Re: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 02/15/05
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: red shift: doppler or einstein?"
- In reply to: newedana: "New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Reply: Franz Heymann: "Re: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Reply: newedana: "Re: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Reply: newedana: "Re: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Reply: newedana: "Re: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Reply: newedana: "Re: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:03:33 +0100
newedana wrote:
> Dr. Hansik Yoon proposes a very innovative atomic model, Yoon's
> Universal Atomic Model, in his book titled "Natural Science Founded on
> A New Atomic Model". --- http://www.yoonsatom.net
>
> This book seems to be one of the most innovative and comprehensive
> natural science books published in decades.
A lot of cranks claim that.
> This new atomic model
> replaces the Bohr's atomic model and quantum oscillator.
Bohr's model has been replaced already 80 years ago by Schroedinger,
and the quantum oscillator has nothing to do with atoms.
Evidently, despite having a PhD, Dr. Yoon has no clue what he is talking
about.
The following quote from his site:
"It is not an orbital electron performing an imaginary motion of up and
down around atomic nucleus as in the case of old atomic models." is
further evidence for that. *No* atomic model ever proposed such nonsense!
> The new atomic
> model has tiny persistent current ring named as the orbital electron
> ring around its nucleus.
But this current still consists of electrons, right? So, how does he
solve the old radiation problem?
> This kind of persistent current is seen from a superconductor.
So what?????
That it exists in one special place in nature, under very special
conditions, does not in the least imply that it can also exist
elsewhere, under completely different conditions!
> Dr. Yoon's natural science does not rely on the relativity theory and
> quantum mechanics.
Bad for him.
> It has totally different atomic model and paradigm
> from other existing theories.
>
> Dr. Yoon's natural science seems to satisfactorily explain many
> physical phenomena disputed long time among scientists without
> inconsistency.
For example?
And, BTW: satisfactorily for whom?
> Dr. Yoon in his book deals with a wide range of subjects such as
> electron, orbital electron ring, atomic structure, nature of light,
> flaws of the dualism of wave-particle, speed of light, real mechanism
> of the refraction and diffraction of light, real mechanism of nuclear
> fission and fusion, superconductivity, NMR and IR spectrums, laser
> light, X-rays, structure of water, gel crystal, organic carbon
> compounds, new mechanism of enzymatic reaction, bio-polymers, metallic
> crystal, origin of elements, cosmology, and etc. What a broad scope!
Indeed. How many quantitative predictions does he make? Or is this all
only qualitative handwaving?
> Dr. Yoon asserts that the light and energy which are intrinsically
> continuous entities can not be satisfactorily described by photons and
> quanta which are discontinuous entities.
QED is such a satisfactory description. Dr. Yoon loses.
> And the dualism of wave-particle has big flaw in it.
Which?
> He also boldly asserts in his book
> that the refraction of light is not due to the speed difference of
> lights propagating in different material systems with different
> densities, quite contrary to what we have learned.
Yet another nonsensical assertion.
> We can read some part of the book from http://www.yoonsatom.net
Seven pages are accessible. A lot of rhetoric and some nice pictures,
but not a single formula, not a single quantitative prediction.
As expected.
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: red shift: doppler or einstein?"
- In reply to: newedana: "New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Reply: Franz Heymann: "Re: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Reply: newedana: "Re: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Reply: newedana: "Re: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Reply: newedana: "Re: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Reply: newedana: "Re: New Physics Based on Yoon's Universal Atomic Model"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|