Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:18 AM I am not the arbiter, but have the right to question it. Just insisting that it is wrong, while providing no evidence to support that (and ignoring all the other evidence) is not questioning it. 0 Back to top #62 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 26 July 2014 - 03:32 AM Just insisting that it is wrong, while providing no evidence to support that (and ignoring all the other evidence) is not questioning it. I would insist what is right deduction by classical theory, and reject to the misunderstanding about the great theory. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #63 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 26 July 2014 - 08:38 AM I would insist what is right deduction by classical theory, and reject to the misunderstanding about the great theory. I would insist that what is right (i.e. works) is what matches observation and evidence. Classical theory doesn't. 0 Back to top #64 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 26 July 2014 - 12:40 PM I would insist that what is right (i.e. works) is what matches observation and evidence. Classical theory doesn't. A simple fact, an electron which is moving in a electromagnetic field is controlled by Lorentz force and will go along a trajectory, Please give me a reliable interpretation by quantum mechanics!!! Edited by Jeremy0922, 26 July 2014 - 12:41 PM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #65 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 26 July 2014 - 12:47 PM A simple fact, an electron which is moving in a electromagnetic field is controlled by Lorentz force and will go along a trajectory, Only if you treat it as a classical object. Please give me a reliable interpretation by quantum mechanics!!! There are dozens of interpretations. Take your pick. http://en.wikipedia....antum_mechanics I am not going to recommend one because I don't really like any of them. They are just stories (fairy tales, lies) to try and make reality fit our expectations. That is your problem; you want the universe to act as you think it should based on your intuition and expectations as a highly evolved ape. There is absolutely no reason to think that the universe should be comprehensible in those terms. Edited by Strange, 26 July 2014 - 12:49 PM. 0 Back to top #66 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 26 July 2014 - 01:08 PM Only if you treat it as a classical object. There are dozens of interpretations. Take your pick. http://en.wikipedia....antum_mechanics I am not going to recommend one because I don't really like any of them. They are just stories (fairy tales, lies) to try and make reality fit our expectations. That is your problem; you want the universe to act as you think it should based on your intuition and expectations as a highly evolved ape. There is absolutely no reason to think that the universe should be comprehensible in those terms. 1. You think Lorentz force is wong, don't it? 2. and deny an electron could moves along a trajectory!!! 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #67 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 26 July 2014 - 01:52 PM 1. You think Lorentz force is wong, don't it? 2. and deny an electron could moves along a trajectory!!! I never said either of those things. 0 Back to top #68 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:12 PM I never said either of those things. Then you explain the fact that an electron could moves along a trajectory by QM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #69 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:14 PM A simple fact, an electron which is moving in a electromagnetic field is controlled by Lorentz force and will go along a trajectory, Please give me a reliable interpretation by quantum mechanics!!! The QM interpretation is that in an atom there is no motion along a trajectory. An electron that does move along a trajectory is obeying classical physics, so there is no QM explanation necessary. Classical physics explains it. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #70 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:18 PM Then you explain the fact that an electron could moves along a trajectory by QM. It is up to you to show that a classical model of the atom works. 0 Back to top #71 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:23 PM It is up to you to show that a classical model of the atom works. If QM can not explain the fact above, We have the right to question QM!!! 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #72 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:43 PM If QM can not explain the fact above, We have the right to question QM!!! QM does not explain evolution, planetary orbits or the tides. That has nothing to do with the correctness of QM, it has to do with the limits of applicability of QM. It is up to you to show that a classical model of the atom works. I second this, and also point out that the rules demand it . 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #73 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:59 PM QM does not explain evolution, planetary orbits or the tides. That has nothing to do with the correctness of QM, it has to do with the limits of applicability of QM. I second this, and also point out that the rules demand it . But we are discussing the electron moves in the electromagnetic field. By my opnion, if we consider the mathematical methods in QM is effective to treat the resonace of the elctron orbit in the atom, almost problem would be settled. Edited by Jeremy0922, 26 July 2014 - 03:01 PM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #74 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 26 July 2014 - 05:05 PM But we are discussing the electron moves in the electromagnetic field. By my opnion, if we consider the mathematical methods in QM is effective to treat the resonace of the elctron orbit in the atom, almost problem would be settled. I thought you were discussing QM. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #75 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 27 July 2014 - 12:39 AM I thought you were discussing QM. Generally, there are several mathematical method for solving a physical problem, Schrdinger equation and E=hv were deduced from resonace model by classical theory. I think the mathematical method to solve Schrdinger equation in QM might to be introduced, to solve the resonance problem, or we could select a new method to do that.
swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:08 AM By QM, angular momentum.is only the interpretation about quantum number from the solution of Schrdinger equation, but I do not wether it means angular momentum in physics. By classical theory, the ground orbit of the electron is a circle. Yes, and a charge moving in a circle will give you a magnetic field. Do we see this field when we measure the magnetic moment of the hydrogen atoms? 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #42 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:31 AM Electron moves along the orbit is a kind of periodic movement, isn't it? No. Unless you have some evidence that there is periodic movement of the hydrogen atom caused by the movement of electrons. Which you have admitted you haven't. So, no. As we known, the solution about the hydrogen atom is the greatest and outstanding work for quantum mechanics. There was that little thing that Einstein got a Nobel Prize for. And Planck's solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe. It took quite a long time for quantum theory to be applied to the atom. Even if the classical model is a reasonable approximation in some cases for the hydrogen atom, it is no use for more complex problems. 0 Back to top #43 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 22 July 2014 - 11:39 AM Yes, and a charge moving in a circle will give you a magnetic field. Do we see this field when we measure the magnetic moment of the hydrogen atoms? Good question! Although I don't know wether there is the technology to do it, but we could apply the magnetic field by moving charges to explain magnetic properties of the magnets and VanderWaalsforce. I don't kown how to explain for these two phenomenon by quantum mechanics. No. Unless you have some evidence that there is periodic movement of the hydrogen atom caused by the movement of electrons. Which you have admitted you haven't. So, no. There is not the technology which is able to observe the electron moves around the proton. Edited by Jeremy0922, 22 July 2014 - 11:41 AM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #44 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 22 July 2014 - 11:41 AM There is not the technology which is able to observe the electron moves around the proton. So you have no justification for claiming that such movement exists. Especially when there is plenty of evidence showing that the classical model is inadequate. What are you going to do about the photoelectric effect? How are you going to explain the black body spectrum? Edited by Strange, 22 July 2014 - 11:42 AM. 0 Back to top #45 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 22 July 2014 - 11:45 AM So you have no justification for claiming that such movement exists. What we can not observe is not mean there is no! Do you see an electron? do you believe there is elelctron? Edited by Jeremy0922, 22 July 2014 - 12:04 PM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #46 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 22 July 2014 - 12:19 PM Good question! Although I don't know wether there is the technology to do it, but we could apply the magnetic field by moving charges to explain magnetic properties of the magnets and Van der Waals force. I don't kown how to explain for these two phenomenon by quantum mechanics. The magnetic moment would affect the energy levels both in the unperturbed atom (Hyperfine splitting) and when it was subjected to an external field where we would see Zeeman splitting of the levels. The technology exists to observe this; the study is one of spectroscopy. People would have seen such an effect several decades ago, if the structure was there. But the answer is no, there is no effect observed. This is why there is no serious consideration of a classical model: any model that disagrees with experiment is wrong. QM gives the right answer. As to magnetic properties and van der Waal's forces, perhaps you should read up on them. These have been studied for years. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #47 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 22 July 2014 - 12:44 PM What we can not observe is not mean there is no! If we cannot observe it, then there is no reason to think it exists. Inventing an undetectable effect as the basis of a theory is not science. Do you see an electron? do you believe there is elelctron? I have seen the trail of an electron in a cloud chamber. I have seen many other effects caused by the behaviour of electrons. So we have observed and measured behaviour of electrons, used as the basis of various theories. You have invented a non-existent effect. Which do you think I should take more seriously? Science or science-fiction? 0 Back to top #48 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 22 July 2014 - 02:32 PM The magnetic moment would affect the energy levels both in the unperturbed atom (Hyperfine splitting) and when it was subjected to an external field where we would see Zeeman splitting of the levels. The technology exists to observe this; the study is one of spectroscopy. People would have seen such an effect several decades ago, if the structure was there. But the answer is no, there is no effect observed. This is why there is no serious consideration of a classical model: any model that disagrees with experiment is wrong. QM gives the right answer. I want to know the interpretation of magnetic properties (field) of the magnets by QM, not Zeeman splitting. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #49 hoola hoola Molecule Senior Members 482 posts Location colorado, usa Posted 22 July 2014 - 03:41 PM when I was asking about what moves a hydrogen atom, I was referring to a gas of hydrogen atoms, not a single atom isolated. As hydrogen gas is compressed, it is the electron of each atom that is doing the repulsing of it's neighbor, and acts as the active mechanism of the compression energy, correct? Edited by hoola, 22 July 2014 - 03:44 PM. 0 Back to top #50 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 22 July 2014 - 03:55 PM I want to know the interpretation of magnetic properties (field) of the magnets by QM, not Zeeman splitting. That's a separate question to whether or not classical physics is consistent with the spectroscopic results. (It isn't) The point is that a classical orbit of an electron would have predictable effects on the level splittings. These results are not seen, thus the model is wrong. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #51 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 23 July 2014 - 02:10 AM That's a separate question to whether or not classical physics is consistent with the spectroscopic results. (It isn't) The point is that a classical orbit of an electron would have predictable effects on the level splittings. These results are not seen, thus the model is wrong. How do you explain the magnetic field by moving charged particle according to quantum mechanics? Edited by Jeremy0922, 23 July 2014 - 02:11 AM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #52 Sensei Sensei Primate Senior Members 1,594 posts Posted 23 July 2014 - 04:26 AM What we can not observe is not mean there is no! Do you see an electron? do you believe there is elelctron? Long traces in Cloud Chamber are from electrons (they are also called beta rays, or when we're making them using high voltage - cathode rays) The more kinetic energy has particle, the longer trace. 0 How To Calculate Decay Energy Of Radioactive Isotope Chemistry Lab Guru application (turn Full HD mode). Back to top #53 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:03 AM Long traces in Cloud Chamber are from electrons (they are also called beta rays, or when we're making them using high voltage - cathode rays) The more kinetic energy has particle, the longer trace. Thanks for your link, I believe there is electron, although we have never get the image about a standing electron. Edited by Jeremy0922, 23 July 2014 - 07:07 AM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #54 Sensei Sensei Primate Senior Members 1,594 posts Posted 23 July 2014 - 07:10 AM Yes, and a charge moving in a circle will give you a magnetic field. Actually, in coil electrons don't move in circle, but in spiral. Single electron is just once passing through wire. When electrons flow in one direction in coil of course it will produce magnetic field, that anybody with compass array device can see on his own eyes. But if we will use alternating current, electrons flow once in one direction, once in opposite direction. Can you detect magnetic field when frequency of AC would be counted in millions or billions Hz? What does show compass array device, if you will place it close to coil through which there is flowing low frequency AC, or high frequency AC.. ? What does show compass array device, if you will place it close to discharge tube with Hydrogen and turn high voltage on to ionize it.. ? The issue I see here is that spectral lines are obtained from discharge tube, with ionized plasma. But electric neutral Hydrogen gas is not mixture of proton and electron, but H 2 molecule, two protons and two electrons. ps. Where in USA and UK somebody can buy compass array like below one? I searched couple times on Google and can't find anything.. Here it costs $40 in the regular shop. Whenever somebody asks on physics forum about moving electron in circle around proton I know they don't mean it literally. Circle is 2d figure, with missing one axis to 3d. Analyze should be done using the all 3 dimensions. What are your predictions of magnetic field lines around it for such coil.. ? Imagine it's single long wire. Edited by Sensei, 23 July 2014 - 07:13 AM. 0 How To Calculate Decay Energy Of Radioactive Isotope Chemistry Lab Guru application (turn Full HD mode). Back to top #55 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 23 July 2014 - 09:47 AM How do you explain the magnetic field by moving charged particle according to quantum mechanics? It's not part of QM, as such. It's explained classically and relativistically. Actually, in coil electrons don't move in circle, but in spiral. I'm not talking about an electron in a coil, I'm talking about an electron in a Bohr orbit and the energy shift that will result if the electron had orbital angular momentum. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #56 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 23 July 2014 - 11:40 AM It's not part of QM, as such. It's explained classically and relativistically. You are wrong, QM is the theory for solving the structure of atom, molecule, and solid-state, the magnetics properpties are depended on the structure, so,QM should explain it. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #57 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 23 July 2014 - 11:47 AM You are wrong, QM is the theory for solving the structure of atom, molecule, and solid-state, the magnetics properpties are depended on the structure, so,QM should explain it. You are not the arbiter of what QM is. This is simply a straw-man justification for rejecting QM. Perhaps you should actually study the subject and learn about it before criticizing. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #58 Sensei Sensei Primate Senior Members 1,594 posts Posted 23 July 2014 - 12:22 PM Thanks for your link, I believe there is electron, although we have never get the image about a standing electron. Image not (hard to get image of particle at rest), but whole electrostatics is about measuring charges coming from electrons at rest that repel each other.. http://www.sparkmuse...STATIC_MISC.HTM Wimshurst machine http://en.wikipedia....mshurst_machine Electroscope http://en.wikipedia....ki/Electroscope Don't you have these devices.. ?? 0 How To Calculate Decay Energy Of Radioactive Isotope Chemistry Lab Guru application (turn Full HD mode). Back to top #59 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 24 July 2014 - 05:43 AM You are not the arbiter of what QM is. This is simply a straw-man justification for rejecting QM. Perhaps you should actually study the subject and learn about it before criticizing. I am not the arbiter, but have the right to question it. Image not (hard to get image of particle at rest), but whole electrostatics is about measuring charges coming from electrons at rest that repel each other.. http://www.sparkmuse...STATIC_MISC.HTM Wimshurst machine http://en.wikipedia....mshurst_machine Electroscope http://en.wikipedia....ki/Electroscope Don't you have these devices.. ?? Thanks 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #60 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 24 July 2014 - 09:36 AM I am not the arbiter, but have the right to question it. Saying that a particular theory needs to explain a phenomenon outside of its reach is not questioning it. Electromagnetism doesn't explain gravity, but that does not indicate any problem with EM. Explaining magnetism is within EM, not QM.
hoola hoola Molecule Senior Members 482 posts Location colorado, usa Posted 22 July 2014 - 07:14 AM I liked strange's question....do hydrogen atoms really move due to the movement of the electron...? I would presume that movement is due to electron repulsion from adjacent atoms... 0 Back to top #22 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 22 July 2014 - 07:41 AM hoola, on 22 Jul 2014 - 3:14 PM, said: I liked strange's question....do hydrogen atoms really move due to the movement of the electron...? I would presume that movement is due to electron repulsion from adjacent atoms... For an isolated hydrogen atom, there is no adjacent atom. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #23 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:03 AM Jeremy0922, on 22 Jul 2014 - 3:41 PM, said: For an isolated hydrogen atom, there is no adjacent atom. But, again, you haven't answered the question! 0 Back to top #24 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:20 AM Strange, on 22 Jul 2014 - 4:03 PM, said: But, again, you haven't answered the question! In the hygrogen atom, there is an electron and a proton. As a clsssical mechanical system, that is a two-body system. About the treatment for two-body system, you could find the answer from text book of physics about mechanics and movement. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #25 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:25 AM Jeremy0922, on 22 Jul 2014 - 4:20 PM, said: In the hygrogen atom, there is an electron and a proton. As a clsssical mechanical system, that is a two-body system. About the treatment for two-body system, you could find the answer from text book of physics about mechanics and movement. You still haven't answered the question. The question is: do hydrogen atoms move because of the movement of the electrons? I am not asking about classical mechanics, two body systems, or text books. After all, the hydrogen atom is not a classical system so all of that is irrelevant. I am asking about what actually happens . So, again, can you provide a reference that shows experimental measurements of a hydrogen atom oscillating due to the movement of the electron? 0 Back to top #26 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:34 AM Strange, on 22 Jul 2014 - 4:25 PM, said: You still haven't answered the question. The question is: do hydrogen atoms move because of the movement of the electrons? I am not asking about classical mechanics, two body systems, or text books. After all, the hydrogen atom is not a classical system so all of that is irrelevant. I am asking about what actually happens . So, again, can you provide a reference that shows experimental measurements of a hydrogen atom oscillating due to the movement of the electron? I think the hydrogen atom is classical system. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #27 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:46 AM Jeremy0922, on 22 Jul 2014 - 4:34 PM, said: I think the hydrogen atom is classical system. And I am asking for evidence to support that. Your starting point was that the quantum model cannot explain the periodic movement of the hydrogen atom. But you have not yet provided any evidence that this periodic movement exists. So, your argument appears to be: 1. If the atom is classical then there would be periodic movement. 2. Quantum theory cannot explain this periodic movement. 3. Therefore the classical model must be correct. Is that correct? If so: http://en.wikipedia....ng_the_question Edited by Strange, 22 July 2014 - 08:47 AM. 0 Back to top #28 ajb ajb Physics Expert Resident Experts 7,564 posts Location Warsaw, Poland Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:52 AM swansont, on 22 Jul 2014 - 02:39 AM, said: I took this to mean that you don't get classical equations of motion from the Schrdinger equation. My thought was that as the WKB gives you quasi-classical trajectories then one maybe able to think about orbits with a lot of care. Jeremy0922, on 22 Jul 2014 - 11:44 AM, said: WKB approximation is only a mathematical method or semiclassical calcultion for finding approximate solutions for the quantum sysytem, the reliability of results depends on whether the Schrdinger equation of the quantum system is correct. See above. 0 In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you Frank Wilczek. Mathematical Ramblings. Back to top #29 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:52 AM Strange, on 22 Jul 2014 - 4:46 PM, said: And I am asking for evidence to support that. Your starting point was that the quantum model cannot explain the periodic movement of the hydrogen atom. But you have not yet provided any evidence that this periodic movement exists. So, your argument appears to be: 1. If the atom is classical then there would be periodic movement. 2. Quantum theory cannot explain this periodic movement. 3. Therefore the classical model must be correct. Is that correct? If so: http://en.wikipedia....ng_the_question Please read post #10 my answer for ajb 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #30 ajb ajb Physics Expert Resident Experts 7,564 posts Location Warsaw, Poland Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:54 AM Jeremy0922, on 22 Jul 2014 - 4:34 PM, said: I think the hydrogen atom is classical system. I think that idea has been rejected over 100 years agao now. You can't explian the orbitals nor the stability usng classical mechanics. 0 In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you Frank Wilczek. Mathematical Ramblings. Back to top #31 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:58 AM Jeremy0922, on 22 Jul 2014 - 4:52 PM, said: Please read post #10 my answer for ajb I have looked at post #10 again. I don't see a reference to experimental evidence for periodic movement of the hydrogen atom due to the movement of the electron. Does such evidence exist: yes or no? I am very disappointed. I thought I was going to learn something new.... 0 Back to top #32 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:09 AM ajb, on 22 Jul 2014 - 4:52 PM, said: My thought was that as the WKB gives you quasi-classical trajectories then one maybe able to think about orbits with a lot of care. See above. In microworld, there are classical and quantum (or resonance) phenomenon, Schrdinger equation is a powerful mathematical tool to solve the resonance phenomenon. Strange, on 22 Jul 2014 - 4:58 PM, said: I have looked at post #10 again. I don't see a reference to experimental evidence for periodic movement of the hydrogen atom due to the movement of the electron. Does such evidence exist: yes or no? I am very disappointed. I thought I was going to learn something new.... I think the structure and linear spectrum of the hydrogen atom could be interpretted by classical theory actually. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #33 ajb ajb Physics Expert Resident Experts 7,564 posts Location Warsaw, Poland Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:12 AM Jeremy0922, on 22 Jul 2014 - 5:09 PM, said: In microworld, there are classical and quantum (or resonance) phenomenon, Schrdinger equation is a powerful mathematical tool to solve the resonance phenomenon. Right, but you could use this with the WKB and path integrals to get at a quasi-classical trajectory. I wonder if you can do this and ragain some notion of an orbit. I really don't know and have not seen it does, maybe you can maybe soemthing goes wrong. Jeremy0922, on 22 Jul 2014 - 5:09 PM, said: I think the structure and linear spectrum of the hydrogen atom could be interpretted by classical theory actually. Okay, so if you reject quantum mechanics from the start, then you can forget my suggestion. 0 In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you Frank Wilczek. Mathematical Ramblings. Back to top #34 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:28 AM Jeremy0922, on 22 Jul 2014 - 5:09 PM, said: I think the structure and linear spectrum of the hydrogen atom could be interpretted by classical theory actually. So you admit you have no evidence that there is periodic movement of the hydrogen atom caused by the movement of electrons. Thank you. 0 Back to top #35 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:33 AM Strange, on 22 Jul 2014 - 5:28 PM, said: So you admit you have no evidence that there is periodic movement of the hydrogen atom caused by the movement of electrons. Thank you. Electron moves along the orbit is a kind of periodic movement, isn't it? 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #36 ajb ajb Physics Expert Resident Experts 7,564 posts Location Warsaw, Poland Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:37 AM Jeremy0922, on 22 Jul 2014 - 5:33 PM, said: Electron moves along the orbit is a kind of periodic movement, isn't it? But this exactly the classical notions we are a bit uncomfortable with in this context. 0 In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you Frank Wilczek. Mathematical Ramblings. Back to top #37 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:48 AM ajb, on 22 Jul 2014 - 5:12 PM, said: Right, but you could use this with the WKB and path integrals to get at a quasi-classical trajectory. I wonder if you can do this and ragain some notion of an orbit. I really don't know and have not seen it does, maybe you can maybe soemthing goes wrong. Okay, so if you reject quantum mechanics from the start, then you can forget my suggestion. I reject quantum mechanics, because I think QM denies the causality of nature, and I found we mistook classical theory for the problem of the hydrogen atom ajb, on 22 Jul 2014 - 5:37 PM, said: But this exactly the classical notions we are a bit uncomfortable with in this context. If it is trues, I think we should accept it. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #38 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:49 AM Jeremy0922, on 22 Jul 2014 - 5:40 PM, said: I reject quantum mechanics, because I think QM denies the causality of nature, and I found we mistook classical theory for the problem of the hydrogen atom Then you need to solve all of the problems that others before you could not. For example, in the Bohr model, the ground state of Hydrogen has 1 hbar of angular momentum. That should give a contribution to the magnetic moment of the atom. In QM, the orbital angular momentum is zero, giving no contribution to the magnetic moment. Only one of these can be correct. Which one? 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #39 ajb ajb Physics Expert Resident Experts 7,564 posts Location Warsaw, Poland Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:52 AM Jeremy0922, on 22 Jul 2014 - 5:40 PM, said: I reject quantum mechanics, because I think QM denies the causality of nature, and I found we mistook classical theory for the problem of the hydrogen atom I don't know if the violation of causlity here is rather a philosophical thing, I assume you are talking about things like spontaneous decays and so on. For sure, quantum mechanics gives another view on cauality, but I don't think that is really enough to simply reject it. Also, remember that the hydrogen atom is not the only system well described by quantum mechanics. Edited by ajb, 22 July 2014 - 09:53 AM. 0 In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you Frank Wilczek. Mathematical Ramblings. Back to top #40 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:05 AM swansont, on 22 Jul 2014 - 5:49 PM, said: Then you need to solve all of the problems that others before you could not. For example, in the Bohr model, the ground state of Hydrogen has 1 hbar of angular momentum. That should give a contribution to the magnetic moment of the atom. In QM, the orbital angular momentum is zero, giving no contribution to the magnetic moment. Only one of these can be correct. Which one? By QM, angular momentum.is only the interpretation about quantum number from the solution of Schrdinger equation, but I do not wether it means angular momentum in physics. By classical theory, the ground orbit of the electron is a circle. ajb, on 22 Jul 2014 - 5:52 PM, said: I don't know if the violation of causlity here is rather a philosophical thing, I assume you are talking about things like spontaneous decays and so on. For sure, quantum mechanics gives another view on cauality, but I don't think that is really enough to simply reject it. Also, remember that the hydrogen atom is not the only system well described by quantum mechanics. As we known, the solution about the hydrogen atom is the greatest and outstanding work for quantum mechanics.
如果能打开，原始链接地址： http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84583-how-to-understand-the-periodicity-of-the-moving-electron-in-the-hydrogen-atom/page-4 How to understand the periodicity of the moving electron in the hydrogen atom Started by Jeremy0922 , Jul 21, 2014 Page 1 of 4 !--img src='http://www.scienceforums.net/public/style_images/SFN/dropdown.png' alt='+' /-- 1 2 3 Next Please log in to reply 74 replies to this topic #1 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 21 July 2014 - 07:34 AM For a hydrogen atom at ground state, the electron is moving around the proton (nucleur of H atom). The frequency ν 0 and the energy E 0 of the electron in the H atom at the ground state should consistent with quantum hypothesis, that is : E 0 =h ν 0 Where h is Planck's constant . As we known, the period T and the frequency of the electron must obey the following relationship : T=1/ ν Clearly, the electron is moving around the proton with a constant period T 0 , and T 0 = h /E 0 According to the concept of period, the moving electron should be at the same position at the time after a period T 0 . That is easy for us to understand by classic concept and theory, but I don't know How to understand the periodicity of the electron in the hydrogen atom by quantum mechanics, would you like tell me ? Thanks ! Edited by Jeremy0922, 21 July 2014 - 07:40 AM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #2 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 21 July 2014 - 08:55 AM This classical Bhor model of the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus is not really accurate. It does give correct results for some specific things but is in general not accurate. The quantum mechanical model is that an electrons is not orbiting the nucleus but is spread out around the atom with a defined probability if being found in any given position. http://www.chemguide...tsorbitals.html 0 Back to top #3 Nicholas Kang Nicholas Kang Molecule Senior Members 630 posts Posted 21 July 2014 - 09:49 AM This classical Bhor model of the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus is not really accurate. It does give correct results for some specific things but is in general not accurate. The quantum mechanical model is that an electrons is not orbiting the nucleus but is spread out around the atom with a defined probability if being found in any given position. http://www.chemguide...tsorbitals.html Now I know why I would hate my Chemistry teacher next year. That was a really great scientific website. I learnt a lot of new things and terms. Thanks, Strange. 0 For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice. Back to top #4 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 21 July 2014 - 10:06 AM This classical Bhor model of the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus is not really accurate. It does give correct results for some specific things but is in general not accurate. The quantum mechanical model is that an electrons is not orbiting the nucleus but is spread out around the atom with a defined probability if being found in any given position. http://www.chemguide...tsorbitals.html Thank you for your answer, but the interpretation by probability wave contradicts to the periodic movement of the electron. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #5 ajb ajb Physics Expert Resident Experts 7,564 posts Location Warsaw, Poland Posted 21 July 2014 - 10:17 AM Thank you for your answer, but the interpretation by probability wave contradicts to the periodic movement of the electron. I am not sure if there is any kind of limit for which the Schrdinger equation for the hydrogen atom reduces to Bohr's model. The only thing I can think of is the classical limit, but that would not give the Bohr quantisation conditions. It maybe possible to use the WKB or something like that to get a hursistic picture of an orbiting electron, but you would have to be very careful with the interpretations here. I don't know if you could recover the quantisation contidtions or something close to them. I expect not as the Bohr model is very huristic and based on an ad-hoc modification of classical mechanics. It sounds like you have some solution here? 0 In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you Frank Wilczek. Mathematical Ramblings. Back to top #6 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 21 July 2014 - 10:25 AM Thank you for your answer, but the interpretation by probability wave contradicts to the periodic movement of the electron. The conclusion is that there is no periodic motion of the electron, in any meaningful classical sense. The Bohr model is wrong. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #7 StringJunky StringJunky Atom Senior Members 2,576 posts Location UK Posted 21 July 2014 - 11:19 AM The Bohr model is wrong. To say I was pissed off when I found this out going into A level chemistry (16-18yrs) would be an understatement. I felt the previous two years was completely wasted on learning inaccurate information. The tutor actually said: Everything you've learnt so far is wrong! 0 In the absence of data, we have more degrees of freedom to wave our arms. - Anon. Challenge Einstein, and you’d better be prepared to lose. - Anon. We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ~Epictetus Back to top #8 Nicholas Kang Nicholas Kang Molecule Senior Members 630 posts Posted 21 July 2014 - 11:21 AM And what I have learnt in school are all wrong. 0 For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice. Back to top #9 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 21 July 2014 - 11:45 AM Thank you for your answer, but the interpretation by probability wave contradicts to the periodic movement of the electron. What periodic movement of the electron are you referring to? 0 Back to top #10 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 21 July 2014 - 03:24 PM I am not sure if there is any kind of limit for which the Schrdinger equation for the hydrogen atom reduces to Bohr's model. The only thing I can think of is the classical limit, but that would not give the Bohr quantisation conditions. It maybe possible to use the WKB or something like that to get a hursistic picture of an orbiting electron, but you would have to be very careful with the interpretations here. I don't know if you could recover the quantisation contidtions or something close to them. I expect not as the Bohr model is very huristic and based on an ad-hoc modification of classical mechanics. It sounds like you have some solution here? Hi, ajb, thank you to discuss with you again. 1. The Schrdinger equation can not reduce to trajecctory equation for the moving electron in the center field; 2. Bohr model is the theory closed to sucess for H atom. But we must proof A) there is a ground orbit (or state) for H atom, and B) the linear spectrum is caused by resonance of the ground orbit, and C) the steady state Schrdinger equation of the H atom could be deduced from A) and B) I think the answer or explanation could be found for your questions in my prevous topics and paper: 1. Electromagnetic radiation and steady state of hydrogen atom 2. Why don't we build the model of hydrogen atom independently by QM? What periodic movement of the electron are you referring to? center of mass coordinate of the H atom The conclusion is that there is no periodic motion of the electron, in any meaningful classical sense. The Bohr model is wrong. Nice to meet you again, Swansont. please see my quote above to answer ajb. Edited by Jeremy0922, 21 July 2014 - 03:27 PM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #11 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 21 July 2014 - 03:30 PM center of mass coordinate of the H atom Does the center of mass move? 0 Back to top #12 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 21 July 2014 - 03:37 PM Does the center of mass move? Yes, it is moving refere to Lab 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #13 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 21 July 2014 - 03:47 PM Yes, it is moving refere to Lab I wasn't aware of that. Can you provide a reference describing it? 0 Back to top #14 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 21 July 2014 - 03:54 PM Yes, it is moving refere to Lab In the center of mass coordinates, the center of mass is stationary, by definition. 1. The Schrdinger equation can not reduce to trajecctory equation for the moving electron in the center field; No. That's one of the big differences when compared to classical physics, and one of the central ideas of QM. 2. Bohr model is the theory closed to sucess for H atom. The Bohr model explains a few things properly, but where it fails it fails spectacularly. In a seemingly unrecoverable way. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #15 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 21 July 2014 - 04:16 PM I wasn't aware of that. Can you provide a reference describing it? You can find the answer in a text book about classical mechanics or wiki, for two-bodies system. http://en.wikipedia....ameredirect=no In the center of mass coordinates, the center of mass is stationary, by definition. The atom is moving to Lab., so, it's center of mass (coordinates) is also moving. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #16 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 21 July 2014 - 04:37 PM You can find the answer in a text book about classical mechanics or wiki, for two-bodies system. http://en.wikipedia....ameredirect=no The atom is moving to Lab., so, it's center of mass (coordinates) is also moving. Moving relative to the lab. But the center of mass is not moving with respect to its own coordinate system. From the Wikipedia page In all COM frames, the center of mass is at rest 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #17 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 21 July 2014 - 04:40 PM You can find the answer in a text book about classical mechanics or wiki, for two-bodies system. http://en.wikipedia....ameredirect=no That doesn't say anything about hydrogen atoms. Do hydrogen atoms really move due to the movement of the electron? 0 Back to top #18 ajb ajb Physics Expert Resident Experts 7,564 posts Location Warsaw, Poland Posted 21 July 2014 - 04:59 PM 1. The Schrdinger equation can not reduce to trajecctory equation for the moving electron in the center field; You mean that the WKB approximation is not sutiable for what you want to do? I have not looked into this at all. Do you have a reference here? (or is it something I would have to workout myself, null results don't get published!) 0 In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you Frank Wilczek. Mathematical Ramblings. Back to top #19 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,432 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 21 July 2014 - 06:39 PM You mean that the WKB approximation is not sutiable for what you want to do? I have not looked into this at all. Do you have a reference here? (or is it something I would have to workout myself, null results don't get published!) I took this to mean that you don't get classical equations of motion from the Schrdinger equation. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #20 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 22 July 2014 - 03:44 AM You mean that the WKB approximation is not sutiable for what you want to do? I have not looked into this at all. Do you have a reference here? (or is it something I would have to workout myself, null results don't get published!) WKB approximation is only a mathematical method or semiclassical calcultion for finding approximate solutions for the quantum sysytem, the reliability of results depends onwhether the Schrdinger equation of the quantum system is correct. By my opnion, Schrdinger equation could be used to describe the resonance of the orbit in atom, eigenvalues of energy from the equation's solutions decide the eigenvalues of orbit radius. For the H atom, we can get eigenvalues of orbit radius of the ground and resonate states by solution of Schrdinger equation, and the elelctron moves along one of the eigen-orbits which obey the control of the Lorentz force. In addition, H atom is only at the ground orbit for the isolated state, and could be at high eigen-orbit by outer resonate field. Edited by Jeremy0922, 22 July 2014 - 04:13 AM.
studiot studiot Scientist Senior Members 3,901 posts Location Somerset, England Posted 15 October 2014 - 02:40 PM Jeremy 0922 A scientific theory or model about nature must obey scientific rules,such as logic, causality, and could completely not partially be confirmed by the facts Well that is not the way we learn, teach or practice Science from an early level. Take for instance the typical highschool maths questions 'A mass M is suspended from a light inextensible string...............' A rigid rod of length l supports two blocks....' 'A frictionless pulley.....' Yet these methods yield reproducible results adequate for many purposes. People every day bet their lives on calculations known to be inaccurate or based on known false assumptions because observation (experience) has shown that those calculations are adequate for purpose. Sometimes we have results without explanation and scientific theories are offered a conceivable explanations, such as the reversing magnetic fields of Earth, but we do not rely on them because they also predict effects we do not observe. Sometimes we have theories that offer apparantly good explanations and the authors of better ones struggle against the establishment to promote them, (isotasy v plate techtonics for instance), but usually further observations come to light which weed out the inadequate. These days we seek corroboration or exception more actively than ever, because we are aware of this. But we should always be wary of specifying how any theory 'should be' . I said 'adequate through experience' above this is a process that gives us increasing confidence in a theory as we make more and more observations that agree with its predictions, but fail to find exceptions. This is the case with Quantum Mechanics, And I commend it to the House. 0 Back to top #122 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 15 October 2014 - 03:09 PM please compare your work along side of traditional methods. i would also like to see why you need it ( what makes it useful). sometimes it is all about presentation... Please see my paper: http://blog.sciencen...uo.pdfid=55724 Empty claim. You need to actually SHOW that it is wrong. because the theoritical coordinates is not the experimental coordinates 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #123 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 15 October 2014 - 03:25 PM because the theoritical coordinates is not the experimental coordinates No, not explain why you think it is wrong. You need to actually SHOW that it is wrong. Quantitatively. In appropriate mathematical detail. 0 Back to top #124 Bignose Bignose Maths Expert Resident Experts 2,429 posts Location Iowa Posted 15 October 2014 - 04:06 PM because the theoritical coordinates is not the experimental coordinates Jeremy, this is a large scope question. In science, the main metric of how good an idea is: how accurate of predictions does it make. In many ways, it doesn't matter if the idea is based upon the wishing of fairies riding unicorns, the most perfect logic, or the most imperfect broken logic. If the idea predicts x, and we measure it as x.... then that idea is scientifically strong. On the other hand, if an idea predicts x and we measure y, then clearly there is an error of (x-y). Logic has failed us before. At one time, it was logical to think that earth was flat. x=flat earth. But, when we finally measured y=mostly spherical earth, then clearly the idea that predicted x was wrong. For us to believer your idea, appeals to 'logic' alone doesn't matter. Today, we measure y about the state of an atom. You are predicting x. Current best theory predicts z. We know what z-y is. Please show us what x-y is. Show us what predictions your idea makes. That is the most important thing right now. Appeals to 'logic' aren't going to get you any more support. If you want support, demonstrate that your idea makes really good predictions that agree with what is measured. Edited by Bignose, 15 October 2014 - 04:26 PM. 0 Back to top #125 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 15 October 2014 - 04:36 PM Related to that, it is quite possible to have multiple theories to explain some phenomenon. For example, both Newtonian gravity and GR make predictions about the effects of gravity. In many cases, they are equally accurate. In some cases, GR is (significantly) more accurate. That does not mean that GR is true and Newton is false. (Or that one is more logical than the other.) One model is more accurate than the other. That's all. 0 Back to top #126 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 15 October 2014 - 06:03 PM Please note a simple fact follow: In different coordinates, the observing results are different for a moving particle. the result in a coordinte could be transferred by coordinates transformation relationship, and will be the same as the result in other coordinate. Coordinate transformation is the correct method for treatment of results in different coordinates. So, if the transformation relationship between two coordinates is unknow or uncertain, the results in these two coordinates can not be compared. -1 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #127 Bignose Bignose Maths Expert Resident Experts 2,429 posts Location Iowa Posted 15 October 2014 - 07:29 PM Coordinate transformation is the correct method for treatment of results in different coordinates. This can be demonstrated by showing us that your coordinates make as good or better predictions than the existing methods. See my note above. Make predictions, not 'logic'. Show us that your idea is actually useful. Basically, you're asking us to drop something -- a something that is has demonstrated it can make really good predictions that agree very closely to what is measured -- to something that cannot make any predictions. Why would anyone do that?!? Why get rid of something useful for something that hasn't demonstrated any usefulness? Hey, I'm going to chop off my hand because I've heard that a pointy stick is better. Sure, no one's given me a pointy stick yet to try, but I'm going to trust Billy Bob because he told it was true...... 0 Back to top #128 Phi for All Phi for All Chief Executive Offworlder Moderators 13,143 posts Location CO, USA Posted 15 October 2014 - 09:49 PM ! Moderator Note OK, 7 pages is more than enough time to provide adequate support for an idea, if such support exists. None has been forthcoming, so the thread will be closed per Speculation section rules. Don't open this topic again unless you can provide some tangible evidence for it.
ajb ajb Physics Expert Resident Experts 7,564 posts Location Warsaw, Poland Posted 19 August 2014 - 10:31 AM I disagree what you said above, and insist that quantum theory lacks some scientific foundation. I don't think you can dismiss the fact that quantum theory has been shown to agree well with nature over and over again. This is despite any philosophical disagreement or trouble with interpretations: quantum mechanics where is it expected to apply well has yet to fail. You need to point to some experimental evidence that quantum mechanics is not working. 0 In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you Frank Wilczek. Mathematical Ramblings. Back to top #102 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,431 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 19 August 2014 - 11:28 AM I disagree what you said above, and insist that quantum theory lacks some scientific foundation. That's not what I said, though. I said the theory matches experiment really well. If you disagree, you need to point to some part of the theory that's not supported by experiment. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #103 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 19 August 2014 - 03:14 PM I don't think you can dismiss the fact that quantum theory has been shown to agree well with nature over and over again. This is despite any philosophical disagreement or trouble with interpretations: quantum mechanics where is it expected to apply well has yet to fail. You need to point to some experimental evidence that quantum mechanics is not working. By the solutions and consequences of Schrdinger equation (and E=hv), the prolems of atomic, molecular, and solid-state structures and spectrums could be solved. As my works shown Schrdinger equation and E=hv could be deduced by classical theory. So, I suggest: Matter wave, quantum which are unnecessary conceptions and come a lot of contradictions, could be discarded. That's not what I said, though. I said the theory matches experiment really well. If you disagree, you need to point to some part of the theory that's not supported by experiment. see above Edited by Jeremy0922, 19 August 2014 - 03:34 PM. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #104 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,431 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 19 August 2014 - 03:41 PM By the solutions and consequences of Schrdinger equation (and E=hv), the prolems of atomic, molecular, and solid-state structures and spectrums could be solved. As my works shown Schrdinger equation and E=hv could be deduced by classical theory. So, I suggest: Matter wave, quantum which are unnecessary conceptions and come a lot of contradictions, could be discarded. see above So let's have your classically-backed model of the hydrogen atom. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #105 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 20 August 2014 - 02:57 AM So let's have your classically-backed model of the hydrogen atom. A scientific theory or model about nature must obey scientific rules,such as logic, causality, and could completely not partially be confirmed by the facts. If a theory which is eventhecurrentmainstreamthinking violate theserules, weshould question its correctness and scientificalness. And I believe we willeventually prove that is wrong and will abandone it. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #106 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 15 October 2014 - 08:51 AM How big will this effect be on whatever you're measuring? It is a problem about logic, but not an error. So the answer only is yes or no. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #107 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,431 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 15 October 2014 - 10:07 AM It is a problem about logic, but not an error. So the answer only is yes or no. No, it's not. If the effect is small compared to other effects, and especially if it happens to be below the resolution of measurement, it can be ignored. Science is about making models that agree with how nature behaves. You always have to compare to experiment — if it disagrees, the model is wrong. It never ends at just logic; your logic can be good but if the premise is flawed the conclusion isn't valid. Comparison with empirical results is how you check your work. Since the results of the accepted model do agree with experiment, any perturbation to it that has not been included in the model is too small to currently matter. Abandoning the model will only happen if it stops agreeing with experiment or a better model comes along. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #108 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 15 October 2014 - 11:25 AM No, it's not. If the effect is small compared to other effects, and especially if it happens to be below the resolution of measurement, it can be ignored. Science is about making models that agree with how nature behaves. You always have to compare to experiment — if it disagrees, the model is wrong. It never ends at just logic; your logic can be good but if the premise is flawed the conclusion isn't valid. Comparison with empirical results is how you check your work. Since the results of the accepted model do agree with experiment, any perturbation to it that has not been included in the model is too small to currently matter. Abandoning the model will only happen if it stops agreeing with experiment or a better model comes along. We are discussing the logic relationship between the experimental data and the hydrogen atom model of quantum theory. Your answer is about resolution of measurement, and is an other question. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #109 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,431 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 15 October 2014 - 11:45 AM We are discussing the logic relationship between the experimental data and the hydrogen atom model of quantum theory. Your answer is about resolution of measurement, and is an other question. I'm trying to discuss science. You appear to be claiming that the accepted model is wrong, and the only way to do that is by comparing the model to experiment. The accepted model does not include the gravitational attraction of the electron and the nucleus, either, because we know how small it is — it can be safely ignored. For your claim to have merit you have to show the effect exists AND it is large enough to make a difference. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #110 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 15 October 2014 - 11:46 AM We are discussing the logic relationship between the experimental data and the hydrogen atom model of quantum theory. There is no logic relationship - there is only the predictions of theory versus the measurements. You have no predictions (other than it is yes or no, which is not very helpful) therefore your comments are not useful. Not even science, in fact. 0 Back to top #111 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 15 October 2014 - 12:07 PM There is no logic relationship - there is only the predictions of theory versus the measurements. You have no predictions (other than it is yes or no, which is not very helpful) therefore your comments are not useful. Not even science, in fact. You think logic relationship between experiment and theory is unnecessary! 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #112 imatfaal imatfaal lazy do-nothing mudslinger Moderators 5,425 posts Location St James's Park Posted 15 October 2014 - 12:50 PM You think logic relationship between experiment and theory is unnecessary! It would be necessary if science was the quest for an ultimate truth - but science is an empirical investigation through models, predictions, and experiments. Nature is under no compunction to agree with my arrogant monkey logic - but if I am doing science then I am compelled to take empirical evidence as the only yardstick of truth. The logical beauty of a scientific theory is of no use whatsoever and can be positively dangerous - we only need to look back at classical Greece to see this. Maths, logic, philosophy were at an amazing (local) peak but whole swathes of observational science were at a standstill because logical beauty trumped observation. This continued for hundreds of years; medicine, biology, astronomy and most disciplines in Europe laboured through to the Renaissance with easily disproved theories which were both ancient and logically necessary but hugely wrong. We adhered to these ideas for the same reason as you are failing - it is all too human to believe there must be an accessible base narrative which explains everything in a logically sound, mutually non-contradictory, and pleasing manner. But firstly we have no reason whatsoever to think nature functions in such a manner, we can probably never understand at such a basic level, and finally we only have observation with which we can honestly probe nature 0 A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again. - Alexander Pope feel free to click the green arrow ---- Back to top #113 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,431 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 15 October 2014 - 01:10 PM You think logic relationship between experiment and theory is unnecessary! To the extent that it is necessary it is also insufficient. No theory stands solely on the logic used to develop it. Geocentrism was logical. Phlogiston was logical. The plum pudding model of the atom was logical. But both those and countless others failed because they did not match up with observation; all were ultimately shown to be founded on a false premise. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #114 MigL MigL Primate Senior Members 1,501 posts Location St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada Posted 15 October 2014 - 01:24 PM Somebody trying to re-invent the wheel here ? On the one hand we have a mechanism that works extremely well, but since Jeremy0922 can't see the 'logic' of something round going in a straight line, we should replace it. Replace it with what, we ask. Well, Jeremy0922 has got nothing. Yup, we'll start burning all Quantum Physics books right away ! ( Dripping sarcasm all over the place ) Edited by MigL, 15 October 2014 - 01:26 PM. 0 Back to top #115 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 15 October 2014 - 01:49 PM To the extent that it is necessary it is also insufficient. No theory stands solely on the logic used to develop it. Geocentrism was logical. Phlogiston was logical. The plum pudding model of the atom was logical. But both those and countless others failed because they did not match up with observation; all were ultimately shown to be founded on a false premise. However,we are discussingnowisafundamentalscientificquestions.Thatis the transformationrelationship betweentheoryandexperimentalcoordinate systems. If the transformation relation can not be determined, the experimental data could not be applied to prove the theory. Somebody trying to re-invent the wheel here ? On the one hand we have a mechanism that works extremely well, but since Jeremy0922 can't see the 'logic' of something round going in a straight line, we should replace it. Replace it with what, we ask. Well, Jeremy0922 has got nothing. Yup, we'll start burning all Quantum Physics books right away ! ( Dripping sarcasm all over the place ) Your words is helpless to solve the question, isn't it? 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #116 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,431 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 15 October 2014 - 02:02 PM However,we are discussingnowisafundamentalscientificquestions.Thatis the transformationrelationship betweentheoryandexperimentalcoordinate systems. If the transformation relation can not be determined, the experimental data could not be applied to prove the theory. We ignore it and the model gives the right answer. Which is perfectly consistent with any effect from this being negligible. What you would need to do, and thus far have not done, is show that the effect is not negligible. Without that, all you're doing is saying we're not accounting for an effect that's too small to measure. Physics does that all the time. We're famous for it. Do you have any science to discuss? 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea Back to top #117 davidivad davidivad Molecule Senior Members 586 posts Location south pole Posted 15 October 2014 - 02:03 PM please compare your work along side of traditional methods. i would also like to see why you need it ( what makes it useful). sometimes it is all about presentation... Edited by davidivad, 15 October 2014 - 02:13 PM. 0 Back to top #118 Strange Strange Scientist Senior Members 4,679 posts Location 他国 Posted 15 October 2014 - 02:17 PM You think logic relationship between experiment and theory is unnecessary! The theory IS the relationship: the theory says what results to expect from the experiment. Either the experiment matches the experiment or it doesn't. If it doesn't you modify or discard the theory. I don't even understand what you are looking for. (Except, perhaps, that you want the theory to make sense to your intuition.) 0 Back to top #119 Jeremy0922 Jeremy0922 Quark Senior Members 171 posts Location China Posted 15 October 2014 - 02:39 PM We ignore it and the model gives the right answer. Which is perfectly consistent with any effect from this being negligible. You should not ignore it, because that is wrong action. Schrodinger equation could give some right answer, but matter wave is wrong conception. 0 Trust Science. Think independently Back to top #120 swansont swansont Shaken, not stirred Moderators 29,431 posts Location Washington DC region Posted 15 October 2014 - 02:40 PM The theory IS the relationship: the theory says what results to expect from the experiment. Either the experiment matches the experiment or it doesn't. If it doesn't you modify or discard the theory. I don't even understand what you are looking for. (Except, perhaps, that you want the theory to make sense to your intuition.) And it's important to recognize that logic and intuition are not the same thing. There is nothing illogical about quantum physics, even though it may not be intuitive. You should not ignore it, because that is wrong action. Schrodinger equation could give some right answer, but matter wave is wrong conception. Empty claim. You need to actually SHOW that it is wrong. 0 Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^ I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown. My SFN blog: Swans on Tea
“…… , I have just read your paper. Interesting ! Very interesting ! ” 这是一位网友在美国科学论坛网 SFN ，发表的阅读我的论文后的评论，算是我在 SFN 上发帖介绍我的学术观点，展开的一系列争论平息后，得到了一点点回报吧！ 在 SFN 上注册，发表自己的学术观点，至今已有 3 年零 3 个月，我目前是该网的高级会员，针对氢原子结构和光谱理论、量子力学与相对论科学基础问题，发启了 5 个话题，共发帖 99 个，由于 我的观点的出发点基于经典物理理论，属于主流思想之一，并且没有个人的假设。因此，我的论点没有受到任何警告。 在 SFN 和中国科学网 ScienceNet.cn 发表个人的学术观点和理论，目的是简单且明确的，希望通过这种传播速度快、影响面宽的新型媒体，介绍相关的学术内容，并希望得到读者的理解和支持。事实上，下定决心在网络公开自己的观点是需要巨大的勇气的，因为 一个不成熟的，甚至是幼稚的观点，可能会给自己的学术前途带来巨大的负面影响，在国外的网络上发表还可能有损于国家和民族的形像 。因此， 我在 SFN 上的每一次发帖都是经深思熟虑，有完全取胜的把握后，才会将相关论点发布公开 。 目前在关于量子力学、相对论的科学基础，氢原子结构的个人新理论的 5 个公开议题的激烈争辩中，没有出现过明显的失误，绝大多数的个人看法和观点在辩论中得到了认同或取得了优势。 在氢原子结构和光谱的量子力学观点与我个人的电磁学模型的争论中，由于 我的论点对量子力学持否定态度 ，令 SFN 上的物理学家十分的不快，并 展开了激烈争辩 ，讨论的 内容包括了能量守恒问题、电场传播极限、理论与观察坐标系关联等问题 ，同时对方也对 电磁学模型是否能解释角动量、电子干涉、光谱精细结构等提出了质疑 ， 经过长达三年多的辩论， 这些问题逐一都得到合理的解释或澄清 。我认为已经达到我最初目标，揭示了量子论的内在自身难以克服的矛盾，让大家了解并初步接受了氢原子电磁学新模型。最近在 SFN 写了一段总结性帖子，作为这一阶段的结尾： “ Classical theory not only can explain electromagnetic phenomenon caused by charged particles, but also prove the steady ground orbits with non-zero energy, and Schrodinger equation could be deduced from the resonance of the ground orbits, which could be applied to explain spectrum of atom . By the solution of Schrodinger equation, Quantum mechanics could interpret the structure and spectrum, but cannot explain classical electromagnetic phenomenon. Therefore, I think classical theory is better than QM for the treatment of charged particles system, including atomic, molecular, and solid-state structure . ” 对于量子力学和电磁学应用于带电粒子体系理论描述的如此评价，没有招来与我一直进行激烈争辩物理学家的直接反对，之后一些网友通过电子邮件表达了他们支持我的态度和立场，并认为量子力学存在错误。此时，我总算长长地松了一口气，二十多年来的痛苦思索、八年多时间不懈坚持，没有白费。 由于版权的原因，我不能将 SFN 论战的全部内容，直接转载于此，只能将一些情况作一个简约介绍，目的是希望大家了解相关情况，不要认为我是一位异想天开的狂人，是一位“ XX 的民科”，利用严肃的科学网站传播伪科学。 最后我要再次强调： 欢迎大家以真诚的态度与我共同探讨学术问题，来者不拒，而且我不会回避任何问题！ 如果那位只是为了让我“闭觜”，不是以科学的论据进行有效的反驳，而是以代人格羞辱的“ XX 的民科”，甚至不假思索地给我戴上“伪科学”传播者的帽子，我会毫不留情地对此行为发起强烈反击！！
这不是我个人的预言，而是对一件客观事实的陈述！ 2012年9月22日，我的生日这天，刊登了我的文章的GED杂志23卷4期寄到我们中心，此时我还在广州中山大学CPS2012秋季学术会议会场。得知这一消息，令我长长地松了一口气，也是我今年48岁生日的最好礼物吧，论文总算在学术期刊正式出刊了。 关于氢原子结构的个人新观点通过网络、报纸和学术期刊三个方式，使得相关理论可以在短时间内得到快速广泛传播，是一件十分令人愉快的事。 采用Google搜索工具，搜索“氫原子結構”有近200多万条相关结果，我的博文和科学日报的报道排在结果首页2-5位，“氫原子結構”图片搜索结果为第一位。 搜索“量子的解释”关键词有4100万条结果，我的系列博文“关于量子的解释（1）-（5）”一直列于结果首页的前列。 氢子结构和光谱是量子力学解决原子结构和光谱最为成功的例子，由于计算出的氢原子光谱的精确程度已经超过了实验测量的结果，因此被誉为目前最精确的理论。量子力学是建立在一系列基本假设基础之上，但对于原子分子的基态不能进行“物理”的说明（或证明），更不能解释带电粒子的电磁性质。因此，我认为量子力学并不是原子结构的终结理论，经过二十多年的努力，采用已知的经典物理理论，对氢原子的轨道结构及共振进行了认真细致的研究，得出了辐射耦合状态下的氢原子基态，及其共振的数学表述，并经相关的数学变换，推导获得了与目前量子力学中的普朗克量子假设和氢原子定态薛定谔方程，完全一致的数学方程。 因此，我们完全有理由相信，氢原子的结构和光谱辐射现象属于电磁学问题，其线光谱辐射是轨道的共振效应。我的这些观点在网络（中国科学网、美国SFN网）公开之后，引起了很大的反响，通过相关的学术交流，表明氢原子新理论没有学术上的问题，能很好地解决目前量子力学能够解释的氢原子结构和光谱现象，并且与目前的经典电磁学理论是完全相容的。 我认为GED杂志23卷4期上发表的关于氢原子电磁辐射和稳定性的文章“ Electromagnetic radiation and stability of the hydrogen atom ”，是目前关于氢原子结构，由中国人独立完成的最完美的模型，必将载入科学史册，成为科学的标准知识进入物理教科书。
标签: 原子结构
