Author 
Message 
John Sefton science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 143

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



Richard Schultz wrote:
Quote:  In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we know that
: it is not a wave.
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know that it
: is not a particle.
Your "logic" is faulty here. Read Feynman's book _QED_ for an explanation
of why photons are particles  the same argument applies to electrons.
Or to put it another way, what is wrong with the following argument:
Because the piece of furniture in my living room can sometimes seem to be a
bed, we know that it cannot be a sofa.
Because the piece of furniture in my living room can sometimes seem to be a
sofa, we know that it cannot be a bed.

Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, BarIlan University, RamatGan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of BarIlan University

"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."

tadchem wrote:
Quote:  Richard Schultz wrote:
In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we know that
: it is not a wave.
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know that it
: is not a particle.
Your "logic" is faulty here. Read Feynman's book _QED_ for an explanation
of why photons are particles  the same argument applies to electrons.
Or to put it another way, what is wrong with the following argument:
Because the piece of furniture in my living room can sometimes seem to be a
bed, we know that it cannot be a sofa.
Because the piece of furniture in my living room can sometimes seem to be a
sofa, we know that it cannot be a bed.
Your argument is a false analogy.
A sofa *can* seem to be a bed, and a bed can *seem* to be a sofa
(dependent upon accoutrements). The basic characteristics are similar.
However, a particle cannot seem to be a wave, nor can a wave seem to be
a particle. There are basic characteristics which are essential to one
and which are excluded from the other.
We are comparing particles which are completely localizable with waves
which are completely nonlocalizable. A better comparison than 'sofa
and bed' would be 'sofa and wind'.
Can a sofa seem to be the wind, or the wind seem to be a sofa?
My point about electrons is that they exhibit characteristics that they
share with members of two mutually exclusive sets, they must belong to
some larger set which includes both subsets, but is not *restricted* to
only members of those subsets.
There is a class of entities which we do not yet fully understand which
include both 'waves' and 'particles' as mutually exclusive subsets, and
there are entities within this class which are free to migrate into and
out of these subsets. However, all members of this class are
restricted by both General Relativity and by Quantum Mechanics.

Ask anyone who experienced that tsunami recently if a wave can seem
to be a particle.
Particles *are* waves.
They are standing waves of energy in a 3D standing wave.
Everything is waves of energy, either 3D or 2D or something in between.
Explain your 'particle'. What bricks is it made of? And what bricks
are they made of? And the next? And the next? Where does
your 'particle' change to nonparticle? And what form does that
take?
You see?
Much simpler to have waves of energy 'seem' to be particles
and be done with it.
John 

Back to top 


dda1 science forum Guru
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



HeadUpHis Ass Gurcharn Sandhu aka GSS wrote:
<all snipped>
What in the simple sentence "f*** off, imbecile" is that you want to
discuss? 

Back to top 


srp science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 198

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



FrediFizzx a écrit :
Quote:  "srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:4495C077.8090406@globetrotter.net...
FrediFizzx a écrit :
"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:e738sc$2iv$2@news.iucc.ac.il...
In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we know
that
: it is not a wave.
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know
that
it
: is not a particle.
Your "logic" is faulty here. Read Feynman's book _QED_ for an
explanation
of why photons are particles  the same argument applies to
electrons.
Except he couldn't explain it to his father... ;)
"[My father] said, 'I understand that they say that light is
emitted
from an atom when it goes from one state to another, from an excited
state to a state of lower energy.'
I said, 'That's right.'
'And light is a kind of particle, a photon, I think they call
it.'
'Yes.'
'So if the photon comes out of the atom when it goes from the
excited to the lower state, the photon must have been in the atom in
the
excited state.'
I said, 'Well, no.'
He said, 'Well, how do you look at it so you can think of a
particle
photon coming out without it having been there in the excited
state?'
I though a few minutes, and I said, 'I'm sorry; I don't know. I
can't explain it to you."
Richard P. Feynman, "The Physics Teacher" (September 1969)
[quoted from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to
QED"]
Can't see what his understanding problem was really. If the photon
came out as the electron went from excited state to lower state.
it obviously was related to the electron being in that excited
state. There is no way the energy leaving as a photon would not
have been there in the excited state.
Well, the energy is there but can we call it a photon when it is "in"
the atom? We can't.

No we can't, but there is obviously no way anyhow that the quantum of
energy carried away as a photon could not have been there to start with.
Quote:  And it is not. I do believe the energy is involved with the motion
of the electron.

Well, his father not being a physicist, as far as I can gather, it
seems obvious to me that this is what he meant to have an answer
about from his son, no?
Quote:  That is why there are
creation and annihilation operators in quantum theory. I suppose
Feynman couldn't figure out how to simply explain creation and
annihilation operators to his father so that he would understand it.
Since Dirac first proposed them in 1927, he for sure knew about them.

I see your point.
But at least, he could have explained just what you say to his dad,
had he really wanted to inform him, even without going into the
theory.
I analyze in contex with his dad's question, that his son's answer
implied he didn't know whether or not the energy involved was there
in the first place with respect to the excited state.
André Michaud 

Back to top 


Henry Haapalainen science forum Guru
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 493

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:13 am Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



Electron is not orbiting.
henry Haapalainen 

Back to top 


srp science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 198

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:15 am Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



Henry Haapalainen a écrit :
Quote:  Electron is not orbiting.
henry Haapalainen

It doesn't prevent it from being at all times very precisely located
and locatable in high energy accelerators, mathematically as well as
physically.
André Michaud 

Back to top 


Y.Porat science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



Bilge wrote:
Quote:  Y.Porat, after replacing his brain with a nerf ball:
what does your QM model predict for decay rate of 2p. 1p
transition (and why )  of the Lead Atom ???
There is no 1p state, you idiot. Few things in life are certain,
but your consistent stupidity is a sure thing.
 
Bilge wrote:
Quote:  Y.Porat, after replacing his brain with a nerf ball:
Bilge wrote:

what does your QM model predict for decay rate of 2p. 1p
transition (and why )  of the Lead Atom ???
There is no 1p state, you idiot. Few things in life are certain,
but your consistent stupidity is a sure thing.
 
sorry sorry
i whated to ask Bilge what is the QM model predict for decay rate
of
8L > 7L transition of the Lead Atom ??
TIA
Y.Porat
 

Back to top 


FrediFizzx science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:26 am Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



"srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:4495DE3E.90706@globetrotter.net...
Quote:  FrediFizzx a écrit :
"srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:4495C077.8090406@globetrotter.net...
FrediFizzx a écrit :
"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:e738sc$2iv$2@news.iucc.ac.il...
In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we
know
that
: it is not a wave.
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know
that
it
: is not a particle.
Your "logic" is faulty here. Read Feynman's book _QED_ for an
explanation
of why photons are particles  the same argument applies to
electrons.
Except he couldn't explain it to his father... ;)
"[My father] said, 'I understand that they say that light is
emitted
from an atom when it goes from one state to another, from an
excited
state to a state of lower energy.'
I said, 'That's right.'
'And light is a kind of particle, a photon, I think they call
it.'
'Yes.'
'So if the photon comes out of the atom when it goes from the
excited to the lower state, the photon must have been in the atom
in
the
excited state.'
I said, 'Well, no.'
He said, 'Well, how do you look at it so you can think of a
particle
photon coming out without it having been there in the excited
state?'
I though a few minutes, and I said, 'I'm sorry; I don't know.
I
can't explain it to you."
Richard P. Feynman, "The Physics Teacher" (September 1969)
[quoted from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to
QED"]
Can't see what his understanding problem was really. If the photon
came out as the electron went from excited state to lower state.
it obviously was related to the electron being in that excited
state. There is no way the energy leaving as a photon would not
have been there in the excited state.
Well, the energy is there but can we call it a photon when it is
"in"
the atom? We can't.
No we can't, but there is obviously no way anyhow that the quantum of
energy carried away as a photon could not have been there to start
with.
And it is not. I do believe the energy is involved with the motion
of the electron.
Well, his father not being a physicist, as far as I can gather, it
seems obvious to me that this is what he meant to have an answer
about from his son, no?
That is why there are
creation and annihilation operators in quantum theory. I suppose
Feynman couldn't figure out how to simply explain creation and
annihilation operators to his father so that he would understand it.
Since Dirac first proposed them in 1927, he for sure knew about
them.
;)
I see your point.
But at least, he could have explained just what you say to his dad,
had he really wanted to inform him, even without going into the
theory.
I analyze in contex with his dad's question, that his son's answer
implied he didn't know whether or not the energy involved was there
in the first place with respect to the excited state.

I don't think the energy part was the problem; it was the particle part.
If he had told his father that the particle was just created because of
the excess energy, then that leads to further problems of where the
particle came from that the energy "created". BTW, the relativistic
medium picture sure makes this simpler to explain. A particle
doesn't really have to even be created in that viewpoint. The excess
energy just flows away from the atom via the medium. But then the hard
part of that is why doesn't it disperse? We know that the energy does
stay "concentrated" and that concentration is called a photon. But it
is just a property of the relativistic medium that allows the energy to
stay concentrated like phonons. Which we know a lot more about
nowadays.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuumphysics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuumphysics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuumphysics.com 

Back to top 


Y.Porat science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:00 am Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



ma1ibu wrote:
Quote:  Richard Schultz wrote:
In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we know that
: it is not a wave.
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know that it
: is not a particle.

Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, BarIlan University, RamatGan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of BarIlan University

"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
tadchem wrote:
Richard Schultz wrote:
In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
Your argument is a false analogy.
and which are excluded from the other.
There is a class of entities which we do not yet fully understand which
include both 'waves' and 'particles' as mutually exclusive subsets, and
there are entities within this class which are free to migrate into and
out of these subsets. However, all members of this class are
restricted by both General Relativity and by Quantum Mechanics.


not all of them!!
lucky enough  we have no totalitarian policy here !!!

Quote: 
Ask anyone who experienced that tsunami recently if a wave can seem
to be a particle.
Particles *are* waves.
They are standing waves of energy in a 3D standing wave.
Everything is waves of energy, either 3D or 2D or something in between.
Explain your 'particle'. What bricks is it made of? And what bricks
are they made of? And the next? And the next? Where does
your 'particle' change to nonparticle? And what form does that
take?
You see?
Much simpler to have waves of energy 'seem' to be particles
and be done with it.
John
 
John
i agree with you i think you have a good intuition for physics .
that good intuition of physics started even by the ancient Greeks
who invented the idea of the Atom .........
the More you zoom into matter th e more you realize it !
Y.Porat
 

Back to top 


Jan Panteltje science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 295

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:12 am Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



On a sunny day (Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:55:12 0700) it happened "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in <4flsl4F1jen5eU1@individual.net>:
For me, the explanation is not all that difficult to comprehend.
Quote:  Quantum objects are both particlelike and wavelike due to relativistic
and quantum "vacuum" effects. And by "waves" here, I don't mean
probability waves. Although they are connected. I'll explain more if
anyone is interested. The basic idea is actually fairly simple.

I want to hear it. 

Back to top 


Bilge science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:57 am Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



Jan Panteltje, lacking something productive to do:
Quote:  On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:30:25 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <l8Akg.33719$No1.10788@attbi_s71>:
Some background to think about
o Photons are massless force carriers for the electromagnetic force
Why drive people crazy?

Don't keep us in suspense. Go ahead and tell us why you try
to do that.
Since the photon is a quantum, not a classical ``thing,'' the only
definition it has comes from quantum mechanics and in quantum
mechanics, quantum objects have wavelike properties and particle
like properties. What is so difficult about this concept?
[...]
Quote:  Anytime anybody says 'massless' (not mathless, we know that )
for a 'particle' we know we are being conned.

Spoken like a true con. I'll tell you what. You post a derivation
of maxwell's starting with any theory which has a massive photon
and I'll believe you. 

Back to top 


Sam Wormley science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:04 am Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



Jan Panteltje wrote:
Quote:  On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:30:25 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <l8Akg.33719$No1.10788@attbi_s71>:
Some background to think about
o Photons are massless force carriers for the electromagnetic force
Why drive people crazy?
Photon is a wave.
OK, this is too much, but this 500 pound American did eat a whole
bottle of slimline pills, floated away, next time they make it to
the moon they will bring him back.
Anytime anybody says 'massless' (not mathless, we know that )
for a 'particle' we know we are being conned.

I'm reposting this just for you Jan... to help it sink in!
Susskind: "The photon is very exceptional. It is the only particle,
other than the graviton [if it exists], that has no mass. What if it
were less exceptional and had mass? Feynman's theory tells us how to
compute the force when a hypothetical massive photon jumps between
nucleus and electron. What one finds is that the heavier the photon,
the less it is able to jump. Were the photon mass even a tiny fraction
of the electron mass, instead of being a longrange force, electric
interactions would become shortrange "flypaper forces," totally
incapable of holding the distant valence electrons. Atoms, molecules,
and life [including Jan Panteltje] are entirely dependent on the
curious fact that the photon has no mass". 

Back to top 


Bilge science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:12 am Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu:
[...]
Quote: 
With all due respect to Feynman, said "explanation" is more a matter
of personal preferences than anything solid. In fact, any such
explanation is mostly a matter of semantics unless we've at our
disposal the following:
1) A *rigorous* definition of the properties of "particle", and ditto
for "wave".
2) The two definitions above being mutually exclusive.

Actually, that is straight forward to do. A particle is an
eigenstate of the number operator with an eigenvalue of 1,
hence the particle number is welldefined. A wave is a state
with welldefined relative phases and therefore cannot be an
eigenstate of the number operator. The particle number is
therefore indeterminate. Since there is an uncertainty relation
between the number operator and the phase, measurements of
these states are mutually exclusive. 

Back to top 


srp science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 198

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:12 am Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



FrediFizzx a écrit :
Quote:  "srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:4495DE3E.90706@globetrotter.net...
FrediFizzx a écrit :
"srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:4495C077.8090406@globetrotter.net...
FrediFizzx a écrit :
"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:e738sc$2iv$2@news.iucc.ac.il...
In sci.physics.particle tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a particle, we
know
that
: it is not a wave.
: Because the electron can sometimes seem to be a wave, we know
that
it
: is not a particle.
Your "logic" is faulty here. Read Feynman's book _QED_ for an
explanation
of why photons are particles  the same argument applies to
electrons.
Except he couldn't explain it to his father... ;)
"[My father] said, 'I understand that they say that light is
emitted
from an atom when it goes from one state to another, from an
excited
state to a state of lower energy.'
I said, 'That's right.'
'And light is a kind of particle, a photon, I think they call
it.'
'Yes.'
'So if the photon comes out of the atom when it goes from the
excited to the lower state, the photon must have been in the atom
in
the
excited state.'
I said, 'Well, no.'
He said, 'Well, how do you look at it so you can think of a
particle
photon coming out without it having been there in the excited
state?'
I though a few minutes, and I said, 'I'm sorry; I don't know.
I
can't explain it to you."
Richard P. Feynman, "The Physics Teacher" (September 1969)
[quoted from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to
QED"]
Can't see what his understanding problem was really. If the photon
came out as the electron went from excited state to lower state.
it obviously was related to the electron being in that excited
state. There is no way the energy leaving as a photon would not
have been there in the excited state.
Well, the energy is there but can we call it a photon when it is
"in"
the atom? We can't.
No we can't, but there is obviously no way anyhow that the quantum of
energy carried away as a photon could not have been there to start
with.
And it is not. I do believe the energy is involved with the motion
of the electron.
Well, his father not being a physicist, as far as I can gather, it
seems obvious to me that this is what he meant to have an answer
about from his son, no?
That is why there are
creation and annihilation operators in quantum theory. I suppose
Feynman couldn't figure out how to simply explain creation and
annihilation operators to his father so that he would understand it.
Since Dirac first proposed them in 1927, he for sure knew about
them.
I see your point.
But at least, he could have explained just what you say to his dad,
had he really wanted to inform him, even without going into the
theory.
I analyze in contex with his dad's question, that his son's answer
implied he didn't know whether or not the energy involved was there
in the first place with respect to the excited state.
I don't think the energy part was the problem; it was the particle part.
If he had told his father that the particle was just created because of
the excess energy, then that leads to further problems of where the
particle came from that the energy "created".

Of course, but that would have been at least a minimal common sense
answer to his dad's question. I am positive his dad would not have
expected him to know all of the final answers.
Quote:  BTW, the relativistic
medium picture sure makes this simpler to explain. A particle
doesn't really have to even be created in that viewpoint. The excess
energy just flows away from the atom via the medium. But then the hard
part of that is why doesn't it disperse? We know that the energy does
stay "concentrated" and that concentration is called a photon. But it
is just a property of the relativistic medium that allows the energy to
stay concentrated like phonons. Which we know a lot more about
nowadays.

As you know, I resolved this issue very simply in my model. Localized
em quanta in total vacuum with no underlying fields. How much simpler
can we get :)
André Michaud 

Back to top 


avergon@verizon.net science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 282

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:20 am Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



tadchem wrote:
Quote:  GSS wrote:
Current state of Quantum Mechanics does not help us visualize the
instant to instant orbital motion of the electron in Hydrogen atom.
Generally it is asserted that HUP does not permit us to do so. I have
developed a model for instant to instant computation of electron motion
in Hydrogen orbitals under Coulomb forces. I have not accounted for
electron spin interaction in this model. Kindly examine the details at
the following reference. This is essentially to assert the point that
we must strive to acquire enough information about a physical process
or phenomenon that should enable us to mentally visualize that
phenomenon.
You have already gotten a lot of good information (and some
notsogood) from other posts, so I will only add one little bit.
The electron is *not* a wave. The electron is *not* a particle. Those
are erroneous identifications we give to the electron based on our own
observations of certain aspects of its behavior, by analogy to our
"visualizations" as you put it..
The electron is simply *AN ELECTRON*. To us is *seems* to act like a
particle (sometimes) or a wave (sometimes). All we *really* know is
that it has certain quantum numbers (charge, mass, spin, angular
momentum), some of which themselves are named by poor analogy to other
things we experience.
"Analogies are like ropes; they tie things together well but you can't
get very far if you try to push them."  Thaddeus Stout
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

ELECTRONS
Although high energy photons are particlelike the electron is the
threshold to the true particle state.
PAIR PRODUCTION: photon <==> electron/positron
Experimentally, a high energy photon (1.022 MeV +) upon arriving in the
vicinity of a heavy nucleus (which merely acts as a backstop) may
transform into an electronpositron pair (evidencing the
matter/antimatter composition of the photon.) each particle consisting
of a mass of .511 MeV. Excess energy manifests as kinetic energy of the
particles.
1.022 MeV is equivalent to 1.637346 x 10^6 erg. From the equation
E
 = nu
h
we get a frequency of 2.47122 x 10^20 cycles/sec, the minimum frequency
for pair production. Therefore, it consists of that many quanta, each
of mass m_q (7.37203854 x 10^48gr). Thus the mass of the photon is
1.821793 x 10^27 gr, which, divided by two gives 9.10896 x 10^28 gr,
the mass of the electron and positron.
Thus we see a high energy photon composed of sufficient quanta to equal
two electron masses alter its consecutive mode by collision thereby
changing into a concentric, altered state. We may say as a casual
observation that this new state (the positive and negative electron) is
a semi ponderous one. It is half way between a true ponderous state and
that of radiation. Thus we perceive three states of matter.
We see the product of photon conversion also contains opposite spins
that in the new concentric mode are mutually exclusive. Due to the
density, the newly formed particle must undergo fission, one half being
of negative spin, the other half positive. Any excess energy manifests
as kinetic energy.
Here we see the process of agglomeration bridge the gap between the
radiant mode (photon) and that of the true particle by simply altering
from the consecutive mode to the concentric mode.
The reverse process also exists, an electronpositron pair merging to
form two photons.
This is an example of the much vaunted "Annihilation" of matter that
takes place when matter and antimatter meet. The opposite spins are
disruptive, causing the particles' composition to disassociate and
assume the radiation mode where matterantimatter spins are compatible.
Thus, we see there is no annihilation of matter, just an alteration in
form. Mass and energy are thereby conserved.
A particle consists of n concentric spherical quanta sequentially
expanding and contracting. A most central quantum expanding to the
outer limit in one second will replace n cresting quanta, thus giving
rise to a frequency of n which is nu.
Given the parameters of the quantum, we can calculate the density and
effective diameter of particles.
The prime density , D_1 is the density of one quantum fully expanded,
i.e., the diameter d = one light second (LS) and therefore the radius
r_q = 1/2 light second.
If we visualize a particle as a series of concentric spheres (quanta)
we observe that those more centralized are more contracted and
therefore more dense. As one proceeds from the core outward, the
density diminishes as the fourth power of the radius. This is a rather
rapid rate. Therefore, in experimental procedures it is the core that
is considered the particle.
What would be considered as the surface is tenuous and indefinite and,
therefore, so would be the radius, volume, and density.
To determine the density of a particle we consider the following:
A particle of n quanta has an effective radius considered to be
r_q 1/2 LS
 or  = r .
n n
The density of a solitary fully expanded quantum is
 m_q
D =  or D_1
4/3 pi r_q^3
and equal to 5.225484 x 10^79 gr/cc. This is the "primal"
or minimum density in the universe.
The core density of a particle of n quanta is
Eq. [10]
(where r = effective or core radius)
nm_q
D_p = 
4/3 pi r^3
1/2 LS
Since r = , we write Eq. 10 as
n
Eq. [10a]
nm_q n^4 m_q
D_p = ==================== or 
4/3 pi (1/2 LS)^3 4/3 pi (1/2 LS)^3

n^3
Thus we see the particle density varies as the fourth power of n.
m_q
As  is the primal density, D_1, we may also
4/3 pi (1/2 LS)^ 3
state that the particle density at the core is n^4 times the primal
density, D_1, or D_p = n^4 D_1.
Since n represents the frequency as well as the number of quanta , we
conclude that the density also varies as the fourth power of the
frequency.
We also note that, as all particle quanta are in various stages of
expansion and contraction and presumably evenly distributed, commencing
from the core the density falls off inversely as the fourth power of
the radius.
A MORE DETAILED EXAMINATION OF PARTICLE RADII
As stated, for a sphere of ever diminishing density proceeding outward
from the core, a true surface is none existent. Therefore, the radius
cannot be measured from center to surface.
We establish a theoretical, or "essential" radius by the following
reasoning.
The mass of a sphere can be treated as though the entire mass were
located at the center. We so regard fermions. Thus, we regard (say)
the electron as having its entire mass at the center.
There the analogy seemingly ends. Whereas a noncompressible uniform
sphere can have a uniform density, the electron does not. In
calculating the density of the noncompressible sphere we utilize the
radius as extending from the center to the surface. This is denied us
in the case of the electron as there is no definite surface.
Therefore, we seek a viable essential radius by noting that the
electron is comprised of n concentric quanta. We regard the nth, or
most central quantum as also being the spatial essence of the electron.
Thus the mass center and the spatial center coincide.
What we have then is a defined sphere of definite mass and radius.
The mass is nm_q and the radius is
1/2 LS

n
We refer to this radius as the "essential" radius. However, in the text
it is referred to simply as the "radius". We must be constantly aware
though that the full radius is 1/2 LS.
We now consider another approach:
mass
Consider the relationship volume = 
density
from which the radius is obtainable:
____________
/ vol
3 / 
r = \/ 4/3 pi
As an example, given the mass of the neutron as 1.674954 x 10^24 gr,
the frequency m/m_q (equivalent to n) is 2.272037 x 10^23.
The mean center density, then, is n^4 D_1 = 1.392477 x 10^15 gr/cc.
This density is confirmed by the known density of neutron stars.
mass
Thus we have vol =  = 1.202860 x 10^39 cc
density
____________
/ vol
and 3 /  = 6.597440 x 10^14
cm.
r = \/ 4/3 pi
The 1/2 LS
 used earlier yields the same result.  which
is not
n
surprising for if we substitute the apropos elements into the above
equation
for r it reduces to
1/2 LS

n
The elements:
density = n^4 D_1
mass = n m_q
m_q
D_1 = 
4/3 pi r_q^3
We remain aware that in actuality fermions have a varying density.
By rewriting Eq. 10 we have an equation that determines the density
of a particle at any distance from the absolute center:
Eq [10b]
r_q m_q
D = 
4/3 pi r^4
Note, r is the only variable. We accept it as correct since it yields
D commensurate with the density of the neutron (in turn confirmed by
the density of neutron stars). Also, at the very extremity the density
is the primal (least) density D_1
Where m_p (mass of the particle) is the only variable we have
Eq [10b1]
6 m_p^4
D = 
pi LS^3 m_q^3
Equation [10b] differs from equation [10] in that it displays density
in terms of only *one* variable, that variable being the radius. In
Equation [10] both n and r are variable (but interdependent).
We see by equation [10a] the density is directly proportional to the
fourth power of n  and by equation [10b] the density is inversely
proportional to the fourth power of r, and by equation [10b1] the
density is directly proportional to the fourth power of the particle
mass.
Note, in equation [10b] if r = 1/2 LS, i.e., the outer limit of
quantum expansion, D = D_1. 

Back to top 


Y.Porat science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:26 am Post subject:
Re: Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom



Bilge wrote:
Quote:  Jan Panteltje, lacking something productive to do:
o Photons are massless force carriers for the electromagnetic force
Why drive people crazy?
Don't keep us in suspense. Go ahead and tell us why you try
to do that.
Photon is a wave.
Since the photon is a quantum, not a classical ``thing,'' the only
definition it has comes from quantum mechanics and in quantum
mechanics, quantum objects have wavelike properties and particle
like properties. What is so difficult about this concept?
[...]
Anytime anybody says 'massless' (not mathless, we know that )
for a 'particle' we know we are being conned.
Spoken like a true con. I'll tell you what. You post a derivation
of maxwell's starting with any theory which has a massive photon
and I'll believe you.
 
old idiot parrot Bilge
there is already a proof based on the experimental formula E=hf
that the photon has a nonzero rest mass!
got it idiot ??
Y.Porat
 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:13 am  All times are GMT

