The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Bohr model of the atom:  (Read 567 times)

McQueen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Bohr model of the atom:
« on: 07/09/2014 04:58:05 »
J.J. Thomson originally hypothesised that the mass of the positive charge was equally spread through the atom and that electrons were embedded in its surface. Hence the ‘Plum Pudding ‘ model. Then Rutherford proved through experiment that the mass of the atom was concentrated in its nucleus and that electrons spun in circular orbits around it. This was the ‘planetary’ model.  The planetary model did not work because it was demonstrated that if classical physics were applied to the problem the electron would rapidly radiate away its energy and plunge into the nucleus in approximately 1 x 10^^-10 seconds. Thus it was thought that classical physics could not apply at the nuclear and atomic level. Neils Bohr then postulated that, yes the mass of the atom was concentrated in its nucleus but that electrons could orbit around the nucleus only in certain allowed orbits. While they were in any of these allowed orbits the electrons never radiated energy and hence did not lose energy and therefore did not spiral into the nucleus.  This is the picture of the atom that still holds good today, although it has to be said that the theory had to be propped up first by Schrodinger’s theory of standing waves and then later by Louis De Broglie’s theory of matter waves.  So far so good the only problem is that no-one including De Broglie could ever explain what matter waves were or what was waving and that Schrodinger’s standing wave theory when applied to more complicated atoms resulted in huge numbers of dimensions being needed. For instance to explain the Uranium atom using Schrodinger’s theory would require 276 dimensions, while including time we have only four. Any ideas or comments.........

evan_au

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1709
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #1 on: 07/09/2014 07:26:29 »
Quote
to explain the Uranium atom using Schrodinger’s theory would require 276 dimensions, while including time we have only four

Do not confuse mathematical dimensions with dimensions of space and time.

In mathematics, two different "dimensions" represent two quantities that can change independently of each other (or which you allow to vary independently of each other).

These dimensions do not have to represent time or space - I once saw a development project in computerised face recognition where they represented human faces in 22 dimensions. This does not mean that human faces represent 22 dimensions of space, but that they were encoding the human face by measuring 22 parameters on the human face, such as the distance between the eyes, or between the nose and the upper lip. These numbers are not entirely independent (eg the distance between your eyes should not exceed the distance between your ears), but the computer was treating them as if they were independent when searching for similar faces.

Schrodinger's Equation provides a good explanation of hydrogen atoms, but does get much more difficult to solve for more complex atoms - not to mention compounds containing several atoms.

In high school, we learn about mathematical operations on single numbers (scalars); this can be viewed as as operations in a 1-Dimensional space. Later, complex numbers are introduced, which can be viewed as 2-dimensional space. For really complex problems, numbers are represented as a matrix of numbers, which can represent operations in an arbitrary number of dimensions. Really complex problems like predicting the weather use a matrix of very large dimension.

Calculations in many dimensions are difficult, but not impossible.

In practice, chemists use tables based on measured values for the radius of neutral atoms and charged ions, and measured bond lengths, rather than solving Schrodinger's equation every time. For computational chemistry, you can almost ignore the inner electrons, and just pay attention to the outer electrons.

PmbPhy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #2 on: 07/09/2014 11:35:37 »
Quote from: McQueen
J.J. Thomson originally hypothesised that the mass of the positive charge was equally spread through the atom and that electrons were embedded in its surface. Hence the ‘Plum Pudding ‘ model. Then Rutherford proved through experiment that the mass of the atom was concentrated in its nucleus and that electrons spun in circular orbits around it. This was the ‘planetary’ model.  The planetary model did not work because it was demonstrated that if classical physics were applied to the problem the electron would rapidly radiate away its energy and plunge into the nucleus in approximately 1 x 10^^-10 seconds. Thus it was thought that classical physics could not apply at the nuclear and atomic level. Neils Bohr then postulated that, yes the mass of the atom was concentrated in its nucleus but that electrons could orbit around the nucleus only in certain allowed orbits. While they were in any of these allowed orbits the electrons never radiated energy and hence did not lose energy and therefore did not spiral into the nucleus.  This is the picture of the atom that still holds good today, although it has to be said that the theory had to be propped up first by Schrodinger’s theory of standing waves and then later by Louis De Broglie’s theory of matter waves. 
This is incorrect. The Bohr model is wrong in that the electron is moving like a planet in a circle and as such it would radiate its energy. You're assumption that the Bohr orbits shouldn't radiate is incorrect.

The Bohr model has been replaced by quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics the electrons do not orbit in circles as the Bohr model does. The Bohr model has problems with it such as the fact that it gives a non-zero angular momentum whereas it's known that the angular momentum in the true ground state is known to be zero. In modern quantum mechanics, the electron in hydrogen is a spherical cloud of probability which is not what you get with the Bohr model.

For other problems with it see the part labeled The Bohr model also has difficulty with, or else fails to explain:[/i] in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

Quote from: McQueen
So far so good the only problem is that no-one including De Broglie could ever explain what matter waves were or what was waving and that Schrodinger’s standing wave theory when applied to more complicated atoms resulted in huge numbers of dimensions being needed.
That wasn't a problem because there was no need to describe what was waving since the Copenhagen interpretation tells us that the only thing that is measurable is the square of the magnitude of the wave function is the probability density of where a particle will be found.

Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7726
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #3 on: 07/09/2014 15:07:45 »
The Bohr model of the atom is only used as a teaching model- it simply doesn't work as a mathematical model of real atoms, but it's easy for students to understand.

McQueen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #4 on: 07/09/2014 15:56:46 »
Thanks, I am aware that the Bohr model is a bit dated, the point being  that many of the premises arising from it are still used. If you remember for a short time the electron was even described as a ‘cloud’.  There is another alternative that has been proven through experiment and that is the lamb shift. It has been experimentally verified  that electrons are constantly exchanging ‘virtual’ photons with the nucleus, this exchange of photons could  account for why the electron does not lose energy and spiral into the nucleus, since it is also constantly  gaining energy.  The point here is that the virtual photons are no different from real photons except for the fact that they  follow Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, the interactions either take place on too small a time scale to register on a macro scale OR because the interaction involves such low levels of energy, either way it is possible for these interactions to evade the conservation laws.  Here again it is still ‘classical’ physics but with new explanations and using some of the premises developed by Quantum Mechanics.  It is accepted that electrons are constantly undergoing oscillations, thus just looking at a blue object involves the fact the electrons in that object are oscillating 620 x 10 ^^14 times a second and so on. So to suggest that electrons  in certain orbits around the nucleus stop radiating is tantamount to stopping the Universe at those points. Trying to solve the problem by saying that the photon has wave like properties does not really solve anything at all, as has been seen by the rejection of the electron ‘cloud’ model. Yes, a photon (Light)  might very well have the properties of both a wave and a particle, just as focused sound waves can shatter kidney stones, obviously those sound waves must have a lot of energy and behave almost like a solid to be able to do that. The point here being the question, what is the basis for ‘complementarity’ that makes each of the properties, 'particle' or 'wave' mutually exclusive? There is no basis for ‘complementarity’ at all except that it was stated as a postulate by Bohr.   The whole of physics has been completely distorted by this totally baseless premise [i.e., complementarity].

PmbPhy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #5 on: 07/09/2014 16:57:34 »
Quote from: evan_au
Quote
to explain the Uranium atom using Schrodinger’s theory would require 276 dimensions, while including time we have only four

Do not confuse mathematical dimensions with dimensions of space and time.
I missed where he said that. I'm assuming that McQueen is speaking of 276 nucleons? If so then he was confusing dimensions with degrees of freedom. That is incorrect. He's confusing dimensions with degrees of freedom. Each particle moves in a three dimensional space. That means it requires 3 coordinates to determine how many numbers to takes to determine where that particular particle is found. However there are 276 nucleons which means there are 276 degrees of freedom.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(mechanics)

For each particle in space it requires 3 numbers to determine where it is in space. So there's 828 degrees of freedom for the nucleons in the nucleus. But that depends on what we want to know. Typically if we're solving the Schrodinger equation then we model the nucleus as a single point particle with a charge of 92e (where e = charge of electron). You can set the origin to be fixed at (0, 0, 0) and therefore there's no degrees of freedom associated with it. Then all you have to do is determine where the electrons are, all 92 of them. That requires 92x3 degrees of freedom which is 276 degrees of freedom. But don't confuse degrees of freedom with dimensions. They're not the same thing.

To learn more about degrees of freedom as used in quantum mechanics please see page 5 in Introductory Quantum Mechanics by Richard K. Liboff. You can download this at http://bookzz.org/book/453751/e0e04c


McQueen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #6 on: 08/09/2014 03:30:08 »
Quote
I missed where he said that. I'm assuming that McQueen is speaking of 276 nucleons? If so then he was confusing dimensions with degrees of freedom. That is incorrect. He's confusing dimensions with degrees of freedom. Each particle moves in a three dimensional space. That means it requires 3 coordinates to determine how many numbers to takes to determine where that particular particle is found. However there are 276 nucleons which means there are 276 degrees of freedom.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(mechanics)
FUNDAMENTAL NOTIONS
•   The most basic conception of dimension is as a degree of freedom.
•   A point is an object with no properties other than location.
•   A space is a collection of locations.
•   Spaces can be characterized by their degrees of freedom.
The concept of dimension is, in its most basic and intuitive form, the concept of measuring certain aspects of an object independently from all of its other aspects. This idea of dimension is also known as "degrees of freedom." If an object has three degrees of freedom—height, width, and length, let's say—that means that it is able to "change" in any one of those three ways, and a change in one has no effect on the other two. So, if we are navigating the streets of a city laid out on a grid system, for instance, we are free to change our east-west position or our north-south position, depending on whether we're moving along an avenue or a street. These are our two degrees of freedom. In a city whose grid system is perfectly oriented to the four cardinal directions, going north on an avenue does not affect your east-west position.

But the main question I have is why has 'complementarity' been raised to the status of a postulate without any basis at all ?  Surely this is a question deserving of an answer!
n.b: the link you gave to wikipedia is not functioning and the download at : Introduction to QM needs special software to view.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2014 03:47:24 by McQueen »

PmbPhy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #7 on: 08/09/2014 04:53:53 »
Quote from: McQueen
FUNDAMENTAL NOTIONS
•   The most basic conception of dimension is as a degree of freedom.
Please explain what that means.

Did you read the reference I provided for you?
« Last Edit: 08/09/2014 04:55:58 by PmbPhy »

syhprum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3316
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #8 on: 08/09/2014 05:56:17 »
there is a "Cuminas" program you can download free to read .djvu files but it does not work for me running windows 8.1 64 bit !
I found another one WinDJview that works OK so at  least I can read it if not understand
« Last Edit: 08/09/2014 07:59:48 by syhprum »

PmbPhy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #9 on: 08/09/2014 06:30:27 »
Quote from: McQueen
The concept of dimension is, in its most basic and intuitive form, the concept of measuring certain aspects of an object independently from all of its other aspects. This idea of dimension is also known as "degrees of freedom."
No. As I said above, these are different terms and are not the same. I.e. This idea of dimension is not also known as "degrees of freedom." I'll try to be more specific this time.

The term dimension is a property of a space while the term degrees of freedom is a property of a system. Please read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_(mathematics_and_physics)
Quote
In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it. Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it (for example, the point at 5 on a number line). A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it (for example, to locate a point on the surface of a sphere you need both its latitude and its longitude). The inside of a cube, a cylinder or a sphere is three-dimensional because three coordinates are needed to locate a point within these spaces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(mechanics)
Quote
In mechanics, the degree of freedom (DOF) of a mechanical system is the number of independent parameters that define its configuration. It is the number of parameters that determine the state of a physical system and is important to the analysis of systems of bodies in mechanical engineering, aeronautical engineering, robotics, and structural engineering.

Do you understand the difference now? In the first one it speaks of an "object" but they mean geometric object like the surface of a sphere, a sphere itself (points inside the sphere plus points on the surface), a cone, a worldline of baseball in spacetime is one dimensional because only one number is needed to parameterize it.

McQueen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #10 on: 08/09/2014 07:53:27 »
Quote
Do you understand the difference now? In the first one it speaks of an "object" but they mean geometric object like the surface of a sphere, a sphere itself (points inside the sphere plus points on the surface), a cone, a worldline of baseball in spacetime is one dimensional because only one number is needed to parameterize it.
What you have posted is very useful, although it is reasonable to assume that the position of an electron in an atom must in some way relate to a dimension and indeed according to Schrodinger’s wave equation the electron disperses until it is present everywhere, in fact to all purposes it could be said to exist in a disembodied state !  The lamb shift and the possibility of ‘virtual’ photon exchange between the nucleus and the electron obviate the need for such ‘wave packet’ solutions which lead to the disembodied view of light advocated by quantum mechanics. All this stems from Bohr’s ‘complementarity’ postulate, which I am trying to point out has no basis in actuality. There is no need to consider a photon as being either exclusively a particle or exclusively a wave but never both at the same time. Looked at in a logical way it seems to be an absurd statement. My question is simply why not? Why can’t a photon  be simultaneously both a wave and a particle? Like the example of a sound wave used to break kidney stones I had mentioned earlier. Imagine a cave man who sets up a stone outside his cave, every day he gets up and shouts at the stone trying to break it with the sound of his voice. He soon learns that just shouting at it cannot break the stone, while a well-aimed solid projectile can break it. Yet circumstances arise when a sound wave behaves like a solid projectile and it can be used to shatter the  stone , is it a wave or is it a particle ? It could be argued that the sound wave sets up vibrations in the stone which break it apart, but what happens when the stone is hit by a bullet is exactly the same, tremors are set up within the stone, weak points give way and the stone fractures into pieces. Using such an explanation of a photon as a wave with particle like properties it is possible to explain every aspect of light and electromagnetism, there is certainly no need for multiple dimensions or degrees of freedom. I would appreciate your comments.

« Last Edit: 08/09/2014 07:56:13 by McQueen »

PmbPhy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #11 on: 08/09/2014 09:37:14 »
Quote from: McQueen
What you have posted is very useful, although it is reasonable to assume that the position of an electron in an atom must in some way relate to a dimension ..
No. It's not. What is it with you and dimension? Why are you so focused on it? You won't see any QM text mention it, that's for sure.

Quote from: McQueen
and indeed according to Schrodinger’s wave equation the electron disperses until it is present everywhere, in fact to all purposes it could be said to exist in a disembodied state !
That's not true at all. A wave has a value every where because it's merely used to determine probability density. No electron can be claimed to be present everywhere. Where did you get such a notion from?

Quote from: McQueen
The lamb shift and the possibility of ‘virtual’ photon exchange between the nucleus and the electron obviate the need for such ‘wave packet’ solutions which lead to the disembodied view of light advocated by quantum mechanics.
What wave packets are you talking about? Wave packets are present only when there is no potential present. They're present when the particle is on the move. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet

Quote from: McQueen
Why can’t a photon  be simultaneously both a wave and a particle?
Because it's never observed to be that way and in physics we only talk about what is observed.

McQueen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #12 on: 08/09/2014 12:27:55 »
With all due respect to you and the obvious amount of learning you have with regard to Quantum mechanics and its working, it seems to me that we are talking at cross purposes. 
Quote
Q. Why can’t a photon  be simultaneously both a wave and a particle?
Ans. Because it's never observed to be that way and in physics we only talk about what is observed.

What do you mean when you say that the photon has never been seen to be simultaneously a wave and particle ? What particular ‘observations’ are you talking about that have convinced you so completely that light is both a ‘wave’ and a ‘particle’ but that it can never possess both properties at the same time. This is a highly controversial statement because it implies that all kinds of esoteric processes are at work, light is a ‘wave’ when looked at in one way and a particle when looked at in another way but can never be seen as both a wave and a particle at the same time. My question is why not ? Your response  is that it has never been observed to   possess both properties (i.e., wave and particle ) simultaneously. Whatever ‘observations’ or experiments you have witnessed must obviously be extremely compelling to hold onto such a weird notion that an object can have the property of either a ‘wave’ or ‘particle’ but never possess both properties simultaneously at the same time ? Or to put it another way light is one thing when looked at in one way and another thing when looked at in another way. How can you swear on whatever Gods you believe in that this is true, when OTHER less esoteric explanations are available. Why do you (and others of course) insist on complicating things by such an outrageous and unsubstantiated statement as the ‘complementarity’ postulate obviously is?  Legend has it that Neils Bohr gave his associates specific instructions to go out and find the most way out theories possible, the more way out the better, to incorporate into Quantum mechanics, because the old theories as they existed were not doing the job. One of the results for this search for way out theories and ideas was Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the other famously was Bohr's 'Complementarity' theory. My question is simply to ask, why these way out ideas are gospel can't they be wrong? what is wrong with people ? Modern advances in knowledge, equipment and technology, have provided alternative, viable explanations. Why are we still stuck in the same impossible esoteric rut ?

 
« Last Edit: 08/09/2014 13:28:52 by McQueen »

PmbPhy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #13 on: 08/09/2014 14:02:32 »
With all due respect to you and the obvious amount of learning you have with regard to Quantum mechanics and its working, it seems to me that we are talking at cross purposes. 
Quote
Q. Why can’t a photon  be simultaneously both a wave and a particle?
Ans. Because it's never observed to be that way and in physics we only talk about what is observed.

What do you mean when you say that the photon has never been seen to be simultaneously a wave and particle ?
That's not something that can easily be explained in a few sentences. It'd be best if you read the Feynman Lectures V-III on this. You can download it at http://bookzz.org/book/850372/761029

Basically the particle aspect can be seen when a single particle is localized. The wave aspect is seen when a large number of particles shows an interference patter. You can't have a large number of particles and a single particle in all but the oddest case such as an ensemble of a large number of single particle experiments which show interference. But even so that's when you compare them. A single particle can be a large number of particles simultaneously.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_particle_duality

JP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3763
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #14 on: 08/09/2014 14:21:23 »
I've moved this since it's veered off the track of a legitimate question of how the Bohr model is used/what it is to a debate on the validity of mainstream quantum theory.

McQueen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #15 on: 08/09/2014 15:03:08 »
PmbPhy
Quote
That's not something that can easily be explained in a few sentences. It'd be best if you read the Feynman Lectures V-III on this. You can download it at http://bookzz.org/book/850372/761029
Basically the particle aspect can be seen when a single particle is localized. The wave aspect is seen when a large number of particles shows an interference patter. You can't have a large number of particles and a single particle in all but the oddest case such as an ensemble of a large number of single particle experiments which show interference. But even so that's when you compare them. A single particle can be a large number of particles simultaneously.
Since this topic has been moved to the new theories section, maybe it is appropriate to put in some new ideas based on observations made eight or ninety years ago when quantum mechanics was first developed. Remember at the time there were no electron microscopes, no femto second lasers, no devices that could measure femtosecond time periods, above all no hypersonic sound waves that could shatter kidney stones. and so on.
First here is a quote from Einstein:
Even without delving deeply into theory, one notices that our theory of light cannot explain certain fundamental properties of phenomena associated with light. (1) Why does the color of light, and not its intensity, determine whether a certain photochemical reaction occurs? (2) Why is light of short wavelength generally more effective chemically than light of longer wavelength? (3)Why is the speed of photoelectrically produced cathode rays independent of the light's intensity? (4) Why are higher temperatures (and, thus, higher molecular energies) required to add a short-wavelength component to the radiation emitted by an object?

Now look at this model of how a photon might look :

What this means is that since an electron is known to be a fundamental unit of charge isn’t it reasonable that what it emits is electrical energy ? If that is so, there is every chance that the emitted electrical charge gets polarized.  Look at the next picture,. (although maybe the signs on the figure are wrong.  )

As can be seen one result of the emitted electrical energy becoming polarized is that it evolves into a solenoidal field, that is essentially neutral i.e.,  it will not react with other electrical charges. Shown below is what a photon might look like, namely pulses of electrical energy separated by a di-electric and enclosed in a solenoidal field:

Isn’t it immediately apparent that this is a perfect model for a photon. It answers ALL of the questions posed by Einstein. For instance the photon model described above IS both a particle and a wave, it is a PACKET of energy.  The electron can easily vary the amount of energy that it emits and the frequency with which that energy is emitted. A photon based on this model can link up with other photons in a wave model.  Due to its solenoidal construction it will conserve the energy it was emitted with from the electron till it is absorbed by another atom. And so on ad infinitum. My question is what is wrong with this model. Why can’t an electron emit ‘electrical’ energy. Why can’t that emitted energy form itself into packets of energy, having varying energy and frequency depending on how much energy the electron wants to emit. A photon based on this model can be easily emitted and absorbed as a completely natural function of the electron, no need for any kind of esoteric theory or mechanism whatsoever. Further the electron can without any strain at all emit an almost infinite range of frequencies and energies without any effort at all. I will if you like explain how radio waves are formed using this model and also how electricity flows through a wire. Comments please.....
« Last Edit: 08/09/2014 15:19:37 by McQueen »

PmbPhy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #16 on: 08/09/2014 16:32:46 »
What we're talking about is complementarity. Have you heard of that term? If not them see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)

That web page gives the following examples of complementary properties:

Position and momentum
Spin on different axis
Wave and particle
Value of a field and its change (at a certain position)

Why don't you read their page on wave particle duality? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_particle_duality

It's not as though this subject is easy to learn and I've forgotten some of the arguments for it anyway. Good learning in physics comes at the cost of hard work in the shape of extensive reading. :)

I recommend reading the Experiments section of that page since it talks about the double slit experiment which this thread starts out with.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2014 16:46:58 by PmbPhy »

JP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3763
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #17 on: 08/09/2014 17:32:53 »
Your ideas have 2 major obstacles.

The first is that they aren't rigorous.  You can draw pictures all day that seem plausible, but the devil is in the details.  If you can show some math making predictions for measurements resulting from your theory, that'd be a huge step forward in getting anyone to take it seriously.

The second is that it has to be in agreement with models that we know are accurate.  This means it has to describe the same experimental results as both quantum electrodynamics and Maxwell's equations.  It's all well and good to say that your solenoidal fields will reulst in the exact same predictions as classical/quantum field theories.  I don't see how that's possible since we know little solenoids will respond to external fields and charges in a way that fields alone will not.  If you disagree, its up to you to prove it with some rigor, not just pictures and words.

McQueen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #18 on: 09/09/2014 04:36:48 »
JP With regard to your objections and not with-standing the fact that you are the moderator and have the final say: I would have to say that it is pretty rich coming from someone who is advocating (at least in principle) (a) a discipline of thought that needs 276 degrees of freedom (dimensions) to explain the Uranium atom, even though Max Born later appeased objections stating that these were not physical dimensions but probability waves ( whatever they might be) that would show where the electron would eventually be found, I was under the impression that it should be found  in the atom where it belongs (b)  supports a system that in the process of quantization brings discrepancies on the order of 10^^12 back to zero and calmly continues with the maths (whatever that maths might hope to achieve after such a big detour.) (c) states that a photon might be either a particle or a wave but can never be both at the same time. ….. still each to his own. With regard to your comment that solenoids react with electrical fields.It actually comes down to frequencies and wavelengths which would both have to be very similar in order to interact, for example electric fields do not interfere with radio waves, even though both radio waves and the electric field are essentially electromagnetic in nature,  so in that sense the photon model I have shown will not react with an electric field, it is essentially and to all purposes, neutral. HOWEVER I will continue with my explanation and get to this point a little later. One of the striking aspects of Quantum mechanics is the seeming nonchalance with which past achievements are dismissed for instance, Newton is dismissed as belonging to a time when the Universe was thought of as a clockwork machine, similarly Einstein is not given much importance simply because he disagreed with much of quantum mechanics and  ‘complementarity’, he also believed in causality. Although it has to be said that when necessary, recourse is grudgingly made to their work.   Whereas Newton stated that he “stood on the shoulders of giants….”   There is much to be said for Newton’s assessment, the scientists of the time were keen observers of nature, they only hypothesised about what they knew to be possible. They were totally dependent on the empirical. A theory in which light was disembodied and existed everywhere till it was observed would have had no currency with them. And this is a very noticeable trait in Quantum Mechanics, that not enough attention is paid to what is really going on, instead inferences are imposed on what is happening by preconceived and abstruse mathematical ideas.  Scientists prior to the Michelson Morley experiment believed in the existence of an Aether because their observations showed that ‘something’ had to exist that prevented  AAD  (action at a distance). For instance they could look at light and know that it took a measurable time to cross a certain distance, why ? The reason obviously is that light must be travelling through a medium and that medium was thought to be the ether. The ether had several very noticeable properties. The ether was:
1)    tasteless
2)   odourless
3)   invisible
4)   formless
5)   non-tactile
6)   completely permeable: can pass through matter or vice versa without interaction.

These were the properties of the ether for a couple of thousand years, ever since the Greeks started to think about it. In the late nineteenth century, with the discovery of electromagnetic waves two more properties were added to the Aether:
7)   It would have to be rigid to support transverse waves
8)   I would have to have some kind of properties of a di-electric in order to transport electromagnetic waves.
An examination of the 7th property above shows that it is diametrically opposed to all the properties of the ether previously listed, and it is this property that Michelson-Morley tried to disprove with their experiment. So in actual fact the Michelson-Morley experiment didn’t prove anything at all, it certainly did not prove the non-existence of an ether. The theory outlined here states that the Universe is filled with ‘virtual’ photons. These were created at the time of the Big Bang, obviously if you have a Big Bang you must have a big  light also. Gradually these photons lost energy until they had energies on the order of 10 ^^ -16 eV which meant that they could exist practically forever under Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.  These ‘virtual’ photons, which are identical to real photons except for their energy, permeate the whole of the Universe, because of their extremely low energies they can pass through matter with absolutely no interaction whatsoever and are virtually undetectable. The ‘virtual’ photons are oriented at random until a ‘real’ photon is emitted by an electron, causing the line of ‘virtual’ photons along the emitted photon’s path of propagation to line up into a chain of photons whose ends rest on infinity and the energy of the real photon travels along this line of aligned virtual photons. Because of the condenser ( capacitor ) like construction of the photon model, the original energy of the photon is passed along intact.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2014 04:40:41 by McQueen »

jccc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #19 on: 16/09/2014 14:18:06 »
I don't think your theory is correct. I also think QM is BS.

Protons able to stick together because there is a strong force at work?

Electrons able to not stick with nucleus because QM laws?

There is only one force at work at all time, between charged particles, EM force.

Ether is negative charged tiny particle, attracted by protons to form a ball around nucleus, electrons are float over the ether ball. Similar like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU#aid=P8fZ2oSGqsg



PmbPhy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #20 on: 17/09/2014 02:26:29 »
Quote from: McQueen
a discipline of thought that needs 276 degrees of freedom (dimensions)
Why do you insist on confusing degrees of freedom with dimensions? If you're unable to grasp such a basic fact then how can you expect to understand much more complicated things?

alancalverd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #21 on: 17/09/2014 03:26:06 »

Even without delving deeply into theory, one notices that our theory of light cannot explain certain fundamental properties of phenomena associated with light. (1) Why does the color of light, and not its intensity, determine whether a certain photochemical reaction occurs?
because color = photon energy and you need a minimum photn energy to trigger any particular molecular change
Quote
(2) Why is light of short wavelength generally more effective chemically than light of longer wavelength?
see 1 above
Quote
(3)Why is the speed of photoelectrically produced cathode rays independent of the light's intensity?
because cathode rays are electrons whose speed depends on the anode potential
Quote
(4) Why are higher temperatures (and, thus, higher molecular energies) required to add a short-wavelength component to the radiation emitted by an object?
because temperature = mean energy

Quote
What this means is that since an electron is known to be a fundamental unit of charge isn’t it reasonable that what it emits is electrical energy ? If that is so, there is every chance that the emitted electrical charge gets polarized.
This statement is selfcontradictory. The smallest quantum of charge is that of one electron, so an electron cannot "emit charge" any more than a brick can emit a brick and still remain a brick. 

Some photons are emitted from nuclei, not from electrons. They are indistinguishable from electron-emitted photons. If you want a model of photon generation, it must explain both.
« Last Edit: 17/09/2014 21:48:14 by alancalverd »

PmbPhy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #22 on: 17/09/2014 04:14:23 »
Quote from: jccc
I also think QM is BS.
We've all explained why QM is the best theory we have right now, so precise that we can think of it as being correct. You've never demonstrated anything which hints at it being otgherwise.

Quote from: jccc
Protons able to stick together because there is a strong force at work?
Unfortunately for you they don't stick together. If they did then matter would be a billion times more dense than it really is.

Quote from: jccc
Electrons able to not stick with nucleus because QM laws?
Correct.

Quote from: jccc
There is only one force at work at all time, between charged particles, EM force.
That's incorrect. Since the beginning of physics it's been known that the force acting on bodies is the vector sum of all the forces that would act on the body individually had the other forces been absent.

Quote from: jccc
Ether..
..doesn't exist.

PmbPhy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Bohr model of the atom:
« Reply #23 on: 17/09/2014 04:17:17 »
Quote from: JP
The first is that they aren't rigorous.  You can draw pictures all day that seem plausible, but the devil is in the details.
...
The second is that it has to be in agreement with models that we know are accurate.
...
If you disagree, its up to you to prove it with some rigor, not just pictures and words.
What a beautiful response. This, my dear fellow members, is a perfect example of why we're so lucky to have JP posting here.

 

SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines