Why don't we build the model of hydrogen atom independently by QM?

[ambros]

Ok, thanks. Now I have something to read about, though my dislike for "zero" is general, I do not like to see that value as a result of any measurement. I think zero might not even exist as a number, that's how much I don't like it.

[Jeremy0922]

Spectroscopy only makes sense in light of the QM solutions.

 

Spectroscope is produced by the change of atomic and molecular structure, and can be explained by the consequence from Schrödinger equation. That means the mathematical expression Schrödinger equation describes the relationship between the electromagnetic radiation and physical quantities while the structure change. Therefore, Schrödinger equation is a condition equation of the change of atomic and molecular structure.

 

In my manuscript, it was proved that there is a natural steady circular orbit (ground state) of the electron for isolated hydrogen atom according to electromagnetism. When the resonance of the ground orbit takes place, hydrogen atom is at an excited state with higher energy. This effect is so-called modal response of hydrogen atomic structure by means of structure mechanics, and the modal frequencies of the electronic orbit are determined by the ground state and the mechanical properties of central-field caused by the proton.

 

By classical theory, the two-body system of hydrogen atom could be described by the model of the electron with reduced mass rotates around proton. The ground circular motion of the electron could be described by motion equation or orbit equation, and standing wave equation could be also selected to treat the circle orbit because the circle orbit may be understood as a special standing wave with wavelength 2πr and invariable amplitude r (r is the radius of the circle orbit). It is easy to get the equation of the ground electron in form of standing wave, and the modal frequencies of ground orbit of the electron could be deduced from solution of that standing wave equation. In this case, the standing wave equation of the electron is mathematically introduced to treat the resonance of the ground orbit, but doesn’t mean the electron moves as a standing wave.

 

For ground state of hydrogen atom, if we select the ground orbit of the electron as reference to describe the other modal orbits, the radius of ground orbit of hydrogen atom (bohr radius a0) becomes a physical constant and unit for description of other modal orbits, and Schrödinger equation of hydrogen atom would be deduced from the ground electronic equation in form standing wave. Meanwhile the mathematical relations were also obtained, E=hν, Planck constant h is related to bohr radius of hydrogen atom, charge and reduced mass of electron.

 

Therefore, the resonance equation of ground hydrogen atom in form standing wave is equivalent to Schrödinger equation, and the physical quantities from Schrödinger equation should be expressed by that of ground state of hydrogen atom. The solution of Schrödinger equation is relative result comparing to that of ground state of hydrogen atom.

 

For complex atoms, the motions of the electrons are similar to hydrogen atom, and could be treated with central-field model. So, the solution of hydrogen atom provides the foundation for description of the complex atoms.

 

By my opinion, quantization phenomenon in atomic and molecular world is related to the resonance effect of their orbit structure. To select the ground state of hydrogen atom as reference, this phenomenon could be describe with Schrödinger equation, and Planck hypothesis is a certain mathematical relation with it.

[ambros]

Jeremy0922, where can I find your manuscript and can you explain how do you model your orbitals, what equations and theory you use?

[Jeremy0922]

Hi! ambros

you can find my manuscript at http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48176

I hope you give me your idea

[ambros]

Hi! ambros

you can find my manuscript at http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48176

I hope you give me your idea

 

Ok, I went through "091117.pdf" and I see many familiar things there. Let me study it a bit and I'll give you my opinion about it.

 

 

 

There is nothing new in "my idea", I'm doing electron orbitals just like planetary orbits, with Newton's laws of motion and kinematics equations using Coulomb's force instead of Newton's gravity equation.

 

What I am doing differently than anyone else, ever, is that I included MAGNETIC interaction too and I'm doing it in 3D, dynamically not statistically, so with magnetic fields these start to look differently than planetary orbits and you get electrons to attract due to magnetic force when you expected them to repel due to electric force - given certain orientation, distance and velocity - and hence classical electrodynamics predicts electron coupling, which I believe has to do with Pauli exclusion principle and what not.

 

I explained much of what I do here in this thread, where the most interesting thing is classical prediction of electron-positron helical trajectories that look exactly as one would expect electromagnetic wave (photon) to look and behave, including net el. charge of zero and ability to polarize their plane of oscillation either linearly or circularly: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50010&page=2

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Ok, we are doing almost the same thing.

 

The difference is I do not want to be considering any additional effects like radiation until I can get all the *classical* dynamics in there first. I'm talking about magnetic spin dipole moment, which I can not properly simulate.

 

I hope some clever experiment might give me some idea how to include this 2nd magnetic interaction due to spin dipole moment, at least as approximation, and only then if I do not get accurate atomic model, only then will I seek to include radiation or whatever additional effect and new physics.

 

So, my advice would be to drop all of the Maxwell's equations as they can not deal with point charges, concentrate on Coulomb's law, Biot-Savart law and Lorentz force. But, in any case we are both left with the same problem in either case - MAGNETIC SPIN DIPOLE MOMENT - very, very hard to account for and yet it may have some significant contribution to the whole affair that is going on within "electron cloud". For example this spin dipole interaction may be what is causing what you call "pinch".

 

What are the average velocities you get for electrons in different orbitals?

Edited March 26, 2010 by ambros
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

In my manuscript, it was proved that there is a natural steady circular orbit (ground state) of the electron for isolated hydrogen atom according to electromagnetism.

 

Models prove nothing. They can only be confirmed by experimentation. What does your model predict for the ground state hyperfine structure?

[Jeremy0922]

There is nothing new in "my idea", I'm doing electron orbitals just like planetary orbits, with Newton's laws of motion and kinematics equations using Coulomb's force instead of Newton's gravity equation.

This is one of the important factors to understand the motions of charged particles system with negative energy. As a classical mechanical system, the energy conservation and mechanical relationship among the charged particles must be considered.

The difference is I do not want to be considering any additional effects like radiation until I can get all the *classical* dynamics in there first. I'm talking about magnetic spin dipole moment, which I can not properly simulate.

Radiation of charged particles should be considered firstly, because the system will be unsteady if the radiation can not be counteract within system.

Effect of spin of charged particles is very impotant for solution of the system, if we consider a steady state of your model, the frequency of spin should be equal to (natural number times of ) the frequency of orbit. In this case, your problem may be simplified.

So, my advice would be to drop all of the Maxwell's equations as they can not deal with point charges, concentrate on Coulomb's law, Biot-Savart law and Lorentz force. But, in any case we are both left with the same problem in either case - MAGNETIC SPIN DIPOLE MOMENT - very, very hard to account for and yet it may have some significant contribution to the whole affair that is going on within "electron cloud". For example this spin dipole interaction may be what is causing what you call "pinch".

It is not convenient for us to apply the Maxwell's equations to deal with charged particles. The electric and magnetic interactions among the moving charged particles could be treated with model of point charges and changing electric current elements by classical electromagnetics laws. If the forces on the particles in cluding radiation reactions are solved, the mechanical and energy equation of system could be get to analyze the relative problems.

What are the average velocities you get for electrons in different orbitals?

From the consequence from Schrödinger equation, we could obtain some physical quantities such as energy, frequency and radius of the electron, and the solution of modal functions, in the case of resonance of ground orbit occurs. In principle, the parameter of modal orbits could be deduced from them. for ground circular orbit of hydrogen atom, the velocity of electron could be obtained from its energy.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Models prove nothing. They can only be confirmed by experimentation. What does your model predict for the ground state hyperfine structure?

In my manuscript , I have proved by means of classical theory

The current understanding about electromagnetic radiation of moving charged particle is wrong, and

there is an steady natural orbit for hydrogen atom, and

steady Schrödinger equation of hydrogen atom could be deduced from orbit resonance of ground state hydrogen atom

 

The effect of spin of the electron and rotation of orbit will be considered to obtain more precise model of hydrogen atom, this is our further work to be treated and the spectroscopy of charged particle system with negative energy such as atom and molecule will be explained one by one.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Jeremy0922
Consecutive posts merged.

[vuquta]

It behaves like that whenever we can actually see it or measure it, in bubble chambers and electron beams for example. It is only when we can not "see" and properly measure it that we say to not know its motion, which is reasonable, but it is not sufficient argument to refute what is otherwise very usual and commonly observed kind of motion for electrons.

 

 

 

 

Schrödinger equation would work even if trajectories are continuous, you can use it to describe planetary orbitals too. I think that equation can even be used to predict weather, or wash clothes and cook dinner.

 

 

 

 

It would be hard to discredit QM in such way because it is statistical description of the database of many measurements, but that still does not prevent it to have incorrect interpretation of those results and observations, it also does not mean we are not oblivious to some error or whatever we have missed to discover so far. In any case, I do not think 'continuous trajectories' are fundamentally incompatible with QM.

 

 

Q: If electrons are not continuously "sliding", then they must be moving by the means of "appear-disappear" kind of thing, which seem rather strange as electrons would need to be "nowhere" at certain points in time, so can this be explained and is this what QM thinks is the motion of electrons in atom orbitals?

 

What a good post.

 

I wonder why you misinterpreted my posts.

 

You have correctly identified the problem in physics between continuity and quantum.

 

Those on the side of quantum will naturally see precision since all their equipment is finite.

 

They therefore assume reality is quantum. In reality their theory is a self fullfulling prophecy based on the finite ability of real world measure.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

In my manuscript , I have proved by means of classical theory

The current understanding about electromagnetic radiation of moving charged particle is wrong, and

there is an steady natural orbit for hydrogen atom, and

steady Schrödinger equation of hydrogen atom could be deduced from orbit resonance of ground state hydrogen atom

 

The effect of spin of the electron and rotation of orbit will be considered to obtain more precise model of hydrogen atom, this is our further work to be treated and the spectroscopy of charged particle system with negative energy such as atom and molecule will be explained one by one.

 

 

How do you validate the bold above with a finite experiment?

You cannot just say it.

[Jeremy0922]

How do you validate the bold above with a finite experiment?

You cannot just say it.

 

Of course, any scientific theory must fit to the experimental observation and science rule.

 

The conception of probability wave will not give a certain image of atom, and make the world become into a black cloud of charged particles.

 

My model above is from classical mechanics and classical electromagnetic laws and conceptions proved by experimental observations.

[swansont]

Of course, any scientific theory must fit to the experimental observation and science rule.

 

The conception of probability wave will not give a certain image of atom, and make the world become into a black cloud of charged particles.

 

My model above is from classical mechanics and classical electromagnetic laws and conceptions proved by experimental observations.

 

They are concepts that don't hold at the quantum level, and this has been demonstrated countless times in the past ~hundred years.

 

Is there anything new to discuss?

[Jeremy0922]

Physicists should face the mistakes and courage to correct it.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Jeremy0922

[swansont]

I frankly don't see how fantastic agreement between experiment and theory can be considered a mistake.

[ambros]

Is there anything new to discuss?

 

Are QM equations based on Coulomb's force and properties of electric fields?

 

Is there apparent relation of orbitals and inverse square law in QM equations?

 

From Bohr model it seems the charges in atom orbitals still obey known forces?

 

E field conserve energy, exchange is between potential and kinetic energy only?

[ajb]

Are QM equations based on Coulomb's force and properties of electric fields?

 

Is there apparent relation of orbitals and inverse square law in QM equations?

 

The non-relativistic way to deal with this is to take the Schroedinger equation for a particle in an electrostatic potential. This will give you quite good agreement with the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom. We think of the electron sitting in the electrostatic field of the nucleus.

 

(You can then add spin-orbit couplings and relativistic corrections like the fine structure.)

 

Anyway, the "orbitals"-electron wave functions are tied to the form of the potential and can be written in terms of the Laguerre polynomials and spherical harmonics. Have a look at the wikipedia.

[Jeremy0922]

The non-relativistic way to deal with this is to take the Schroedinger equation for a particle in an electrostatic potential. This will give you quite good agreement with the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom. We think of the electron sitting in the electrostatic field of the nucleus.

 

But, everyone kowns the nucleus is moving. According to the interpretation of probability wave, the motion of the nucleus will be random, then the electrostatic field of the nucleus will be random too.

[Sleeping Troll]

In the scope of the Begy atomic model the structure of hydrogen is a singular exception to the structure of all other atoms... perhaps you might benefit from my discussion of the Begy theories?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Please keep your personal hypothesis to its own thread for now. We try to avoid answering questions about mainstream science with nonstandard speculative hypotheses.

[Jeremy0922]

In the scope of the Begy atomic model the structure of hydrogen is a singular exception to the structure of all other atoms... perhaps you might benefit from my discussion of the Begy theories?

 

The structure and linear spectrum of hydrogen atom can be explained completely in terms of classical mechanics and electromagenetic conception without any additional hypotheses. I believe it is a misunderstanding for the resonance of orbits of charged particles in hydrogen atom to be explained by particle wave daulity and matter wave, which is caused by the misunderstanding of the radiation of moving charged particle system with negative energy.

 

It is necessary for scientist in the world to rethink the current undrerstanding about electromagnetc radiation of moving charged particle, because that is the foundation to cognize the phenomenon related to light, including Lorentz transformation and Schrödinger equation.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Jeremy0922

[swansont]

The structure and linear spectrum of hydrogen atom can be explained completely in terms of classical mechanics and electromagenetic conception without any additional hypotheses.

 

You've admitted that you have not done so, since you have not predicted the hyperfine structure. So this isn't true.

[Jeremy0922]

You've admitted that you have not done so, since you have not predicted the hyperfine structure. So this isn't true.

 

The effect of electron spin on the energy of hydrogen atom and the interaction among orbits for complex atoms and molecules should be considered to give more specise models about matter structure, and will explain and predicted the hyperfine spectrum of them one by one. The couples of spin-orbit of electron and orbit-orbit of electrons could be introdruced to treat them.

My manuscript is only the first step to give a classical electromagnetic structure for atom, molecule and solid-state matter.

[truedeity]

Copenhagen interpretation doesn't really seem to serve justice for a counterargument. In reference to your original post I think you have come around on a framework for identifying unchangeable individuals... LOL.

[Jeremy0922]

Copenhagen interpretation doesn't really seem to serve justice for a counterargument. In reference to your original post I think you have come around on a framework for identifying unchangeable individuals... LOL.

 

 

Any interpretation about quantum mechanics or wave function, should be able to get the center field model for atom by its conception. That is necessary for reliable theory, but none of the current interpretations about quantum mechanics can do it.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Jeremy0922