Re: hypothesis > accepted theory?
- From: tadchem <tadchem@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:17:21 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 20, 1:56 pm, zion-lion <damianjohnbr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
over the past month, I have been thinking about the atom
and even wrote a computer program in C++ to emulate a hydrogen/
deuterium atom
what I have postulated is the layman's term for quantum mechanics
I supposed that the particles of neutron, photon and electron moved
around the atom in a certain shaped waveform
I have just started reading about the Schrodinger Equation, which
fits
my layman hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
The Schroedinger Equation for the hydrogen atom was solved *exactly.*
The form of the equation is identical to that of a wave equation for a
central, 1/r^2 field. There are no 'particles' moving around inside
an atom. Neutrons don't exist for long. Photons move in straight
lines under local conditions. Electrons bound into atoms and ions
have no defineable position - only the energy of the electron is
known, but it is known exactly.
The key to calculating orbitals for higher order species (ions, atoms,
molecules) was the development of approximations: mathematical
simplifications which will not introduce intractable errors in the
results. In 1970 this step was taken with the NDDO approximation,
which led to further improvements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDDO
I'm sure this was all before you were born, so it must be old science
you somehow never learned about.
I have spoken to academics about my hypothesis but they are not much
help
it is not abstract like string theory, but includes linear wave-
particle duality
Their disinterest may be due to your outmoded paradigms.
I can program an atom and molecule emulator that drug firms can use
to
'build' new drugs
this is not a new phenomenom as there are already programs written
for
computational chemistry
but mine will be available to anyone who wishes to use it, whether a
chemistry student or a layman
but also, the professors of chemistry will take note, along with
nuclear physicists
and the drug companies to line my pocket...
Forget it. Better programs are already out there.
"MNDO, or Modified Neglect of Differential Overlap is a semi-empirical
method for the quantum calculation of molecular electronic structure
in computational chemistry. It is based on the Neglect of Differential
Diatomic Overlap integral approximation. Similarly, this method
replaced the earlier MINDO method. It is part of the MOPAC program and
was developed in the group of Michael Dewar. It is also part of the
AMPAC, GAMESS (US), GAMESS (UK) and GAUSSIAN programs."
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MNDO
These programs are already able to predict the bond lengths, bond
angles, and force constants of small molecules based on s, p, d, and
higher orbitals and hybrid orbitals to within the accuracy of
experimental data. The challenge now for drug companies is
calculating the conformations of biopolymers (proteins, RND, DNA,
etc.) and the processes that alter those conformations (i.e. "What
makes the protein go 'bad' in VCJD?").
I think you need to go back to school. You are to the chemical
physicist what NoEinstein is to the Relativistic Physics community.
You are out of your league here.
You are roundly ignored by "the academics" because your questions and
statements reveal more about your ignorance than about your knowledge.
And, FWIW, the "wave-particle duality" of light and electrons is an
analytical artifact. Photons and electrons are neither waves nor
particles. Depending on the analytical techniques used to study them
they can *APPEAR* to be either. Mathematically they have more in
common with Lorenzian four-tensors. Most non-mathematicians have
trouble 'visualizing' such an abstraction as a four-tensor, but they
feel a strong need to visualize things in order to better understand
them. It is just that sometimes the mathematics of a four-tensor
matches that of a particle in motion, and sometimes it matches that of
a dynamic electromagnetic field ("wave"). It depends on whether the
operator applied to the tensor to bring out the observable quantity
produces a scalar or another tensor.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: hypothesis > accepted theory?
- From: zion-lion
- Re: hypothesis > accepted theory?
- References:
- hypothesis > accepted theory?
- From: zion-lion
- hypothesis > accepted theory?
- Prev by Date: Re: hypothesis > accepted theory?
- Next by Date: Re: How can there be anything?
- Previous by thread: Re: hypothesis > accepted theory?
- Next by thread: Re: hypothesis > accepted theory?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
