on.....

Steve Bell


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Does electron acceleration cause Radiation Absorption?
    ... energy state, it requires an input of energy. ... Are you claiming photon absorption will not cause the electron to ... A higher shell is not a higher velocity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Does electron acceleration cause Radiation Absorption?
    ... energy state, it requires an input of energy. ... Assuming velocity has any meaning in an electron shell at all. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: electron energies in covalent bonds
    ... the hydrogen sees the electron as being ... in its 1s shell, but the nitrogen sees it as being in its 2p shell. ... Don't those two shells have different energy levels? ... no reason to assume orbitals with the same labeling on different atoms ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: electron energies in covalent bonds
    ... Each hydrogen atom shares an electron ... the hydrogen sees the electron as being ... in its 1s shell, but the nitrogen sees it as being in its 2p shell. ... Don't those two shells have different energy levels? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • /zpf = (mc^2/e^2)^2(1 + (2/alpha)^2) for electron stability
    ... transverse EM waves have positive pressure? ... polarizations do have positive energy density hence negative pressure ... This gives the famous factor of 2 in Einstein's "gravity lens" ... physically the real on-mass-shell BARE electron sans its ...
    (sci.math)