The completed Bohr atom

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by ITisTHY, May 2, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,351
    At least Dennis have learned that we usually tell him to take his meds by now.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,261
    But that does not seem to deter him, unfortunately. (See Religion subforum

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jarek Duda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    229
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,261
    Indeed. But this thread was started by someone (banned) with autism who can't do maths but deludes himself he is a great theoretical physicist. There is nothing serious in this thread.
     
  8. DrIsnpector Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1
    Isn't that exactly what the OP has stated, that the particle is in a state of free fall in the ground state?

    And why are you acting "general" after the war has played out? You say he pretends to do math but you haven't proven one iota of thing he has said is wrong? Interesting pecking order here no?
     
  9. LestWeForget Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6
    Following the quote, on free fall, it seems that ITisTHY has derived the Kepler's motion for the ground state entirely in a new way. It seems his equations may be very simple based on this other model, but appears to be saying the same thing. He derived Kepler's laws from Newton's equations and applied them electrostatics. His equations appear to hold the same essence as the equations in the link, albeit it appears to have been derived differently.

    It's interesting because he did derive the acceleration equation for the ground state but the only thing unclear is why it is zero. He did say mind you it would be zero if the particle was following the classical laws of free fall. Other than that, I do not understand where all this talk about how he being unable to do math is coming from. The model looks right and is unique.
     
  10. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    I posted on it 4 years ago here: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3450814/
    Being classical Newtonian/MEs in nature, it has no hope of being consistent with e.g. double slit electron diffraction, or most strikingly, nonlocality a la Bell inequalities etc.
    While it's conceivable the OP independently came up with the falling electron model, the suspicion has to be he merely plagiarized it from the late Michael Gryzinski (1930-2004).
     
  11. LestWeForget Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6
    I assume you can follow the math like me? It is quite clear how he came to his model and his derivation arrived at a conclusion similar, but completely different from Gryzinski because he used the known classical laws from Kepler's, and appears to cite the known Newtonian method to derive the unification of both those laws. The only difference is that he rewrote them for electrostatics and appears to have arrived at a similar independent model. I would certainly say to claim it is plagiarised appears to be at a whim since his derivation is totally different and unique to the citation of the poster above. He seems to have had an insight and came to a similar conclusion concerning free fall. If he did plagiarise, why did he go into all the detail about how he simply came to his conclusions from an analog model from Kepler's and Newton. If he really intended to steal anything, I'm quite sure he wouldn't have went out his way to clearly mark how he came to his conclusions in the first place. It's very likely he just didn't even realize someone had already postulated it, again, just because his equations are quite different on the hallmark of things
     
  12. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Note I used the word 'suspicion' intentionally. And will admit to mostly skimming his posts here, once I got the gist of the basic assumptions that classical physics suffices. But it doesn't in general in quantum realm as shown by two examples.
     
  13. LestWeForget Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6
    Also he spoke about his model still satisfying wave mechanics, he was especially concerned with the debroglie pilot wave model, which as far as memory serves, still satisfies nonlocality.

    Reading over, there is a small passage which may give us insight to why he postulated it in the first place, he seems to have worked from some analog principles as he said, " Einsteins work which states, 'while matter tells space how to curve and curvature tells space and matter how to move,' to de Broglies principles corresponds by saying, 'the wave tells the particle how to move whereas the particle tells the wave how to spread.'"

    This appears to be the motivation why he says the pilot wave requires more attention.
     
  14. LestWeForget Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6
    Fair do's.

    To be fair, it appears completely genuine, independent work.
     
  15. Jarek Duda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    229
    In this free-fall atomic model it is crucial to include magnetic dipole of electron - the last term of Lagrangian:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It bends trajectory of free-falling electron just before hitting the nucleus - can be seen as explanation why they don't collide.

    So it is a bit modified Kepler problem, especially low angular momentum orbits often precess instead of closing.
    From gravitational perspective this kind of GEM approximation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism ) could be used e.g. for Kepler problem around rotating neutron star/black hole.
    Simple simulator: https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/KeplerProblemWithClassicalSpinOrbitInteraction/

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    OK so he has a semi-classical rather than fully classical theory. Whatever.
    A lot of QM theorists like de Broglie-Bohm theory with it's non-standard 'quantum potential' having the imho bizarre properties of not just infinite range (not per se an issue) but additionally instantaneous influence throughout all of space, and unlike all other physical fields, it's magnitude does not diminish with distance. All the while ostensibly fully consistent with conservation of energy-momentum. Amazing.

    Anyway maybe time to call it a time here, given the frustration I'm sure the banned OP must be feeling at not being able to respond to any of this. So consider starting a new thread if really wanting to keep this going.
     
  17. Jarek Duda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    229
    Regarding de Broglie-Bohm, we have wave-particle duality: beside trajectory of corpuscle, there is also coupled wave leading e.g. to interference, orbit quantization etc.
    There are great hydrodynamical analogs especially with walking droplets, but also e.g. Casimir effect, Aharonov-Bohm, gathered materials: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kxvvhj0cnl1iqxr/Couder.pdf
     
  18. LestWeForget Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6
    He seemed to be responding quite well, or at least, anyone who managed to get some dialogue out of him. Perhaps he will return and finish these unanswered questions? I suppose it is frustrating that he got banned for just being him, rather than the quality of the work.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2021
  19. LestWeForget Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6
    He mentioned that perhaps the wave mechanics is gravitational in nature. Recently there was an article that stated that the quantum leap was not instantaneous at all, something about Copenhagen interpretation falling apart because it often taken as instantaneous and random. They are now having to do a new turn on this. I wonder if this new news was covered here? If a gravitational wave function is the way to go and it can affect orbitals like he claims, then I'd imagine the leap would indeed have to take some time like experiment is saying now.
     
  20. Jarek Duda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    229
    Gravitational interaction is dozens of orders of magnitude weaker than EM - might bring some unimaginably weak corrections, but hard to imagine its qualitative importance inside an atom.

    Regarding idealization of quantum phenomena being instant, for a decade there is being developed entire field measuring such delays: attosecond chronoscopy.
    ~1000 articles citing 2010 Science "Delay in photoemission": https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?cites=15193546925951882986&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

    E.g. 2020 "Probing molecular environment through photoemission delays" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-0887-8
    "Attosecond chronoscopy has revealed small but measurable delays in photoionization, characterized by the ejection of an electron on absorption of a single photon. Ionization-delay measurements in atomic targets provide a wealth of information about the timing of the photoelectric effect, resonances, electron correlations and transport."
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,261
    Give it up Gareth.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,261
    See post 5. This was Reiku again with the usual meaningless maths......
     
    Q-reeus likes this.
  23. ADarkMatter Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3

    Doesn't this assume that we know the actual strength of the gravitational force on the microscopic scale? It's one of the last biggest questions concerning gravity. Especially strong gravity theories by Abdus Salam. So yes it might have a weak correction. It might even have a stronger correction, the fact is microscopic gravitational waves should exist in theory, the detector and the emitter are both coupled intrinsically thus way. Basically the tools we use to detect small differences are even capable of making these waves. And it's me, the original creator. And no, I didn't know about this already existing free falling model, and yes the methods I came to the conclusions, especially the math was genuinely independent. I agree certainly that there should be a potential for the full Langrangian, I really never got this far.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page