Re: My New Website

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 07/07/04 

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 10:56:15 +0200

Y.Porat wrote:
> Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<ccdk88$7s7$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
>
>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>>Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<ccbhq4$sal$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<cc4tls$10t$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
>>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>dont you realise just now that you are unable to calculate
>>>the atoms size based on 79 electrons per Au tom ??
>>>just an example ???!!
>>
>>_I_ am unable to procude here a full blown, necessarily numerically
>>excessive QM calculation of Au, yes. Is that a flaw of QM?
>
> --------------
> dont do it for me do it for youself!

Why? The calculations were already done by experts in that field,
and are freely available in the literature.

> and take your time even years if necessary because it is
> vitaly important

Why don't *you* take the time to look the calculations up?

> that is exactly the problem wiht some aspects of qm:
> anyone is relying on other 'experts'

That is the case in *all* of science!!!!!

> people take it so much as holy scrolls that is might be
> as the holy scrolls ie frozen

Absolute utter nonsense.

> if yoy want my advise
> be critically about anything you smell uncertain there

Well, you are the only one who smells uncertainty there.
Hint: you are also the only one who has no clue of what
QM really says. And of the experimental evidence for it.

[snip]

>>>while the little child Porat is explaining it as easy
>>>as a little child can do:
>>>ie no many shells and no many 'shmells' in ther Au atom
>>>just one 'shell' around the Au atom
>>
>>This "nice" and simple picture doesn't explain e.g. the X-ray lines of
>>the Au atom, while QM describe them quantitatively.
>
> ---------------
> does it explain it based on 79 electrons

No, since for the X-ray emission, only the inner shells are important.
However, QM describes also the emission of visible light from QM
- and for that, the valence electrons are important. So we have
evidence that both the inner as well as the valence electrons
indeed exist.

> or nmay be many of them are 'screened' there .....???

Electrons are not "screened" in the atom. What are you talking
about??? The charge of the *nucleus* is screened *by* the electrons!
This is quite simple electrostatics!

> (screened is very much like mumbling)

So you say that a cloud of negative charge does *not* screen a
positive charge inside it?

Thanks for showing yet again that you have no clue of electrodynamics.

[snip]

>>>remeber as well Ocam's razor! it might be sharp and hurting like
>>>a sharp knife
>>
>>You don't seem to know this razor. There is nothing left to cut from QM
>>anymore. QM has very few axioms and no fitting parameter, and yet it
>>reproduces experiments very well.
>
> where is the explanation of heavy atoms size
> very similar to much smaller ones?

Higher charge of the nucleus, hence higher attraction on the electrons,
hence smaller distances of the electrons to the nucleus. That's all
quite simple electrostatics - one does not even need QM to understand
this qualitatively.

If you call this "handwaving", as usual, please
1) point out the flaw in this argument
2) go read the literature on this, where quantitative calculations
of exactly these effects are presented in detail.

> you quote books that you never checked

Huh? Hundreds of people worked for decades to arrive at the results
shown in the books. How on earth should anyone reading the books be
able to check the results in just a short time???

> nver was able to folow thir
> devious manuvers of fitting resuls to known exoerimantally.

What devious maneuvers?????

> thisr trick is to make it so comlicated that no one can folow it
> to defy it.

This is not a trick - the calculations *are* complicated, plain and
simple. However, if one bothers to *learn* a bit about the stuff,
one *can* understand how the calculations work. One can't do them on
one's own, since this would involve too much time, but one can
understand the calculations which other people present.

> and if complicated
> anyone is ashamed to admit he cant folow then saying
> 'yes yes' or else he will be considered afool as uncompetent.

Hint: I *can* follow the calculations.

Thanks for admitting here quite directly that your reason that you
don't like QM is that it is too complicated for you, that you
don't understand it.

>>Your model on the other hand has a free number of free parameters, which
>>you can't even state properly and of which you didn't dare to fix even
>>one; and it doesn't explain anything, it just postulates the similar
>>size of a few selected atoms.
>
> ---------------
> that is only the beginning - one mans work
> so waht do u expect??
> i am just a very small crackpot genious not a big shot.

You totally ignored the main argument here. What is better: a theory
which can predict lots of stuff quantitatively, with great accurary,
without needing any free parameters - or a model which needs lots of
free parameters and nevertheless still gets lots of stuff wrong?

This "only one man's work" is a rather lame excuse.

>>>but at the long run people will get what
>>>'the little' child sayed
>>
>>No, becaue the little child is unaware of the dozens of experiments,
>>which it model should explain as well, but doesn't.
>>
>>-----------------
>
> experiments sometimes are infected by
> ' a prediction that justifyes itself have you heared
> about that social * phenomena

Yes, sometimes that happens. And now please present evidence that this
was indeed the case for the thousands of experiments which confirmed QM,
and of which you are totally unaware.

For example, look at that picture:
<http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~bfeuerba/chargedensity.jpg>
I took it from the book of Haken and Wolf on atomic physics, and they,
in turn, took it from a book with the title "Organic Crystals and
Molecules" by J.M.Robertson, which was published in 1953 - mroe than 50
years ago!

What is shown here is the charge density in the molecules anthracene and
naphtaline (I hope you know those molecules?). These results were
obtained by a Fourier analysis (do you know what that is?) of X-ray
scattering results. The measured charge densities agree perfectly
with the predictions of QM - and totally contradict your ideas (or do
you see any "arms" there?) Please note that the thick lines (the
hexagons) are only added there for clarification - they don't come
from the experimental results!

> fo just a little example:
> people are looking for the 'radius of the electron'
> do you get it?? they asume apriory that the electron
> is a sphere...

No, they don't assume that. And that was explained in great detail in
the relevant thread. As usual, despite lots of explanations, you managed
to miss that crucial point...

> just an example...

Just an example of your reading comprehension problems.

[snip]

>>>no sir you dont have an idea about it
>>>you live only on Bjoern 'unfarginning' abuses.
>>
>>No, my judgement lives entirely on your own demonstration of your model
>>and your ignorance, lazyness and smugness here in the newsgroup.
>
> -------------
> no smugness at all

ROTFL!!!!!

> one who is considered to be a crackpot cannot be smugg

You are.

[snip]

>>>you dont know the history between me and Bjoern:
>>
>>Maybe. But that's irrelevant for getting a copy of page 94.
>
> --------------
> why not get the whole book?? and free
> you cant understand me from one page.

I scanned in the page now and put it on my account. I could
send you the relevant URL, and you can then tell me if there
are any "malicious remarks" there, or if it is o.k. for me
to provide the picture to Lothar.

[snip]

>>>>Why not? You seem to think that QM would state that the size of (say)
>>>>the 3rd shell should be the same for every atom.
>>>>--------------
>>>
>>>if it has a bunch of other layers it shold be more diatnt
>>>from the nuc.
>>
>>Wrong, since their radii decrease with 1/Z*. Without screening,
>
>
> why should i beleive you that they do not screen

Err, he did not say that they do not screen. He only told you
what *would* happen without screening. Didn't you notice the word
"would" in his sentence???

Again, your severe reading comprehension problems are showing.

> while there are 79 or 92 of them and they move' in a dazling speed

Why do you think so?

And what has there speed to do with screening?

> how can a certral force controll such a mess

What mess???

And, BTW, didn't you notice that the force is quite strong?

> dont give me now the stupid paulis rule that is good as nice handwaving.

1) Pauli's rule has nothing to do with the problem at hand. That you
thought that someone would mention it now shows quite nicely that you
have no clue what you are talking about, as usual.
2) What is stupid about Pauli's rule? It can be *proven*.

>>instead of Z*, the predicted atom size would even _decrease_ for larger
>>and larger Z.
>
> so why not decrease??

*sigh* Due to the screening. As was explained in great detail. Your
reading comprehension problems are showing, yet again.

> you will say screening but that is another hand waving

Why? Do you deny that screening happens?

> without numbers or such complicated calculations
> that no one can folow

Lots of people, including Lothar and me, *can* follow the calculations.
They are sound.

> and anyone can cheat a bit here
> and a bit there. to fit the result.

Stop your baseless accusations and libel of hard-working scientists.
Look up the calculations and tells us where the people cheated.

[snip]

>>>13 peoplw oculy less volume than 79 people nothing will do about it.
>>>no trickes and shmicks.
>>
>>Squeezing people together is no trick.
>>-------------
>
> the electrons are not 'sardins in a tin'

Right. Then why did you choose such a bad analogy of people occupying
a volume above?

> they move like mad actually acordind to my uderstanding

Your understanding is totally wrong, as usual.

> they rather vibrate and not leaving thier connection to a *soecific
> point* of thje nuc but still vibrating vigorously

The experimental results of the past century totally contradict this
idea. Look at the picture at the link above, for starters.

> 79 of them will refuse to live to gether and vibrate
> not enough 3d room fo rsuch a *dynamic*mess

Well, since we know from lots of lines of evidence (which you keep
ignoring) that there are indeed 79 electrons in Au, that is yet another
piece of evidence that your model is wrong.

[snip]

>>>>>the H2 is aranged something like the V shape
>>>>
>>>>Like the following?
>>>>
>>>>o o
>>>> \/
>>>>
>>>>Sou you're H_2 does not have rotational symmetry?
>>>
>>>-----------
>>>why not
>>>if there is a center of gravity of it
>>>it shold rotale around it
>>>do uou have some 'googles' to see around wich point it rotales??
>>
>>Ever heard of the adiabatic exponent?

Apparently not.

[snip]

>>>>In fact, it can be an average distance in the sense that small
>>>>oscillations around this value are possible. These oscillations contain
>>>>certain quanta of energy which can be measured and are in agreement with
>>>>QM's prediction.
>>>
>>>-------------
>>>so you see i predicted those osciations based just
>>>on my poor model and poor concepts.
>>
>>You didn't predict a *** about them, you just babbled something of an
>>average value without specifying which kind of average. QM on the other
>>hand predicts them _quantitatively_ correct, without additional
>>parameters, do you get that?
>>
>>--------------
>
> i predict the the dustance variations of H2 will be much bigger
> than those of astome ain a metal latice.

Nice. Now, show the experimental evicence for this prediction, please.

[snip]

>>>>>the nuc is 'negligible size' compaired to the atom size!!
>>>>>and here is were you actually steped on an important issue
>>>>>of my model:
>>>>>there are no many shells of electrons
>>>>>that swhy light and heavy have actually the same *atomic* size.
>>>>
>>>>IC. So what about stuff like strontium?
>>>
>>>-----------
>>>?????????????
>>
>>It has a bond length of 4.3Å
>
> -------------
> can you be more specific and tell me about a real picture of it??

<www.webelements.com>

Look it up yourself, you lazy man.

> it sound like two electrons from each side one

Since the electron arm length is only 1.8 A, you can't get a bond
length of 4.3 A even with two atoms.

If you now want to say that the electron arm length is bigger than
1.8 A (say, 2.15 A), you get a problem with the bond lengths in carbon
molecules again...

[snip]

>>You just said that its solution of the atom is wrong; without evidence,
>>of course.
>>-----------
>
> not 'the solusion of atom'

The QM solution of the atom is *not* wrong? Well, if you didn't notice,
that solution totally contradicts your model.

> but in many cases and not a complete solusion

What is not complete about it? It predicts all things which can be
observed in atoms and molecules correctly (spectra, both in the visible
and UV range and in the X-ray range; magnetic moments; bond lengths;
charge densities; etc. as nauseaum)

> di dyou got it once and for all??

Yes, I got that you make as usual baseless, unsupported assertion,
and don't know what QM really says, and what the experimental evidence
for it is.

[snip]

>>>single bonds in 4 directions.
>>
>>And which length does a YP-single bond have?
>
> ----------
> mostly something around 2 A

Could you please *finally* make up your mind about this number?

As I pointed out, in order to give vaguely correct values for the bond
lenght in carbon atoms, you need an arm length between 1.65 A and 1.8 A.
However, then you can't explain the bond length in strontium...

[snip]

>>Why do you think that e.g. CH_4 likes to be
>>a tetrahderon so much?
>
> -----------
> and you say you know my model hey ??!!
> had you known my Carbon nuc you would not ask that question...
> you have no clue about my model.
> my explantion ids obvious immediate ans self understandable
> much simpler than the smarthguys explanations.

"simple" explanations are most often wrong explanations.

Look at the link above, with the picture of charge densities, and
explain that with your model, please.

[snip]

>>>i asked for *numbers* remember?? so please dont obfuscate!!
>>
>>Pointing out that you neglect the increasing nucleus' attraction is by
>>no means "obfuscating".
>>----------
>
> we want numbers

They are in the literature. Look them up, you lazy man.

>>>>>untill now it was much more hand waiving
>>>>>you didnt suply even a 'tail of a number' to explain it
>>>>>io at least started to suply a tail of a number.....
>>>>
>>>>We can do the following estimation: Along the lines of the simple,
>>>>non-relatvistic H-model, the atomic radius is proportional to n^2/Z*
>>>>where n is the "number of the outer shell" and Z* is the effective
>>>>nuclear charge (it's not the full charge Z due to the screening by the
>>>>inner electrons).
>>>
>>>so here we have the 'fitting in'
>>
>>Nope, it's not fitted. It's based on QM calculations.

Ignored.

>>>and it goes *in my direction* ie
>>>not so many electrons at all
>>
>>I beg your pardon? Exactly that many electrons, screening the nucelar
>>charge.
>>-------------
>
> numbers please and calculations that we can folow them!!

Literature. Lazy.

>>>yet screenind and not screening has a big opotential of
>>>'fitting in the results' no one has a control against
>>>arbitrary fittings
>>
>>No, it's calculated. No fitting.
>
> please suply a conctete example of say Gold.

Literature. Lazy.

[snip]

>>>>like e.g. Charlotte Froese Fischer did the work for us and found
>>>>Z*(Cu)=8.07, Z*(Ag)=11.35, and Z*(Au)=15.94
>>>
>>>-----------
>
> what are those numbers

Literature. Lazy.

> and could you folow it and check it ???

Do you want us to check *every* calculation in *every* text book
on QM? As I said above, lots of people worked *decades* on obtaining
the results!!! So how can you expect us to check all of them in just a
short time???

Or shall we check just the ones which give results which contradict you?
Well, that would be no great help, since virtually all results
contradict you...

>>>and i expect you to fill in th ecalculations for Aluminum
>>>and a lot of othres.
>>
>>Why do you think you can expect me to do your work, lazybone?
>>----------
>
> it is not my work it is yours as well
> look guy and notice you 'scince'
> it is based on pwersonal crediting;
> ie if it is one of the establishment he does not have to be checked

Do you have a problem with trusting experts?

As I said above, lots of people worked *decades* on obtaining
the results!!! So how can you expect us to check all of them in just a
short time???

> he is taken for granted because he establishes
> 'my scince' and it makes me feel good ie means that
> i invest my eforts in the good market and i will be able
> to deal and get my salery or rewards by dealing withthat
> 'merchandise' .

What a heap of utter nonsense.

> if it is an outsider he must be checked and neglected

If the "outsider" displays an utter ignorance about the actual
experimental evidence, then yes, he has to be checked.

> because *i am not gojng to deal with that merchandise
> and no gain for muself
> ie the name of the game is personal gain and thats it.
> ios that your scince system??

No. That's a ridiculous straw man erected by someone
who does not understand QM and therefore thinks it has
to be wrong.

>>>>Hence, r(Cu)/r(Ag)=4^2/5^2*11.35/8.07=0.9 and
>>>>r(Au)/r(Ag)=5^2/6^2*15.94/11.35=0.975
>>>
>>>.97 what ??
>>>is it the radius ???
>>
>>Can't you read? It's the _ratio_ of the radii.
>
> so it is just ratios ? not absolue numbers of diastance?!

Yes, above just ratios are shown.

> why not absolue distances that you demand from me???

*sigh* The point of the calculation here was only to show
that acording to QM, higher atoms do *not* have to have
bigger radii.

One *can* calculate the absolute values, too, but that was not
the point here!!! You reading comprehension problems are showing,
yet again...

> and *could you folow *all the 'fideling' that they di dthere?

No "fiddling" needed.

[snip]

>>>>>bottom line sir !!!
>>>>>atom sises!! of Ag Al Au how many of them in a Cm^3 right???
>>>>>i dont need phylosophy just numbers.
>>>>
>>>>Then look them up!
>>>
>>>-------------
>>>not convincing enough
>>
>>Sure, you are not convinced to do any work at all, lazy bone.
>
> -----------
> you are lazy bones

ROTFL!!!!!!

That really says the right one!

> get up and study that work that you quoted
> and check it to its 'bones'

Why don't *you* do this? After all, *you* say that it is wrong.

> i asure you you will find 'fittings ' there 9fiddeling' with
> asumptions and agod knows what else but sure
> nothing like predicting without priour experimantal knowledge

A heap of unsupported, baseless assertions and libel against
hard-working scientists, as usual.

>>>and the little you brought is compatible with my claimes
>>>no 79 electrons inj shells around the Au
>>
>>The point was to show that QM does _not_ predict a much bigger radius
>
>
> -----------
> is that my prediction??

*YOU* said that according to QM, the radius should be bigger. Lothar
should here that QM does *not* predict that.

> it is a direct result from 79 electrons as compared to 13

Absolute utter nonsense. You *still* ignore that the electrostatic
attraction on the electrons is also greater (since there are now
also 79 protons in the nucleus instead of only 13), and that therefore
the electrons are closer to the nucleus.

> now another point:
> once the nucs elctric charge is becoming 79 times bigger-
> to waht direction is it directed/ to all directions?

Charge has no direction. What on earth are you talking about???

Perhaps the electrostatic force???

> to all directions 79 time bigger?

The electrostatic force of the nucleus is 79 times bigger, in all
directions. It is a *central* force.

> so each electron shold be atrcted with a force that is
> 79 times stronger?

Yes, each electron is attracted 79 more times by the nucleus as
if there were only one proton.

> you sat screening
> an electron is exerting repultion force on other ones

Right.

> how does 79 electronms that move like mad

They don't "move like mad".

> exert force on each other
> is it a constant force ?

Yes. The charge density is constant, and hence the forces are constant.

> is it a variable force depending on the instant point time of screening??

What on earth does "instant point time of screening" mean?

> do you realy berlive those oeole could handle it seriously!!???

Those *what*??? "oeole"?????

>>for (say) Au than for Ag, in contrast what you keep claiming. This
>>demonstrates that you have no ideas about what QM really says.
>
> ---
> i am acrackpot and you are a scolar didnt we agreed abouti t??

Yes. Why don't you try to change this?

[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Quantcast