Jeremy0922 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) According to my understanding, in a hydrogen atom, electromagnetic radiation is independent of the electro motion state, and the energy levels of the hydrogen atom on. At the ground state, whether the electron produces radiation? Edited July 23, 2014 by Jeremy0922
xiaojun Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 At the ground state, whether the electron produces radiation? Electron acceleration with a radiation, it and the electron in hydrogen atom jumps between radiation produced differentiated
Jeremy0922 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 Electron acceleration with a radiation, it and the electron in hydrogen atom jumps between radiation produced differentiated How do we understand the ground state of the H atom is steady?
Sensei Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 At the ground state, whether the electron produces radiation? It would violate conservation of energy, if electron would forever emit photons. It would means that electron has infinite amount of energy (which is obviously not true).
Jeremy0922 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 It would violate conservation of energy, if electron would forever emit photons. It would means that electron has infinite amount of energy (which is obviously not true). Yes, this problem has not be solved by present theories, so we must consider the interactions among radiations and charged particles in H atom for proving there is a steady state.
Sensei Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Yes, this problem has not be solved by present theories, so we must consider the interactions among radiations and charged particles in H atom for proving there is a steady state. You turned mine answer upside down...
xiaojun Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 It would violate conservation of energy, if electron would forever emit photons. It would means that electron has infinite amount of energy (which is obviously not true). Electronic energy released no larger than the electron carries energy Yes, this problem has not be solved by present theories, so we must consider the interactions among radiations and charged particles in H atom for proving there is a steady state. I don't know what you write, but according to some words to express my personal opinion, it may also produce some misunderstanding解
Jeremy0922 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 I don't know what you write, but according to some words to express my personal opinion, it may also produce some misunderstanding解 OK, you could uderstand my opnion from my paper and posts
Strange Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Yes, this problem has not be solved by present theories. Not true. This is yet another bit of evidence for the quantum model that you are simply dismissing because it contradicts your personal belief.
Jeremy0922 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 Not true. This is yet another bit of evidence for the quantum model that you are simply dismissing because it contradicts your personal belief. Please tell me how to explain there is a ground state of H atom by QM.
Strange Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Please tell me how to explain there is a ground state of H atom by QM. You mean you don't understand the theory that you claim is wrong? How can you say it is wrong, if you don't understand it?
Jeremy0922 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 You mean you don't understand the theory that you claim is wrong? How can you say it is wrong, if you don't understand it? Don't misunderstand my question, Please explain the ground state of H atom by QM.
Strange Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) Don't misunderstand my question, Please explain the ground state of H atom by QM. Maybe you should post a question in the physics section of the forum if you are interested in learning something about physics. Edited July 23, 2014 by Strange
Jeremy0922 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 Maybe you should post a question in the physics section of the forum if you are interested in learning something about physics. That means you can not explain!
Strange Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 That means you can not explain! It certainly means I cannot explain. But I am quite sure there are people here who can. Which is why I suggest you ask in the appropriate section of the forum (in the unlikely event that you are interested in learning).
swansont Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 The QM solutions to the Hydrogen atom give you energy eigenstates. There is a lowest energy. That is the ground state. Claiming that QM does not explain this is ludicrous.
Jeremy0922 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 The QM solutions to the Hydrogen atom give you energy eigenstates. There is a lowest energy. That is the ground state. Claiming that QM does not explain this is ludicrous. No，Schrödinger equation and E=hv are only assumptions, the solution from them is assumption too.
Sensei Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 E=hv are only assumptions, the solution from them is assumption too. See thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84357-how-to-calculate-planck-const-at-home/ post #5 and #26 how you can calculate Planck const from just a few electronic elements and voltmeter, ampere meter etc.
ajb Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 No，Schrödinger equation and E=hv are only assumptions, the solution from them is assumption too. Sure, but ths is a well-tested assumption that agrees with nature well. What is the point you are trying to make?
Jeremy0922 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 Sure, but ths is a well-tested assumption that agrees with nature well. What is the point you are trying to make? The mathematical results are ringht, but I need the interpretation in physics.
swansont Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 No，Schrödinger equation and E=hv are only assumptions, the solution from them is assumption too. You can't ask for a QM explanation and then reject it because it uses QM. The mathematical results are ringht, but I need the interpretation in physics. QM is part of physics.
Jeremy0922 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) You can't ask for a QM explanation and then reject it because it uses QM. QM is part of physics. I think the mathematical methods in QM are effect, but some new concepts are wrong. I want to express: It is serious mistake for us to deny Classical theories. Edited July 23, 2014 by Jeremy0922
Strange Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 The mathematical results are ringht, but I need the interpretation in physics. But you reject the interpretation. I want to express: It is serious mistake for us to deny Classical theories. Ah. Bless. No one is denying classical theories where they are appropriate. As you are not able to show that classical theories can explain the photoelectric effect, black body spectrum, the nature of electron orbitals, entanglement, etc. etc. I think we can simply ignore your wishes.
swansont Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 I think the mathematical methods in QM are effect, but some new concepts are wrong. I want to express: It is serious mistake for us to deny Classical theories. If the classical theories do not match experiment, it is imperative that you deny them. Clinging to models that are demonstrably wrong puts you outside of science. There is no "us" in this case. There is you, and there is the group doing science. 2
Jeremy0922 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) If the classical theories do not match experiment, it is imperative that you deny them. Clinging to models that are demonstrably wrong puts you outside of science. There is no "us" in this case. There is you, and there is the group doing science. The "two puzzle cloud" that deny classical theory is a mistake. Schrödinger equation and E=hv, which are mathematic tool to be applied to solve the linear spectrum of H atom, could be deduced from classical theory. Therefore, the structure and the spectrum of the hydrogen atom can be solved by Classial theory. I insist It is serious mistake for us to deny Classical theories. Edited July 23, 2014 by Jeremy0922
Recommended Posts