gre

The Bohr model is not 100 percent correct, that is a fact. But aren't some aspects of it correct? The orbitals, energy levels, etc? You can't say it is 100 percent incorrect, imo, or just WRONG.

I agree it is pointless to try to reinvent the physics of how things work. But I feel there is something missing when it comes to understanding what things really are (and where they come from). It seems strange that most physicists are perfectly content believing an atom is just a mathematical construct floating through space. As for the hydrogen hyperfine structure, I don't have enough understanding of quantum spin (what it physically represents) to even touch it. I've just been playing with classical concepts and properties of the Bohr hydrogen atom. Here are a couple more concepts that have led to my questions. I Here's another one: Is just basically playing with numbers/nonsense? This might just be basic algebra, and the solutions just come from "putting a variable in ... and you get it back out" .. But could it be something more?

Yes, but what about the possibility of a strong internal magnetic fields within the proton between gluons and quarks? Doesn't QCD predict something like this? Maybe all properties including, electron energy, mass, magnetic field, and radius scale down with the hyperfine splitting? What does quantum theory predict happens to the orbital of a hyperfine split H atom vs a normal ground state H atom?

That equation was based on the thought (flawed most likely) that all particles have a very strong intrinsic internal magnetic fields (undetectable outside of its radius, normally) and a much weaker detectable magnetic field or magnetic dipole moment (which may be a part of the normally 'invisible' internal field). I know this is all probably speculative nonsense, but don't quarks sometimes have very strong magnetic fields in QCD (or chromomagnetics)? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf the magnitude of a magnetic field (within an atom or shell) can be measured by the radius of its shell curvature. Then, p=qBr The electron vibrational or orbital momentum for ground state hydrogen is: p = (electron_mass * 2.187e6 m/s) = 1.9928e-24 r = 5.29e-11 m q = elementary charge B = (p / (e*r)) = 235051 T This is basically where I got the equation above.

Can you explain to me what I did wrong?

Thanks for the help swansont. Sorry these questions are probably boring to you. qE is the electrostatic force on a charge, then (qv * B), is the magnetic force on a moving charge. In ground state hydrogen would it looks something like this? ub = bohr magneton = (e*hbar)/(2*electron_mass) = 9.27400e-24 (A m^2) v = 2.18769e6 (m/s) B = (((1/2) * electron_mass * v^2) / ub = 235051 T (qv * B) = (1.602e-19 C) * (2.187e6 m/s) * (235051 T) = 8.2387e-8 N

In a ground hydrogen atom, would the Lorentz force equation look something like this? F = qE + qv x B qE = (1/(4*pi*electric_constant)) * (1.60217e-19 C)^2 / (5.29177e-11 m)^2 qE = 8.2387e-8 N

Here is another way to write it. I doubt this is valid either. F = (m * (c^2 / r)) (centripetal force) or F = E/r E = relativistic energy r = Compton wavelength / (2*pi)

Does QFT ever consider time to as a "field" property of matter?

I just read you can also multiply the energy density by the area to get a rough estimate. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedajb, did you come up with an exact number for the strong force (newtons) within a proton? Thanks. Greg

Is mass the only requirement for frames of reference, or is it 3D space and mass?

Why not just say, since space, time, and mass can't exist at c, then reference frames can't either. Would that be true?

What are the requirements for a "valid" reference frame? Why can't entities moving at c have one? I thought a photon moving at c would be considered a "singularity" of a reference frame, but I guess not.

I think I understand the wave nature of photons. But here's another thought.. Maybe photons do have mass in their own reference frame. Since an electron's mass is converted into a photon instantaneously, since its acceleration is instant, exactly at what point does the electrons mass turn into a photon? And how is it proven photons don't have mass that we can't see.

That fact photons have momentum does seem weird at first. My question is how do they have momentum? All objects that have momentum, must have at least one of the following, I believe. 1.) Mass and velocity .. (Photons don't) 2.) Electric field, and velocity .. (Photons do) 3.) Magnetic field, and velocity .. (Photons do) Edit: Why not say any field with polarity and a velocity? Why can't the momentum of photons be described at the transfer of an electro-magnetic field (with velocity)?

Well mass density is something that we can determine.... If an object's density decreases as it's velocity increases maybe the mass density from your specific frame would be directly related to your "time" . For example, a photon has 0 mass and 0 density, and it's time rate is also 0. The density of a hydrogen is pretty close to the density of the earth, maybe since we are all moving through space at similar velocities?

Can you give me an example? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedF = (p * E)/hbar F = (protonmass^2 * c^3)/hbar = 714795.07 Newtons This looks a lot like a Planck constant. Can Planck constants represent a maximum as well? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI was just informed the strong force between quarks (in newtons) is to the order 100,000 newtons. Which agrees with my calculation. Any comments?

If everything scales down equally at relativistic velocities, including: mass, energy, time, and all the constants and rules. How would you know if they change at all? At relativistic speeds does a mass's density increase?

I was just wondering if since time is dependent on velocity, maybe vacuum constants are as well.

Thanks! Next question : ). Does it dictate the rate which time passes as well? [math]c^2 = \frac{1}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}[/math]

That is an interesting equation. Does it imply the speed of light is dictated by vacuum permittivity, and vacuum permeability?

Why couldn't something like this work: F(binding_proton) = (p * E)/hbar E=(protonmass*cc^2) p=(protonmass*cc) Using this equation, the total binding energy between all quarks (in a proton), would be: F(binding_proton) = 714795.07 N Then you could get the proton mass-energy by multiplying: F(binding_electron) * 1.3214095e-15 m / (2*pi) = 1.503e-10 J (or torque) I did the same for the electron, and got F(binding_electron) = .212013 N .. multiply by the Compton wavelength of the electron, you get .511 MeV. I thought this was a strange coincidence: F(binding_electron) * (alpha^4/4) meters = 1.503e-10 J

How about a ground state hydrogen atom's quarks Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI'm just thinking there should be a way to calculate the strong force between quarks (in proton) with it's relativistic energy. Wouldn't a quark's bond strength be equal to its hadrons mass-energy?

Between quarks.

Is it possible to calculate the magnitude of the strong force in newtons?