Atomic Orbitals

[swansont]

The bottom line is that it works, so the empirical evidence is that it can be used to describe the atom.

[ivylove]

Representing an electron that has a mass with a massless electric field does not physically work.

[Fuzzwood]

Besides the fact that you can use the theory to make predictions that match the physical world. Are you at some point trying to introduce an electric universe, by any chance? Just asking a question.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Fuzzwood

[swansont]

Representing an electron that has a mass with a massless electric field does not physically work.

That's not happening, and

 

What is "physical" about an equation?

[Strange]

Not my area of expertise but doesn't relativistic field theory (the Dirac equation) take mass into account?

[ivylove]

First Schrodinger does not derive or represent "Schrodinger's wave equation" in his 1926 paper; Schrodinger depicted a wave function that represents an electric wave that has a constant maximum amplitude. Furthermore, Schrodinger, Bohn nor Heisenberg derived the equations of the atomic orbitals. At some later time, an extremely inconsequential unknown person derived the equations of the atomic orbitals since none of the said participants would knowingly transgress the original de Broglie matter wave structure (which the atomic orbital structures violate) that is one of the founding principles of quantum mechanics.

Edited July 13, 2017 by ivylove

[Mordred]

You know that is a weird statement as under action The Schrodinger equations do account for mass.

 

Perhaps you can tell us how you define mass as obviously it isn't how physics defines mass.

 

I get the impression your thinking of mass as some matter density term instead of "Resistance to inertia change"...

 

Which quite frankly would be fundamentally important as to probability wave functions. How can you possibly design a probability of position without accounting for mass?

 

Obviously you can't.

 

Tell me all those articles you ever read under Schrodinger equations. Did you never see the Hamilton equations being applied? It is those very equations that account for mass...

 

It is also obvious you didn't even read the article I posted above. The first 7 equations specifically shows how the mass term is applied....

 

I strongly suggest you sit down and actually study the mathematics behind the Schrodinger equations before posting these false assertions.

 

For starters the Schrodinger equation for a hydrogen atom includes the mass term in the first term of the equation.

 

[latex]{-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Delta^2-\frac{Ze^2}{r}}\psi r=E\psi r[/latex]

 

Funny how you didn't see the mass term of that equation even I specifically told you to look at that equation.

 

[latex]-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}[/latex]

 

What did you think the m stands for if not mass in that equation?

 

That should have been painfully obvious if you had looked at the Schrodinger equation for atoms.

 

It took a considerable effort to find a low simple mathematical coverage of Schrodinger as applied to an atom.

 

The least you could do is actually look it over.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Mordred

[ivylove]

#28 The prediction that a massless electric field cannot be used to represent the structure of an electron that has a mass is patently false. Also, electric and magnetic fields do not physically exist since a field is associated with matter. Example, a finite volume that contains the ostensible electromagnetic field represents an infinite number of positions. When each position is represented with an electromagnetic field (energy) vector an energy divergence is formed. The ether particles limit the number of positions forming a finite energy but the ether, composed of matter, does not physically exist which proves Maxwell's electromagnetic theory that quantum mechanics is essentially defending is physically invalid.

Edited July 13, 2017 by ivylove

[Mordred]

I just posted the equation for you.

 

Massless particles is not part of the system under discussion. You have two massive particles.

 

The electron and the proton.

 

Stick with the correct application of Schrodinger for the system under discussion.

 

Massless particles has nothing to do with atomic orbitals unless your including virtual exchange bosons.

 

The article I posted is VERY clear on how science went from the Bohr model to the Schrodinger model of the atom.

 

1)start with Bohr

2) apply Keplers laws

3) apply spherical harmonics for the Heisenburg uncertainty.

 

Voila the equation posted above.

 

The steps are all in that article. READ IT...

#28 The prediction that a massless electric field cannot be used to represent the structure of an electron that has a mass is patently false. Also, electric and magnetic fields do not physically exist since a field is associated with matter. Example, a finite volume that contains the ostensible electromagnetic field represents an infinite number of positions. When each position is represented with an electromagnetic field (energy) vector an energy divergence is formed. The ether particles limit the number of positions forming a finite energy but the ether, composed of matter, does not physically exist which proves Maxwell's electromagnetic theory that quantum mechanics is essentially defending is physically invalid.

there are so many errors in this statement I don't even know where to start.

 

Lets start with the obvious mass is not matter. Nor is it a property restricted to matter.

 

Mass under physics is "resistance to inertia change" that resistance can be applied to BOTH matter and force fields.

 

The strength of two fields coupling to one another gives you the mass term. Have you never heard of electromagnetic mass???

 

Its been around in physics longer than the Bohr model itself.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass

 

 

"In physics, mass is a property of a physical body. It is the measure of an object's resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied. It also determines the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction to other bodies. The basic SI unit of mass is the kilogram"

 

here is the physics definition of mass

Edited July 13, 2017 by Mordred

[swansont]

The physical basis for Lorentz contraction is also false, and yet the equation drops out of relativity.

 

Also, focusing on where the equation started is a mistake, if you ignore where it ended up.

[Mordred]

I should also add a field is any collection of values under geometry. While I am mentioning proper definitions under physics.

 

"In physics, a field is a physical quantity, typically a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time"

 

The term physical does not mean material. You need to apply the physics definition of physical. Though unfortunately that definition isn't as clear cut.

 

Loosely it is any measurable quantity/relation or system that can be described under physics.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Mordred

[ivylove]

#29 You have stated that Schrodinger is not representing an electron's structure that has a mass with a massless electric wave of the wave function but quantum mechanics is based on de Broglie's electron wave. Furthermore, Schrodinger is stating that he is in fact equating the structure of an electron with an electric wave:

 

 

"The theory is reported in the following pages is based on the very interesting and fundamental research of L. Broglie' on what we call "phase waves" and thought to be associated with the motion of material points, especially the motion of electron or proton. The point of view taken here, which was first publish is a series of German papers, is rather that material points consist of, or are nothing but, wave systems. This extreme conception may be wrong, indeed it does not offer as yet the slightest explanation of why only such wave systems seem to be realized in nature as correspond to mass-points of definite mass and charge. On the other hand the opposite point of view, which neglects altogether the waves discovered by L. de Broglie and only treats the motion of the material points, has led to such grave difficulties in the theory of atomic mechanics and after century-long development and refinement that it seems not only not dangerous but even desirable, for a time at least, to lay an exaggerated stress on its counterpart. In doing this we must of course realise that a through correlation of all features of physical phenomena can probably be afforded only by harmonic union of these two extremes." (Schrodinger, p. 1049-50).

 

 

Schrodinger's statement "a through correlation of all features of physical phenomena can probably be afforded only by harmonic union of these two extremes" suggests that Schrodinger's is representing the structure of an electron that has a mass with the wave function.

Edited July 14, 2017 by ivylove

[Mordred]

I have to ask. Do you know the difference between invariant mass and inertial mass?

 

Your biggest confusion is how mass is defined.

 

As long as this confusion exists you will never understand how Schrodinger equations work.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Mordred

[studiot]

You are also missing out the boundary conditions.

 

No differential equation can be used without these.

 

In particular I started to explain Eise's diagrams which explain in what context ( ie under what boundary conditions) this is true

 

 

Schrodinger is stating that he is in fact equating the structure of an electron with an electric wave:

Edited July 14, 2017 by studiot

[swansont]

#29 You have stated that Schrodinger is not representing an electron's structure that has a mass with a massless electric wave of the wave function but quantum mechanics is based on de Broglie's electron wave.

 

 

I can't find where anyone but you has mentioned de Broglie.

 

The electron has no structure. The solution for the hydrogen atom is for the atom, not the electron.

 

Schrödinger's derivation includes mass, so I fail to see how you can validly claim that his result doesn't work for massive particles.

 

This was the first paper on the subject. What is the utility in attacking it as if it was the later, refined result?

[Mordred]

I think he may be referring to equations 21 to 29 Of the article I posted above.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.umich.edu/~chem461/QMChap7.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwibhrbC_oTVAhXhyoMKHSjVCOgQFggtMAQ&usg=AFQjCNGb61ArfRFhBsDYVwvvsfmRoVO8QA

 

However his confusion seems to stem from a misguided view that the mass term only applies to a corpuscular view of particles. Ie matter.

 

However I am only guessing as his posts are rather lacking in any detail.

 

I hope I am interpreting his posts correctly as to that being his source of problem with the Schrodinger model of orbitals.

 

Ie he is visualizing the electron as a corpuscular matter bullet instead of knowing that all particles are field excitations.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Mordred

[ivylove]

#30 Your statement is suggesting that Dirac's equations solve the mass problem of Schrodinger's massless electric wave that is used to represent the structure of an electron that has a mass. Dirac's equations are based on Maxwell's theory that is founded on Faraday's induction effect yet induction is represented with a massless electromagnetic field that cannot be used to represent the structure of an electron that has a mass. Basically, the same problem that exists in quantum mechanics regarding the mass exists with Dirac's equations which appear to be a scientific regurgitation of Schrodinger's wave equation. In addition, an electromagnetic field does not physically exist since a finite volume that contains an electromagnetic field represents an infinite number of positions; when an infinite number of positions is represented with an electromagnetic field vector (energy) an energy divergence is produced. The ether, composed of matter, limits the number of positions producing a finite energy but the ether unfortunately does not physically exist (vacuum). Furthermore, an electromagnetic field expands as time increases; consequently, a electric field that is used to represent the structure of an electron cannot maintain a particle structure as time increase yet Thompson experiment proves an electron has a discrete particle structure which conflicts with the continuous and dispersing structure of an electromagnetic field. Also, you indicate relativity as part of Dirac's equations to justify the electron em mass problem which I am assuming that you are referring to Lorentz and Einstein transformations that are based on the constant magnitude of the earth's tangential velocity vector px first introduced by Lorentz (1899) but as time increases the earth's tangential velocity vectory px (Lorentz, Sec. 3) is not constant and varies from 462 m/s to 30,462 (6:00 pm - 12:00 am) which proves Lorentz-Einstein relativity is also physically invalid and cannot be used to justify quantum mechanics. Also, Lorentz (Lorentz, Sec 9) and Einstein (1917) (Einstein, Sec. 15) are justifying the existence of Fresnel's ostensible optical ether, composed of matter (solid, liquid or gas), to address the energy divergence problem of Maxwell's electromagnetic field that I have patently elaborated on in this post yet the optical ether composed of matter clearly does not physically exist (vacuum) which prove Maxwell's electric field that is used to represent the structure of a quantum mechanic electron via Schrodinger's wave function that represents an electric wave is physically invalid. Do you agree?

Edited July 15, 2017 by ivylove

[swansont]

Seems to me that you're arguing that if something has mass, it shouldn't be able to be described by the wave equation. Which is ridiculous.

[studiot]

This is my last attempt to hold a conversation.

 

I was going to present this with lots of explanation, but since you never reply I will just present a bald derivation of Schroedinger in one dimension, using Planck, De Broglie, mass and mechanics as appropriate. I shall use standard greek letters except for using f for frequency instead of nu to avoid confusion with v for velocity.

 

The (classical) standard wave equation in one dimension is

 

[math]\frac{{{\partial ^2}\phi }}{{\partial {x^2}}} = \frac{1}{{{v^2}}}\frac{{{\partial ^2}\phi }}{{\partial {t^2}}}[/math]

Edit equation corrected.

In order to separate the variables write the solution as the product of a function of x and a function of t.

Select the function of t to periodically return to zero and be finite everywhere.

 

[math]\phi \left( {x,t} \right) = \psi \left( x \right)\sin \left( {2\pi ft} \right)[/math]

Substitution this solution into the original equation yields

 

[math]\frac{{{\partial ^2}\psi }}{{\partial {x^2}}} + 4\frac{{{\pi ^2}{f^2}}}{{{v^2}}}\psi = 0[/math]

The total energy of a travelling particle is equal to the sum of its kinetic energy and its potential energy.

 

[math]E = KE + PE = KE + U[/math]

and the kinetic energy equals the square of the momentum divided by twice the mass.

 

[math]KE = \frac{{{p^2}}}{{2m}}[/math]

Thus

 

[math]E = \frac{{{p^2}}}{{2m}} + U[/math]

or

[math]p = \sqrt {2m\left( {E - U} \right)} [/math]

 

So substituting into Plancks theory

 

[math]\lambda = \frac{h}{p} = \frac{h}{{\sqrt {2m\left( {E - U} \right)} }}[/math]

But the wavelength is also equal to

[math]\lambda = \frac{v}{f}[/math]

So substituting into the separated original wave equation

 

[math]\frac{{{\partial ^2}\psi }}{{\partial {x^2}}} + \frac{{8{\pi ^2}m}}{{{h^2}}}\left( {E - U} \right)\psi = 0[/math]

 

Which is Schroedinger's equation in one dimension.

Edited July 16, 2017 by studiot

[ivylove]

#32 Schrodinger did not derive the equation depicted as "Schrodinger's equation". Schrodinger derives a wave function in section 8. An unknown physicist derived the modern physics version of Schrodinger's equation.

 

 

 

- (h^2/2m) delta" Y(x,y,z) + V(x,y,z) +V(x,y,z)Y(x,y,z) = EY(x,y,z)..................1

 

 

 

Schrodinger's wave function is a solution to Schrodinger equation (equ 1)

 

 

 

Y = sum c u exp[(2piEt/h + a)i].........................................................................2

 

 

 

In post #37 I have posted Schrodinger's description of the structural unification of an electron with an electron electric wave that is depicted by Schrodinger's wave function; also, Schrodinger's wave equation contains the variable of the electron mass (m). Schrodinger is representing the structure of an electron that has a mass with a massless electric wave in the derivation of the wave function using Schrodinger wave equation; consequently, Schrodinger is attempting to avoid this malfeasance of physical reality by not directly deriving Schrodinger's equation that is the origination of the wave function which represents the structural unification of an electron with an electric field. Schrodinger skillfully presents all the components for the derivation of Schrodinger's wave equation but Schrodinger does not acturally derive Schrodinger's equation. Next, you suggest that there are more then one kind of mass but the mass being represented in Schrodinger's paper is the mass of an electron that forms a kinetic energy which conflicts with the quantum mechanic energies represented with Planck's energy element (hv). Next your post describes a probability yet Schrodinger (1926) does not mention a probability in his paper. Schrodinger represents an electron electric wave with the wave function which is not an electron position probability that is used in modern physics and being used to replaces Schrodinger's electric wave because of the mass catastrophe. Represent the structure of an electron that has a mass with a massless electric wave is a physical catastrophe. In addition, Schrodinger uses a Hamilton operator in his paper but a Hamiltonian is used in classical mechanics; consequently, using a Hamiltonian suggests that an electron's energy is being represented with the kinetic energy but the result of quantum mechanics is a wave function that is represented with an electric wave or electron probability wave that energies are represented with Planck's energy element (hv) but the energy of a electron is dependent on the kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2). Also, the equations of the atomic orbitals are some of the most important equations of modern physics yet the original derivation of the equations of the atomic orbital is not available. Can you explain what is going on?

Edited July 18, 2017 by ivylove

[ivylove]

#34 You state that "Massless particles are not part of the system under discussion." but representing an electron that has a mass with an electric field is the foundation of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics began with Lenard's photoelectric effect that proves light is composed of particles; Newton's prism that produced a optical spectrum also proved light is composed of particles which conflicts with the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field since as a light beam propagates the optic particles that compose a light beam form spaces between optic particle that distances between optic particles increases which would eliminate the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field but more importantly to the discussion of quantum mechanics as an electromagnetic field propagates an electromagnetic field expands! This expansion catastrophe can also be applied to an electron when the electron is represented with an electric wave because ultimately the expanding electric field would eliminate the particle structure of an electron. Because of this you strenuously insist on focusing on Schrodinger's wave equation regardless of the facts presented but Schrodinger did not derive the ostensible equation known as Schrodinger's wave equation in his celebrated 1926 paper. Schrodinger derives a wave function that is used to represent an electric wave which represents the extremely important and malicious structural unification of an electron that has a mass with a massless electric field and may be the reason for your collective and continuous reluctance to accept Schrodinger's wave function and to concentrate on Schrodinger's wave equation that is representing the structure and mass of an electron but doing so represents a myoptic view of reality. In addition, an electric field that is represented with Schrodinger's electric wave does not physically exist since between the boundaries of an electric wave there are an infinite number of positions. When each position is represented with an electric field vector (energy) and infinite energy is formed which proves Schrodinger's electric wave does not physically exist. Furthermore, the energy of an electron is represented with the kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2) which conflicts with the energy of Schrodinger's electric wave that is represented with Planck's energy element (hv). Moreover, Planck's energy element is representing the energy of an electromagnetic photon emitted by the blackbody yet quantum mechanics is based on Planck's blackbody derivation. Plus, quantum mechanics also uses the gauge which is based on Maxwell's equations. To be continued of Post #34.

Edited July 18, 2017 by ivylove

[studiot]

So which is more attractive

 

Science forums where the rude members ignore you when you put in serious effort on their behalf?

 

or

 

Another glass of single malt?

 

Cheers

Edited July 18, 2017 by studiot

[ivylove]

Please wait your turn.

[Mordred]

On a forum discussion it is everyone's turn.

 

Let us know when you understand the proper meaning of mass in physics. Until then we are wasting our time trying to help you.

 

In other words study the difference between rest or invariant mass ie massive particles vs massless particles that has no invariant mass but has inertia mass via the energy momentum equation.

 

Unless your willing to accept that extremely well tested understanding you will never accept GR nor QM.

 

You will always remain stuck thinking of Newtonian physics. Which cannot explain gravitational redshift.

 

We have posted to you the correct models, your refusal to understand how GR and QM works is your issue not ours. You even claim Maxwell is wrong because it uses QM and GR.

 

Thats your problem to figure out. The professional scientific community states you are wrong.

 

Both Studiot and I provided the mathematics showing how the mass term is applied to massless particles. The Schrodinger equation I posted earlier included the mass term.

 

Its your problem if you refuse to understand Studiots post and the article I posted not ours.

Seems to me that you're arguing that if something has mass, it shouldn't be able to be described by the wave equation. Which is ridiculous.

I agree it is ridiculous but that is what he is claiming.

 

Ivy you also claimed Maxwell equations are wrong.

 

So I challenge you to explain how signal propogation delay works without using Maxwell.

 

That is a clear cut example of how electromagnetic fields interfere with each other and cause delays. So go ahead show us your model without using Maxwell.

 

Go ahead apply your solid point mass term and produce the correct waveform signals without using any waveforms for the two fields.

 

Or are you going to simply claim two massless fields cannot cause signal delays. When every electrical and electronic device tells you your wrong.

Also, electric and magnetic fields do not physically exist since a field is associated with matter

Fine then show this is true with an inductor or capacitor. Use strictly mass and no waveform and give us your model of propogation delay.

 

Go ahead use no photons as a vector boson and use strictly massive electrons.

 

For that and I will prove it wrong by showing that electrons do not flow through a copper wire at near the speed of light. The mass term of the electron will not allow such speeds in an electrical wire.

 

The only way you can get electrical signals to transmit through a wire at near c is to use massless particles.

 

The photon.

 

A very simple proof is that the proton and electron has two distinctly different masses. So it is impossible for the bi- directional signal in AC current to be at the same speed in any medium. So much for your objection of a massless field being involved in the flow of charge.

 

Those are clear everyday examples of where you are wrong. The flow of charge current is not the flow of electrons and protons. It is the flow of photons that interfere with the spin of the electrons and protons.

 

Massless particles that cause changes to the angular momentum of massive particles.

 

If your idea was correct then AC current would not be at the same speed from negative to positive and vice versa. So much for the electromagnetic field not existing....The mediator being the photon.

 

Now apply the same medium properties to an atom. Include the rate of change. You will find you require a massless mediator.

 

Anyways The Schrodinger equations nor the Maxwell equations are not the end of research.

 

There is far more advanced studies than anything you have posted thus far. Lets list them.

 

1) Rabi oscillations/resonance

2) Rotating wave approximation (RWA)

3) Optical Bloch equations

4) Jaynes Cumming Hamiltonian

5)Larmors Theorem

 

 

Oh and lets not forget how good ole parity is also affected.

 

why Rabi oscillations have been directly observed in diamond atoms and they use Schrodinger....

 

https://www.google.ca/search?client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-browser&biw=360&bih=338&ei=tJ1uWZ9KwfKPA_6-n-AK&q=Rabi+oscillations+pdf&oq=Rabi+oscillations+pdf&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..0.2490.18429.0.19328.47.35.5.1.1.0.222.4297.2j29j1.32.0....0...1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..14.30.3613.3..35i39k1j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i10k1j0i20k1j0i13k1j0i13i30k1j0i22i30k1.9G8q8Dtx5Qg

Edited July 19, 2017 by Mordred

[ivylove]

A quick response to post #49: to the quote "Seem to me that you are arguing that if something has a mass, it should not be with a wave equation".

 

 

This quote is a complete and utter deception since water has a mass and can be represented with a wave equation. The essence of my statement is that an entity that has a mass such as an electron or a proton cannot be represented with an electric field by leaving out that Schrodinger is representing an electron with electric field with the above statement is unethical and patently unfair.

 

 

The next is regarding the quote by the author of post #49 "So I challenge you to explain how a signal propagation delay works without Maxwell". First, I sincerely urge you to enunciate your statement with a bit more clarity since it is difficult for me to interpret the exact meaning of your statement if care is not exhibited in the construction of the wording. Henceforth, I will attempt to interpret the meaning of your statement with:

 

 

So I challenge you to explain how an electromagnetic radio wave propagates without Maxwell's theory via Maxwell's electromagnetic field.

 

 

First, I do have an explanation (I will present it in the long version of the response to this post) but even if I did not it is worthy and moral not to knowingly present false theories that are based on contradictions to explain something that physicists cannot explain which is being done regarding Maxwell's theory and the formation and propagation of radio waves. Why cannot physicists say that they do not know? Because if they were on the right path they would figure it out and since they are not they pretend to be by adamantly supporting Maxwell's theory in almost total conditioned blindness to the facts. Physics is extremely important to society as a whole since the advances of physics bring prosperity to civilization. We have been living off the laurels of the past physical achievements. Normally, failure of the society creates the changes that advances the society (dark ages) since the financial and social humiliation of people who are in control of the structure of physics and filter to the government which also extends to the moral and ethical parts of society brings inspiration (sun is the center of the solar system) but in this case an monumental effect my have been constructed before the said failure has occurred which is unprecedented. We should feel hopeful and celebratory for this extremely important fact that is achieved out of the normal order presented and controled by God. He must be a person that looks at the whole of society even the Arabs would probably agree maybe not.

Edited July 19, 2017 by ivylove