John Ye

John, How to quote and reply part by part as what you did? I will never change my mind. The static electron configuration is the true picture of atom. no spinning, no ghostly jumping. I know it's hard to be accepted today, for that quantum model have been existed so long time. But I am sure there must be one day in the future.

Conflict. Coulomb law needs electron to have certain and exact position, quantum theory tells that exact position is unknown. This is the logic. Conflict. Coulomb law needs electron to have certain and exact position, quantum theory tells that exact position is unknown. This is the logic. that potential is Coulomb law's vibrant. an integration or a differential between them. exact position (at least radial) is needed.

Studiot, If I incorrectly quoted your words, I say sorry to you. The text structure is not very clear to me, I will pay much attention to avoid the error. According to standard quantum textbook, you're right. But unfortunately, the real cause of magnetism have not been totally clear to mankind. For example, in quantum textbook, the explanation of paramagnetism and diamagnetism are not sure. There are some exceptions. I know electric current, and know magnetism. Besides textbook, I used to have had some thinkings of mine.

You have absolutely no idea what an electric current is. And you appear to be denying the observed magnetic effect of moving charge. Are you invoking God for this as well? ------- My model involves neither electric current no magnetic things, which I think you know for sure. The word God is not proper here, I just want to emphasize my previous words. My model is very very simple, it just extends the basic Coulomb law, based on formula 2, and using the basic integration, got the energy levels and the spectrum. It's the simplest math. So I don't need to use Laplace equation and etc. I know little about that. You can make a computer simulation, see if the system can be stable or not. Use the clasical Coulomb law, simulate atom Li I don't think it can be stable if the electron is stationary

Based on Coulomb law, Earnshaw's theorem is correct. In fact, this does not necessarily need a theory, We can imagine its conclusion. The electrons can be stay in a stationary position because of the attractive force.

Does Coulomb law violate quantum theory? It tells us certain thing about electron--the force is certain with certain distance given?

I am reading your paragraph Studiot, I have read Earnshaw's theorem segment. based on Coulomb law, Earnshaw's theorem is right. But you should remember I extended Coulomb law. Actually, Coulomb law is wrong indide atom size world. I will read the remaining part of your text., And give you feedback. Now this segment: Here we don't deal with electric current. It flows in conduct wire. We bypass it The following segment explain no_crash by magnetic field. It's unnecessary in my model. It's a patch. Without using any magnetic things, electron doesn't crash because of balanced point. By stationary I mean the basic and commonsense word meaning, which we needn't extra explanation. Next segment is about the curves, attractive far repulsive near, I already answered.

Does Coulomb law violate electron's uncertainty? It tells us certain thing----the force is certain with certain distance given?

This is fact. Can you calculate helium's spectrum by each of them? Another joke is this: Solar system is a permanent system, once it shaped, it will never be dismantled and rebuilt until it vanish. How about hydrogen atom? It keeps bing dismantled and then rebuilt, right? In discharge tub, even in sky air, everywhere. How can it be rebuilt without crashed electron? There must be a God to help out. If dismantled Mars or Earth were rebuilt, they would crash into sun with the most probability. A ridiculous joke.

Both Bohr model and quantum model are only working for H atom, one electron and one proton. My model works for H, and partially for helium, even Li, as long as they have equal opportunity electrons configuration. Now I am telling why satellite model is joke. This is only one of many flaws. Bohr electron's track radius is proportional to nn, where n is energy level number. If n=7, 49R, electron will be running almost at MOON. It is a big joke, isn't it?

Satellite model is completely a joke. People's mind was mislead by sun and earth system. You may calculate the speed of Fe's inner layer electrons with satellite model, see what happens. By the way, how to read that special ASCII char formatted text? What tool to use? Thanks.

Thanks. I need time to learn and think it.

Bohr electron must be spinning, mine doesn't. They are absolutely different. Not all working models are created equal. Whose is simple? Whose are presenting physical nature? The geocentric theory had been working for centuries, but it is wrong.

I know what quantum theory means, and what its result means. I am not attacking it, just saying the physical fact. I haven't thought of that this could make some believer feel unhappy. I am sorry for my too straightforward words.

John, What? I rehashed Bohr's model? Bohr electron must keep running, while in this model electron is not necessarily running, it can be totally stationary. This makes big and obvious difference, you didn't see, did you?

John， Does Coulomb law fails with quantum scale? It should belong classical physics, because it tell us certain thing----the force is certain with certain distance given

Studiot, Thank you for providing these here, which may help me a lot. I will read them later, and answer same part of the paragraph. It's not accidental for the graph to look familiar. Microscopic world has a regular pattern or basic law, that is, things are attractive while they are apart far enough, are repulsive while closer enough, and there must be a balanced point. Electron and proton are the case. So do atoms (metal atoms build crystal), so do molecules. If they seem not attractive each other, it's because temperature is not low enough. I will read and answer other part of your long text. Later

You use Coulomb law to solve equation, You deny Coulomb law , claim it inapplicable after equation was solved. You changed mind in less than one minute. Is this behavior logical? And OK? This is what quantum model does.

You may recall how to solve H atom's Schrodinger equation. Coulomb's law is used and applicable in the beginning of the equation solving process, Am I correct? Why do you say it become not applicable after the equation was solved?

Coulomb's law tells us that an electron near a proton has certainty. right? And to get H atom's spectrum solution, Schrodinger's equation uses Coulomb's law, right? Then quantum solution says electron is uncertain. We used A, we get B by A, then we said A does not exist. In electron's double slit experiment, what is the distance between 2 slit? and what is the size of a single pixel in the display tube screen? How much do they differ? Can you use quantum model to calculate the Helium spectrum?

in old TV's display tube, electrons has certainty. Or else, we would not be able to watch TV program. In synchrotron, electrons have certainty. Previously certain.

I know what you said. It's hard to change people's mind. I am just playing for fun.

We have been believing in some ridiculous things, for so long time.

Totally different models. Electron must move, or electron can be stationary. When you have one proton in left hand and one electron in right hand, and you put them on an absolute smooth table. Electron will be attracted by proton and will be running toward proton. What is the electron's moving line? is it a straight line. right? according to Coulomb's law, it's a straight line. Can you imagine at what distance, does electron become a quantum ghost? Or can you imagine at what distance, does electron start to change the straight line into a circle? Why is it not crash into proton? According Coulomb's law, it must be crashing into proton. how to explain these？

It's not a tweak of Bohr model. Bohr model is a satellite model, electron MUST be circling the proton, Quantum model is the same. Electron must be moving according to the probability outside proton. Because it moves like a ghost, we can call quantum model "ghost model". In both models, electron must move. If it stopped, atom would vanish because electron would crash into proton. In my model, electron does NOT need to move. It can be stationary. In fact, if the temperature is low enough ( near absolute 0K ), all electrons in any atom will stop moving. In normal temperature, my model's electron has only random thermal movement. So I called the model "static electron configuration model"