Re: Present atomic physics is built based on a large number of fraudulent postulations
- From: ABarlow <aaron.m.barlow@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 May 2007 00:44:21 -0700
On Apr 24, 1:36 pm, newedana <simplesong1...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Present atomic physics was built based on completely unscientific
fraudulent postulations such as:
1. Atomic orbital electron performs a planetary motion around its
nucleus, a postulation disregarding the fact that atom does not exist
lonely as a single body, and its orbital electron is unable to keep
its planetary motion due to interruptive electromagnetic force given
out from its neighboring other element particles.
It's convenient then that atomic physics doesnt make this
prediction...
2. Electron is unable to move without inducing magnetism in
perpendicular to its moving path. Nevertheless, present atomic model
does not account this magnetism to be added to the centrifugal force
of orbital electron in balancing to its nuclear Coulomb attraction,
since this magnetism acts to straighten linearly its circular orbit.
J.J Thomson neglected this magnetism in measuring e/m value, so the
present mass of electron was greatly overestimated one.
I believe you can correct for this if you wanted to. I don't know what
effect off the top of my head it would have on *measuring* e/m.
3. It is a basic postulation one proton can attract one electron in
the present atomic model. Nevertheless, a proton can attract 92
electrons if it joins in to a uranium nucleus, so the gross Coulomb
attraction between its nucleus and its 92 orbital electrons turns out
to be 922 = 8464 in average, according to the Coulomb law. This self-
contradiction of Coulomb law found in current atomic physics is due to
its simple imitation of Newton’s gravitation law.
I'm not sure what you mean here. A single proton can attract an
infinite number of electrons. It has nothing to do with gravity.
4. There does not exist a discontinuous motion of mass particle in the
space of nature, because discontinuous motion of a mass particle in
scientific sense means that it disappears instantly at a place and
then reappears at another place. However, present atomic model has an
orbital electron moving by such a discontinuous manner, the quantum
jump motion from orbit to orbit.
How do you *know* that something cannot jump from place to place
without travelling the distance in between? Simply because it does not
it the macroscopic world does not imply that it may not under other
circumstances. That said, I don't think that it is entirely correct to
say that the position of the particle instantly changes under QM
anyway.
5. It is a unscientific postulate atomic orbital electron emits
photons or lights as it drops down from a higher energy level to a
lower one, because potential energy is unable to convert into
realistic photons or lights, and such a dropping or a circular motion
of orbital electron is not an oscillation possible to generate light
with electromagnetic wave phase of counter polarity.
Umm... I don't think this makes any sense.
6. Probability-electron in the quantum atomic model is unable to
detect with the same probability in the same electron cloud unlike its
postulation. Electron is impossible to cover a three-dimensional x, y,
z space by its orbital motion in balancing its kinetic and potential
energy at the same moment. Nevertheless, the ShrÖdinger wave equation
was built by balancing these two energies.
Shroedinger's equation does not demand that kinetic and potential
energy are equal.
7. Despite that Bohr’s atomic model was built based on unscientific
first and second postulations as cited above, some basic constants in
present atomic physics were derived from Bohr’s radius ao. For
example, ionization energy Ei of hydrogen atom involves, ao, in Ei = -
e^2/8π εo ao, that represents the gross energy of orbital electron at
Bohr’s radius. The so-called universal constant Planck constant h is
also connected to the Bohr’s radius ao, through Ei =hcR, where c :
speed of light, R: Rydberg frequency, and Ei involves a number of man-
made constants, such as εo and ao. It appears also that Rydberg
frequency was not derived from a pure theoretical base, in respecting
above relation: R=Ei / hc.
The Rydberg constant was determined experimentally before it was
derived theoretically. The fact that Bohr's hypothesis was mostly
wrong (though not for the reasons you state) does not mean that
*parts* of it are nonetheless correct and lead to accurate results.
The Bohr radius and the Rydberg constant can be derived independently
of Bohr's formalism anyway.
8. It is the universal principle, energy of oscillating mass particle
changes in proportional to its frequency square. However, in Planck-
Einstein law, E=hν, the same energy changes linearly to its frequency.
It is immediately against this natural principle.
Actually, the energy changes proportionally to its angular frequency
squared. Light isn't a massive particle, so strictly speaking your
argument doesn't matter anyway, since light is massless.
9. Equation E=Mc2 derived from m=mo[1-(ν/c)^2]^-1/2 by expanding
polynomial series has no scientific foundation. Nevertheless, this
equation is applied to explain energy emission from both nuclear
fission and fusion reaction, mutually opposite in philosophical sense.
Why wouldn't expanding the series have any scientific foundation? Are
you suggesting that the power series doesn't converge?
A.
.
- Prev by Date: General Relativity tests the limits of our insturments.
- Next by Date: Re: Present atomic physics is built based on a large number of fraudulent postulations
- Previous by thread: Re: Present atomic physics is built based on a large number of fraudulent postulations
- Next by thread: Re: Evryone's consciousness' life's eternity's prove
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
