[alancalverd]

Do you mean longer wavelength means larger effective size?

Beware of false analogies, like I said.

[hamdani yusuf]

The question that has to be asked is, why deny it?  A question arising out of this one, is, does it work? Does it provide an alternative? If the answer to both these questions is negative, why insist on having these theories? Is it to prove that the theory works or that it doesn't or to state as has happened here that there are two theories one that works and one that doesn′t.

Theories are still kept as long as it's useful in making predictions. Even when we know it's not an accurate model of reality. Gemini explains.

Aristotle divided the universe into two distinct realms based on their material composition and movement:

Terrestrial Realm: This is our world, the Earth and everything on it.  According to Aristotle, terrestrial objects are composed of four elements: earth, water, air, and fire. These elements have intrinsic properties that cause their natural movements.  For example, earth and water tend to fall downwards, while air and fire rise upwards.  These objects are also subject to change and decay.

Celestial Realm: This is the realm beyond the Earth, encompassing the stars, planets, and the moon.  In contrast to the terrestrial realm, celestial objects are made of a fifth element, aether.  Aether is an unchangeable and perfect substance, unlike the four elements.  This difference in material explains why celestial objects move in a fundamentally different way.  They move in perfect circles at constant speeds, unlike the rectilinear (straight line) movements of terrestrial objects.  These motions are also considered eternal and unchanging.

[hamdani yusuf]

Do you mean longer wavelength means larger effective size?

Beware of false analogies, like I said.

Is the effective size independent from wavelength?
In what context or situations that the answer has to change?

[hamdani yusuf]

Well I guess Einstein's estate will have to return his Nobel prize then. 

Do you think that Nobel committee is infallible?

[hamdani yusuf]

  I mean who should we believe, every university that has a physics department or a random Youtube, wait!! I know we can ask a chatbot...

It should depend on the evidence.

The simple version of the statement ''The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge'', is that ?It simply states that ignoring may not harm you as much as partial or incomplete knowledge may do?

[Origin]

It should depend on the evidence

Why do you think every university teaches that??  It's because of the evidence supports it. 
All you seem to do is criticize theories and concepts that you don't understand.  It's too bad you came into this thread disrupted it, I guess this goes on ignore like your other threads...

[hamdani yusuf]

It should depend on the evidence

Why do you think every university teaches that??  It's because of the evidence supports it. 
All you seem to do is criticize theories and concepts that you don't understand.  It's too bad you came into this thread disrupted it, I guess this goes on ignore like your other threads...

New evidence keep coming. What became a consensus in the past may change in the future, when new evidence against it get harder to ignore.
Perhaps they think that currently used explanations are good enough for known evidence, so they don't spend enough resources in basic research to look for new evidence that would need a better explanation.

[alancalverd]

How much is enough? You could direct all the money, material and intellect of the entire world to search for a flaw in the hypothesis that the hydrogen atom consists of one proton and one electron, but what benefit would accrue from doing so?

[alancalverd]

If Maxwell equations in Heavyside's notation are examined, they don't seem to accommodate quantization of electric charge and mass. They don't even mention mass in the first place.

Probably because electromagnetic radiation has neither charge nor mass.

These clearly show that they are incomplete as description of physical reality.

Nor do they explain or describe an elephant. So what?

[hamdani yusuf]

How much is enough? You could direct all the money, material and intellect of the entire world to search for a flaw in the hypothesis that the hydrogen atom consists of one proton and one electron, but what benefit would accrue from doing so?

Something larger than zero.
What's more interesting is to explain how protons and electrons interact to form diatomic molecules, instead of monoatomic, or polyatomic ones.

[alancalverd]

It's pretty well explained in most chemistry textbooks, and sufficiently understood for the purposes of chemical engineering.

[hamdani yusuf]

It's pretty well explained in most chemistry textbooks, and sufficiently understood for the purposes of chemical engineering.

Do you have an example?

[alancalverd]

I have in front of me

Barrow: Physical Chemistry, McGraw Hill 1961
Heslop & Robinson: Inorganic Chemistry, Elsevier, 1962
Parkes & Mellor: Modern Inorganic Chemistry, Longmans, 1946

but then I'm very old!

[paul cotter]

Oh dear, four pages of unmitigated confusion. Not referring to Alan's or Origin's contributions- of course!!

[Kryptid]

What's more interesting is to explain how protons and electrons interact to form diatomic molecules, instead of monoatomic, or polyatomic ones.

There's no mystery to that.

[hamdani yusuf]

What's more interesting is to explain how protons and electrons interact to form diatomic molecules, instead of monoatomic, or polyatomic ones.

There's no mystery to that.

It seems like the mystery is in people's minds. How they think that there's no mystery in how invisible hydrogen atoms and molecules behave, while at the same time think that macroscopic double slit experiment contains the deepest mystery of physical reality.

[alancalverd]

Which people? We know how atoms and molecules behave  - it's called chemistry. And we know how light behaves - physics. Sensible folk use mathematical models to predict the outcome of new experiments - science. And when the prediction turns out wrong, we modify the model.

Perhaps you are confusing philosophers with intelligent beings.

[hamdani yusuf]

Which people? We know how atoms and molecules behave  - it's called chemistry. And we know how light behaves - physics. Sensible folk use mathematical models to predict the outcome of new experiments - science. And when the prediction turns out wrong, we modify the model.

Perhaps you are confusing philosophers with intelligent beings.

Many modern physicists like Feynman.

[Kryptid]

It seems like the mystery is in people's minds. How they think that there's no mystery in how invisible hydrogen atoms and molecules behave, while at the same time think that macroscopic double slit experiment contains the deepest mystery of physical reality.

We may not understand everything about the behavior of atoms and molecules, but we do understand those specific points I was responding to. We know why protons and electrons arrange themselves into diatomic molecules instead of single atoms or larger molecules given particular circumstances. For one, a pair of protons isn't going to randomly join together to form a single nucleus because the Coulomb barrier is too strong to overcome at common temperatures and pressures. So they remain separate. The number of nuclei dictates the total number of atoms. The electrons then arrange themselves in the lowest energy configuration around those nuclei.

[hamdani yusuf]

We know why protons and electrons arrange themselves into diatomic molecules instead of single atoms or larger molecules given particular circumstances.

Can it be described in a single paragraph?