[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No. Tunneling is an entirely different phenomenon.

Are you fine with the word leap?

Different phenomena.

Which phenomena are you referring to?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Accelerating charges emit electromagnetic radiation.

Not necessarily. Circulating current in a ring superconductor can stay for years with no perceivable decay.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

He postulated that some orbits are stable, hence electrons occupying them don't radiate energy.

Orbiting equals acceleration. Accelerating charges emit electromagnetic radiation. So the classical model is wrong.

Bohr's model is not usually considered classical.

[alancalverd]

Classical electrodynamics still applies. An accelerating charge emits em radiation, by observation. Therefore any model that involves indefinitely accelerating charges that do not emit radiation, is wrong.

[alancalverd]

Which phenomena are you referring to?

Jumping and tunneling.

[alancalverd]

Accelerating charges emit electromagnetic radiation.

Not necessarily. Circulating current in a ring superconductor can stay for years with no perceivable decay.

Which is why you need quantum mechanics to explain superconductivity.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Classical electrodynamics still applies. An accelerating charge emits em radiation, by observation. Therefore any model that involves indefinitely accelerating charges that do not emit radiation, is wrong.

Except if you put the word quantum in the title of the model, which makes unexpected results acceptable.

Accelerating charges emit electromagnetic radiation.

Not necessarily. Circulating current in a ring superconductor can stay for years with no perceivable decay.

Which is why you need quantum mechanics to explain superconductivity.

[alancalverd]

Except if you put the word quantum in the title of the model, which makes unexpected results acceptable.

No. The quantum model invokes orbitals, not orbits. There is no "unexpected result": stable atoms do not emit em radiation in their ground state. An orbting electron model does not predict this, so is wrong.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

stable atoms do not emit em radiation in their ground state.

What if they are heated up?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

An orbting electron model does not predict this, so is wrong.

Did the orbital model predict this, before the observational results were obtained?
Or was it the other way around?

[alancalverd]

The observational result is that atoms do not selfdestruct by the electrons crashing into the nuclei. What more evidence do you need, beyond the existence of stuff?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

One observational result can be interpreted in more than one way. Even the same mathematical model with the same set of math equations can be assigned to different physical models. Just like Heisenberg's matrix and Schrodinger's wave mechanics.

Laplace's laws of planetary motion can be interpreted as the naturally/intrinsically complex behavior of space objects. It can also be interpreted as the consequences of universal gravitational interaction. It can also be viewed as the evidence of creators who deliberately mobilize planets in a complex way, which would be impossible to be done by  inanimate objects like planets. It can also be used to support the conclusion that planets are conscious.
The question is, what's the simplest and most generalizable model which can be used to explain observations effectively and efficiently?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The observational result is that atoms do not selfdestruct by the electrons crashing into the nuclei. What more evidence do you need, beyond the existence of stuff?

This expectation relies on the assumption that an accelerating electron must radiate energy to its surrounding, based on many observed experimental results. But it doesn't take into account some other observed experimental results, like total internal reflection, evanescent wave, and steady current in superconductor ring. The radiation can be confined in a finite space if the wave produced by one electron is cancelled out by the wave from other electrons through destructive interference.
That's the assumption I used to develop microwave blocking mechanism based on how a dipole antenna works.

[alancalverd]

The radiation can be confined in a finite space if the wave produced by one electron is cancelled out by the wave from other electrons through destructive interference.

Hydrogen only has one electron, and it doesn't spontaneously degenerate into a neutron.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Hydrogen only has one electron, and it doesn't spontaneously degenerate into a neutron.

Most hydrogen atoms don't exist in isolation, far away from any other atoms. When they interact with another hydrogen atom, they spontaneously form a diatomic hydrogen molecule.

[alancalverd]

But you can dissociate H2 into 2H  https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/1980/05/epn19801105p9.pdf, and whilst the gas has some interesting properties, the atoms don't collapse.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But you can dissociate H2 into 2H  https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/1980/05/epn19801105p9.pdf, and whilst the gas has some interesting properties, the atoms don't collapse.

Perhaps they are stable due to interaction with the hydrogen stabilization cell used in the experiment.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I just found an interesting video on the history of scientific progress in the field of quantum physics.

This star almost broke Bohr's atomic model

Story of the mysterious spectral lines of Zeta Puppis, a star that seemed to challenge the atomic model proposed by Niels Bohr. In this journey quantum physics meets astronomy, learn how Bohr cleverly solved the issue  and turned the that nearly dismantled his revolutionary model into a successful prediction.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And the preceding video for context.

How Niels Bohr created the quantum atom #SoMEpi

Presentation of the development of Niels Bohr atomic model, which introduced quantum physics for matter. Bohr's atomic model introduced quantized electron orbits, providing a groundbreaking explanation for atomic spectra and electron behavior. This pivotal model laid the foundation for modern quantum mechanics and significantly advanced our understanding of atomic structure.


11:08
what Bohr proposed was that electrons can only orbit the nucleus so that their angular momentum satisfies this quantization rule so how does this quantization rule stabilize the electron around the nucleus in this so call stationary States the electron will simply not radiate yes bore made electrons stable by simply imposing that they cannot radiate contrary to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory if you feel that this is arbitrary you're not alone bore himself recognized that this was just a what if approach and then bore explored the consequences of this arbitrary Quantum condition for a point particle like the electron following a circular orbit the angular momentum is simply the product of its mass, speed, and radius using the expression for the electron speed found earlier we get a formula relating the radius and the quantum number n solving for R we find that the electron can only take discrete orbits around the nucleus that grow quadratically with n the closest orbit to the nucleus corresponds to n = 1 plugging all the constants this radius is equal to 5.3 * 10- 11 M notice that this value is remarkably similar to the the estimated size of atoms mentioned earlier this smallest distance of the electron around the nucleus is called Bohr radius.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Nowadays, Keppler's Laws are taken for granted as the result of Newton's mechanics and his universal gravitation theory. Perhaps we can learn something from the process how he discovered the laws, which had inspired Rutherford's atomic model.

How Kepler Actually Discovered his Laws

References
On the Shoulders of Giants: The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy. (2003). Kiribati: Penguin.
Koestler, A. (2017). The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe. United Kingdom: Penguin Books Limited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...
https://www.keplersdiscovery.com/inde...
The Cambridge Concise History of Astronomy. (1999). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Mazer, A. (2011). Shifting the Earth: The Mathematical Quest to Understand the Motion of the Universe. Germany: Wiley.
Voelkel, J. R. (2021). The Composition of Kepler's Astronomia Nova. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press.
https://stellarium.org/
Kepler, J. (2015). Astronomia Nova. United States: Green Lion Press.
Stephenson, B. (2012). Kepler?s Physical Astronomy. Switzerland: Springer New York.
Brahe, T., Dreyer, J. L. E. (1972). Tychonis Brahe Dani Opera omnia. Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
https://dn790003.ca.archive.org/0/ite...