Re: Questions for all Alternative Atomic Modelers

p6 wrote:
>
> There is a avalanche of people with new atomic models such as
> John Sefton, Y.Porat, Seto, Thomson, Dr. Yoon, Mccutcheon,
> EL, Mr. Smart Model, RP, etc.

Bandini Mountain come to Dunsinane. There is no empirical support for
any of them and massive empirical falsification for all of them,
Peridic Table, spectroscopy... to the Standard Model and its
14-decimal place empirical validations.

> To these people. There are two things I'd like to know and hope
> you can comment as it bugs me a lot whenever I read your stuff.
>
> 1. First, if the current atomic model is not right. How come they
> were able to successfully detonate a nuke in the Manhattan Project
> at first try. This was a stunning achievement.. Imagine without
> trial or failure they were able to do what has never been done
> before. If the present atomic model is wrong. How did they manage
> to come up with the coincidence to calculate it so right and
> accurately??
>
> 2. Second let's talk about Bohr and deBroglie. Let me give a
> brief history of QM so you alternative modelers can point out
> what went wrong halfway in its development.
>
> In Bohr's model, you know there are orbit levels. Let me give
> the details for our scrutiny. In Bohr world. If an electron is
> excited from its initial energy state, it can only "jump" to an
> orbit where its angular momentum will change - increase or
> decrease - by some whole number times h/2pi. This means
> the angular momentum L cannot take on any arbitrary value,
> as is the usual case in classical physics, but only certain
> values. L=1 (h/2pi) in the first orbit; L=2 (h/2pi) in the
> second orbit; L=3 (h/2pi) in the third and so on. Only
> orbits in which L is a whole multiple of the quantized unit
> h/2pi are allowed. This gave rise to principal quantum
> number n.
>
> >From Blackbody Radiation. Light can only exist as finely
> divided units of energy E = h f. Now the angular momentum
> is also quantized, but this time in units of h/2pi. Note the
> 2pi thing.
>
> Bohr then derived the Balmer Formula.. But more hydrogen
> spectrums were seen. Somerfeld gave the elliptical orbit thing
> explanation (at that time it was valid) giving the quantum
> number k, Zeeman effect caused Somerfeld to give the
> idea of the orientation producing the quantum number m.
> There was more spectrum seen. Paul gave the explanation
> of the electron spin giving the fourth quantum number.
>
> Then came deBroglie. He was able to give the physical
> reason why the Bohr orbits are in certain distances from
> the nucleus. It was because the wavelength or standing
> waves of the electron can only fit certain orbit radius.
>
> His calculations showed it matched the orbital radius
> of Bohr. How do you explain this coincidence if it
> doesn't have basis in reality?? This bugs me a lot.
>
> Watch how deBroglie did the substitutions (for photons):
>
> e=mc^2 = (mc) (c)
> since p=mc, c= f times wavelength
> e= (p) (c) = (p) (f times wavelength)
> and equating e = h f
> (h) (f) = (p) (f times wavelength)
> h/p = wavelength
>
> By direct analogy, de Broglie proposed that his relation
> was true not just for photons, but for electrons and all
> particles.
> wavelength = h/p and for electrons mometum p=(m) (v)
> So for standing waves,
> n times (wavelength) = 2 pi r
> and
> n (h/mv) = 2 pi r (using de Broglie equation)
> n (h/2pi) = m v r (quantum orbital postulate)
>
> This means by just fitting a whole number of electron
> waves along the circumferences of the atom, and using
> de Broglie's relations, Bohr could give a theoretical
> justification for the orbital quantization.
>
> How do you explain that?? How come deBroglie can
> explain Bohr physical reasons for the quantization of the
> orbits and can even explain why they are in their
> particular distances??
>
> After the above events. 3 distinct mathematical
> developments, Matrix Mechanics, Wave Mechanics
> and Quantum Algebra were made. Later they
> were found to be compatible.
>
> Let's go now to the Schrodinger Equation. It gave
> a complete description of the spectral lines in the
> hydrogen atom, reproducing the Balmer formula,
> as well as include the quantum numbers n, k and
> m from the old quantum theory (as explained above),etc.
>
> Schroedinger was so impressed he thought he could
> express everything as waves and do away with
> particles.. until Lorentz made him realize particles
> still existed because how can wave packet stay
> together and describe a moving electron. He said
> that wave packets will spread with time and the idea
> of representing particles completely in terms of the
> superposition of waves is invalid, etc. Schroedinger
> admitted particles must exist.
>
> Then came Max Born that nailed Quantum Mechanics
> to what it is now by giving the probabilistic locations
> of the electrons.. meaning they don't move continuously
> at all and the elliptical path for example is just probability
> spaces of where the electrons may be.
>
> To all offering alternative atomic model. Pls. explain
> where in the history of quantum mechanics did
> the mistakes were made that gave what you think
> is a totally wrong atomic model at the present time.
>
> Yesterday I received Dr. Yoon $180 book to get more
> ideas of how one can stretch everything and the
> creativity to represent the atom without QM.
> But it doesn't explain the coincidences of deBroglie
> orbit calculations with Bohr calculations which is
> the most elegant part of QM history in my opinion.
> Even though the present QM has probability interpretation.
> The orbital distances from the nucleus is still the same
> as the Bohr orbit distances.. courtesy of deBroglie
> standing wave fitting in certain orbital radiuses
> explanations.
>
> So what do you make of it. Explain how deBroglie is
> wrong and why Bohr is wrong and why you are correct.
> I still find QM to be the most elegant model of all. So as
> to give justifciation for your alternative atomic model. Give
> explanations of where in the history of QM did mistakes
> you think were made.
>
> p6


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.