[yor_on]

I'm getting a new and horribly strong headache here

According to Bohr.

"Bohr said later: "As soon as I saw Balmer's formula, the whole thing was immediately clear to me." What he saw was that the set of allowed frequencies (proportional to inverse wavelengths) emitted by the hydrogen atom could all be expressed as differences. This immediately suggested to him a generalization of his idea of a "stationary state" lowest energy level, in which the electron did not radiate. There must be a whole sequence of these stationary states, with radiation only taking place as the atom jumps from one to another of lower energy, emitting a single quantum of frequency f such that

hf = En - Em,

the difference between the energies of the two states. Evidently, from the Balmer formula and its extension to general integers m, n, these allowed non-radiating orbits, the stationary states, could be labeled 1, 2, 3, ... , n, ... and had energies -1, -1/4, -1/9, ..., -1/n2, ... in units of hcRH (using l f = c and the Balmer equation above). The energies are of course negative, because these are bound states, and we count energy zero from where the two particles are infinitely far apart."

Bohr Atom


So an atom will radiate but only when it changes its energy state
And to do that there has to be an interaction taking place first.

====

But the idea still disturbs me. It seems to imply that a atom is 'indestructible' if left alone?
Like it won't lose any energy, yet we have the idea of this 'probability cloud' of electrons varying with different measurements. Meaning that it must use 'energy', and if it does some of that must 'radiate' away?

If it doesn't you will have an perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion machine) as it has 'moving parts' but won't lose energy.

Is there any other way you can lose energy, that isn't due to radiation?
I mean immeasurable for us?
---

Do you see what I'm asking here

Either an atom have 'moving parts', and remember we have experiments showing us electron clouds and the probability of where those electrons should be, at shifting localities, for the same atom, well, at least I presume that kind of experiment to have been done? If it hasn't it should. Because if they're 'moving/shifting' locality for the same atom experimentally, you have a object that expends energy without losing any, as far as i can see?

I would like if someone could explain that one to me

===
Deem me weird
It could have to do with our concept of time, possibly?
That we study it under our 'arrow of time' that imposes sequences to it?
Awh...

[Ron Hughes (OP)]

I am not an expert on the energy level changes of the electrons around an atom but my understanding is that if an atom could be placed in a magical container that would shield it from any outside radiation then it would never emit any radiation and theory says that it should last for something on the order of 10^30th years.

Back to my collision radiation. We know that collisions like I describe must occur at enormous velocities in stars which suggests that all frequencies can be produced by collisions. Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of those collisions would be off center rather than head on impacts. Would the angle of impact simply determine the direction of propagation or would it change the emitted frequency? As Yor points out, electrons absorb and emit radiation in discrete  energy packets, would that somehow play role?

[Geezer]

But the idea still disturbs me. It seems to imply that a atom is 'indestructible' if left alone?
Like it won't lose any energy, yet we have the idea of this 'probability cloud' of electrons varying with different measurements. Meaning that it must use 'energy', and if it does some of that must 'radiate' away?

If it doesn't you will have an perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion machine) as it has 'moving parts' but won't lose energy.

Just a though. Does it really have moving parts, or is the movement "powered" by radiation received? What happens to an atom at 0K? Is there any movement at all?

[Ron Hughes (OP)]

Your statement that science is to enamored with explaining the Universe using particles mimics my own sentiments. I still think the proton is some sort of wave.

[yor_on]

If it as you say Ron?
"10^30th years"

How does it 'dissipate' without spending 'energy'?

[Ron Hughes (OP)]

I'm just quoting what I've read about the lifetime of the proton. I have to guess it would be a catastrophic dissipation since I believe the proton to be a wave.

[yor_on]

But the idea still disturbs me. It seems to imply that a atom is 'indestructible' if left alone?
Like it won't lose any energy, yet we have the idea of this 'probability cloud' of electrons varying with different measurements. Meaning that it must use 'energy', and if it does some of that must 'radiate' away?

If it doesn't you will have an perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion machine) as it has 'moving parts' but won't lose energy.

Just a though. Does it really have moving parts, or is the movement "powered" by radiation received? What happens to an atom at 0K? Is there any movement at all?

Now you're turning it around
i was thinking of it radiating and you want to discuss if it receives radiation.
that one you will have to explain a little more Geezer?

[yor_on]

Okay Geezer. Nice question, 'what happens to an atom at 0K'.
The easy answer is that we can't reach that temperature. but the relevance is still there. What happens to it? And I like mine too How does it decompose if it never 'radiates' by itself?

Bohr's model of an atom is not the one used by QM it seems? It have instead been replaced by a 'probability model' based on Louis de Broglie question about if light could behave like both waves and particles, why shouldn't particles also behave like waves?

"Thus, electrons in an atom were not moving in orbits but filled an orbit as standing waves. Familiar electromagnetic radiation, like light, exists as traveling waves, moving through space at the velocity of light. A standing wave does not move, but vibrates between fixed points, like the string on a violin."

While Bohr's model of the atom could account for spectral lines, it still could not account for why electrons had quantacized angular momentum in atoms and why electrons could be in orbit in atoms, which would involve acceleration around the nucleus, without radiating away all their energy, which accelerated electrical charges do. The atom could simply not be a little solar system, based on charge rather than gravity, since electrons, on classical principles, would lose energy and fall into the nucleus.

Familiar electromagnetic radiation, like light, exists as traveling waves, moving through space at the velocity of light. A standing wave does not move, but vibrates between fixed points, like the string on a violin. The sine wave at right represents a whole wavelength. It has a portion with a positive magnitude, a portion with a negative magnitude, and a node, which has zero magnitude.

The ends of the wave, which also have zero magnitude, are usually not considered to be nodes. Half a wavelength would have no nodes; one and a half wavelengths, two nodes; and two whole wavelengths, three nodes. A one dimensional wave has nodes that are points, and it vibrates into two dimensions. Similarly, a two dimensional wave, like a wave of water on the ocean, has nodes that are lines, and it vibrates into three dimensions.

A three dimensional wave, which is what electrons in an atom would be, has nodes that are surfaces. Such surfaces can be planes, cones, or spheres. By analogy, we might want to say that a three dimensional wave would vibrate into four dimensions, but this aspect of the matter does not seem have been much discussed or explored. In electron waves, each non-spherical node represents a quantum of angular momentum.

Thus, a half wavelength, with no non-spherical nodes, is 0 angular momentum; a full wavelength, with one non-spherical node, is angular momentum; a wavelength and a half, with two non-spherical nodes, is 2 angular momentum; etc. "

But it still doesn't answer the question about an atoms dissipation of energy if left alone?

From the Quantacized Atom


Now take a look here conservation_of_energy

What we read here is firstly 'energy can neither be created (produced) nor destroyed by itself. It can only be transformed.' All of this I presume to build on the idea of a closed system naturally but under that assumption it makes good sense to me. then we come to 'In quantum mechanics energy is expressed using the Hamiltonian operator. On any time scales, the uncertainty in the energy ... is similar in form to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (but not really mathematically equivalent thereto, since H and t are not dynamically conjugate variables, neither in classical nor in quantum mechanics).

So, how am I supposed to understand this. Is this a suggestion that an atom is on that indeterminate 'scale' that it gets its 'energy' from HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)? And as HUP is outside Planck scale it is free to violate times arrow, which means that all bets on an atoms energy is open to interpretation? And if so, what regulates that 'energy' to a 'consistent system' differing for different atoms under our arrow of time.

Don't know if I made this clear enough, but I hope you can follow it?
You have to remember that when I'm looking at it, I differ between the 'arrow of time' and 'time' in itself. 'Time' is what exist, like a pool of undifferentiated water, where the stream we see will be our 'arrow of time' defining us macroscopically.
 

[Ron Hughes (OP)]

This thread had approached the limit of what is considered a new theory. There is more I would like to discuss so I will start a new thread in New Theories.