At least Dennis have learned that we usually tell him to take his meds by now.
But that does not seem to deter him, unfortunately. (See Religion subforumAt least Dennis have learned that we usually tell him to take his meds by now.
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.Bohr model has lots of problems, e.g. ground state hydrogen should have zero angular momentum - which can be solved with electrons nearly free-falling on nucleus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model
Dozens of peer reviewed papers: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski
Hydrogen-like (left) and e.g. HH4 (right) electron trajectories in this model:
View attachment 4243
Isn't that exactly what the OP has stated, that the particle is in a state of free fall in the ground state?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.
Bohr model has lots of problems, e.g. ground state hydrogen should have zero angular momentum - which can be solved with electrons nearly free-falling on nucleus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model
Dozens of peer reviewed papers: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski
Hydrogen-like (left) and e.g. HH4 (right) electron trajectories in this model:
View attachment 4243
I posted on it 4 years ago here: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3450814/Bohr model has lots of problems, e.g. ground state hydrogen should have zero angular momentum - which can be solved with electrons nearly free-falling on nucleus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model
Dozens of peer reviewed papers: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski
Hydrogen-like (left) and e.g. HH4 (right) electron trajectories in this model:
View attachment 4243
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).
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.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
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.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).
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.
OK so he has a semi-classical rather than fully classical theory. Whatever.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.
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.
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
Give it up Gareth.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?
See post 5. This was Reiku again with the usual meaningless maths......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.
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."