Any comments about Gryzinski free-fall atomic model?

[Duda Jarek]

I've recently found that after Bohr model there was introduced by Gryzinski classical model in which electrons make almost radial free-fall trajectory to the nucleus, which due to magnetic moments is bent by Lorentz force and so the electron goes back to the initial distance.

This model is a natural consequence of classical scattering theory developed by the author.

In almost 20 peer-reviewed papers in the best journals he claims to show that these using just Coulomb and Lorentz force models give really good agreement with experiment (in opposite to Bohr).

These conceptually simple calculations were verified and approved by many world class reviewers, so one could think that such impressive models should be well known ...

... but surprisingly I cannot even find any constructive comments about them ???

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model

 

I'm very interested at finding some serious comments about these finally agreeing with experiments modern classical models?

Have you even heard about them? About someone working on them?

[swansont]

It was introduced in the 1960's. Was it better than quantum theory at that point? Being better than the Bohr model is a relatively low hurdle.

[Duda Jarek]

The problem with QM is that Feynman words:

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"

probably still applies - don't you see a problem in that the foundation of our understanding is unconceivable?

 

From the other side we have classical mechanics - intuitive, natural, without any controversies - don't you think that to finally understand QM it should be helpful to see what using just classical Coulomb and Lorentz law really leads to - take it to the limits of applicability and look closely to see what is still missing for 'full QM'?

Especially that there is still used Bohr model to understand, calculate different phenomenas - there is commonly used Bohr radius ...

So I think it should be useful to be at least aware that the history doesn't end on Bohr and Sommerfeld what is generally believed, but there are also modern classical models, which have been showed in well peer-reviewed way to get much better agreement to experimental results ... sometimes even better than QM (like in http://www.cyf.gov.pl/gryzinski/teor7ang.html )

 

In 'classical' picture, electrons are localized object, like on these photos of atoms: http://www.mizozo.com/tech/09/2009/15/first-picture-of-an-atom.html - we can measure where exactly single electrons were before being tear off.

Classically point-like electron starts moving on some trajectory around, stabilizing thermodynamically own statistics (using some complicated deterministic motion) to expected probability density (maximizing entropy) and finally is tear off by potential - natural thermodynamical model: Boltzmann distribution among possible trajectories says that this stabilized probability density (time average) is exactly the same as for the lowest quantum state (similar to Feynman path integrals).

Brownian motion is good enough approximation of this finally mathematically correct thermodynamical model - it works for diffusion in liquids, but is no longer sufficient for fixed structure of defects in solids: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41659

 

We can look at coupled pendulums through their positions (classical picture), but also through their normal modes - that their evolution is 'superposition of rotations of phases' in this eigenbase of evolution operator (quantum picture).

Taking a lattice of such pendulums, we get crystal with phonons.

Now make infinitesimal limit - we get a field theory, like waves on water, GRT, EM, Klein-Gordon, QFT - if we go to 'normal modes' - eigenbase of evolution differential operator - we get 'superposition of rotations' - quantum picture - like interference of 'classical' waves on water.

It's because these PDE are hyperbolic - 'wavelike' - in all these theories the basic excitations are waves.

 

We can see classical mechanics as a result of quantum (like in Ehrenfest theorem) - maybe it's also in the opposite way - maybe they are just equivalent?

These modern classical atomic models make some of the way for seeing QM no longer as only inconceivable dogmatic theory, but for example as naturally emerging in mathematically clear and natural field theories.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Duda Jarek

[swansont]

It's a fallacy to assume that nature has to be understandable to us. Rework Feynman's quote: I think I can safely say that nobody understands nature. That's why scientists have jobs.

 

It's pretty obvious that the model has a nonzero angular momentum for the ground state, since the electron completes a path around the nucleus in three oscillations. "Intuitive and natural" does not overcome "wrong"

[Duda Jarek]

I haven't looked at these models closer yet, but the number of reviewers of world class journals who verified and approved these papers showing good agreement with different types of experiments (e.g. different scatterings, energy levels, magnetic properties, ... ) of what consequences of Coulomb and Lorentz force really are, suggests that a simple counterargument won't 'prove' that they are just wrong ...

To do it, in science there are needed e.g. further simulations and comparisons with experiments ... it's why I'm asking if someone has an experience with them ... ?

 

I'm not saying that nature has to be understandable, but rather that there is dangerous and well known from history social phenomenon: that when people believe that they cannot understand something, they for example introduce Zeus to explain lightning ... having such 'explaination' suppresses further search ... I believe scientists should be very careful about such giving up in difficult situations - it's kind of accepting 'intelligent design' ... do you disagree?

So before giving up understanding, we should for example take what we do understand to its real limits of applicability - in my opinion situation in which the general belief of scientific society is that history of models of atoms we can understand has ended almost a century ago ... while there in fact are practically unknown much better modern models ... is just sick.

As a scientist, I believe that to understand something 'inconceivable', the basic approach is to really deeply understand consequences of what we do understand - the essence of 'inconceivability' has to be hidden somewhere in what this fully exhausted picture is still missing.

Modern history of physics shows that this basic approach not only have been neglected ... but even seems like it has been silenced ... it's not about obsolete Bohr model people should be learned first!

 

So do you believe we should just give up trying to understand inconceivable dogmas of QM?

If not - isn't really deep understanding of full consequences of what we can be really sure of (like Coulomb and Lorentz force) the basic approach?

[swansont]

I'd rather learn the models that agree with experimental results than the ones that don't. QM describes nature.

[Duda Jarek]

Great discussion ... like talking to a wall ... who is saying that QM doesn't describe nature????

We generally know that natural, understandable field theories (like GRT, EM .. but also Klein-Gordon, QFT) quite often also agrees with experiments ... and these many papers from the best journals strongly suggests that classical picture of atoms can give much better agreement than it is generally believed ... so maybe they are just two different views on the same ????

I see it's not about arguments - you just have deep internal faith that common classical picture couldn't be equivalent with glorious inconceivable quantum mechanics ...

 

I've said some of my arguments ...

For both quantum mechanics and field theories (linearized), the basic evolution is unitary, untrue?

But QM has additionally decoherence ... which in modern view is believed not to be out of unitary picture, but thermodynamical consequence of interaction with environment, untrue?

Classical thermodynamics: that when we cannot trace particle, we should assume Boltzmann distribution among possible trajectories, leads to going to the lowest Hamiltonian eigenfunction (with nonzero projection), untrue?

It explains decoherence and for example makes that stable orbits while stochastic perturbation shifts toward the nearest quantum state...

 

Do you have at least one CONCRETE ARGUMENT to support your faith? Why these pictures cannot be just equivalent?

If not, I'm still counting for some concrete comments in topic ...

[swansont]

Great discussion ... like talking to a wall ... who is saying that QM doesn't describe nature????

 

Then how is it dogmatic?

 

 

We generally know that natural, understandable field theories (like GRT, EM .. but also Klein-Gordon, QFT) quite often also agrees with experiments ... and these many papers from the best journals strongly suggests that classical picture of atoms can give much better agreement than it is generally believed ... so maybe they are just two different views on the same ????

I see it's not about arguments - you just have deep internal faith that common classical picture couldn't be equivalent with glorious inconceivable quantum mechanics ...

 

…

 

Do you have at least one CONCRETE ARGUMENT to support your faith? Why these pictures cannot be just equivalent?

If not, I'm still counting for some concrete comments in topic ...

 

 

"Great argument," indeed, when you rely on strawman arguments and appeal to ignorance. You get nowhere on a science site complaining that a scientific theory is faith and/or dogma. QM is the theory that agrees with the evidence. It did not come about by ritual and burning of incense, it came about because it was the best fit to experimental results. That you appear to find it mystifying or distasteful is insufficient reason to abandon it. There is only one metric for measuring whether a theory works, and that is its agreement with how nature behaves.

 

If you have a classical theory that you wish to advance as equal to QM, the burden of proof is upon you to show that the theory predicts the result of experiment to the same or better precision — all of them, not just a select few. These pictures are not equivalent until you jump those series of hurdles. I've already noted that Gryzinski's model appears to have an incorrect prediction of angular momentum for the Hydrogen ground state. I don't know how he gets around that. But this is not my problem to fix. Stop pretending that it is.

[Duda Jarek]

Angular momentum? - but when electron is on the farthest position, it just stops: has zero angular momentum - situation here is much more complicated...

For example when a cat fall down upside down - even if it looks like breaking angular momentum conservation, the cat is able to rotate ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_righting_reflex

It can be modeled by two cylinders ... similar 'problem' we have in sports, especially jumps to water ...

The point is that angular momentum conservation doesn't really forbid complex objects with zero angular momentum to rotate: like a cat, a jumper ... or proton-electron system.

 

Anyway, however we will call different properties of a system, the real agreement we get with experiment - and it is what the author showed in his many papers ...

[michel123456]

Great discussion ... like talking to a wall ...

there are ears behind the wall. Eyes actually.

[Duda Jarek]

Would humanity get to this point by developing mythology/metaphysics - because explanation of lightning using Zeus worked?

Or maybe we've got here because they slowly and consequently expanded what was understandable?

 

No connections? Really?

While particle physicists know well that they are extremely small, in QM they are just blurred clouds and then there is mystical "zaaaaap" and voila: there appears chosen (by? 'out of physics': supernatural forces? Universe splits to parallel ones?) one of new blurred clouds ... and by definition we just cannot improve that picture - imagine what's happening behind the curtains ... why? Heisenberg's commandment?

But uncertainty principle gives only restrictions for measurements, which unavoidably influence system ... where does it says that internal dynamics is also uncertain about itself? That the picture is blurred not only for the observer but also for physics?

 

So what happens when someone shows that we shouldn't give up so early - that we can sharpen this blurred picture - see concrete motion behind it - that we can think about finding concrete dynamics of these 'moderns lightings' - expand what we do understand ... ?

... sounds 'crashing on a wall of fanatics who believed that their glorious unconceivable understanding of nature by definition cannot be improved' familiar from history?

 

These models are not to deny QM, but to explain it by sharpening its blurry picture - so that we can not only experience its misterium, but maybe finally understand it - not as artificially introduced, but as naturally emerging.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Duda Jarek

[Duda Jarek]

Quantum mechanics says that while photoemission, electron is one probability cloud, then there is some mystical phenomena and there is instantaneously(?) chosen (by? out of physics: supernatural? splitting universe into parallel ones?) one of new probability clouds ...

We are finally reaching measurement precision to see that it isn't really instantaneous:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100630110910.htm

 

So maybe there is some internal dynamics behind it - QM isn't fundamental theory, but only practical idealization and so we can sharpen its probabilistic picture ... like imagine concrete electron trajectory behind it, which from particle physics is believed to be extremely small ...

Heisenberg uncertainty restricts measurement capabilities - does it say that the picture is also blurred for physics - internal dynamics?

That we cannot model it - imagine what's going on behind the curtain?

 

Even in double-slit or Stern-Gerlach experiment we imagine concrete trajectories ... aren't they also governed by Coulomb and Lorentz law?

Why we cannot imagine them behind probability cloud of orbitals?

Edited August 28, 2010 by Duda Jarek

[Duda Jarek]

What is speculative about it? - Coulomb law? Lorentz law? their natural consequences verified and approved by many world class reviewers? that cat can turn in air with zero initial angular momentum? these new optical measurement from Science showing that quantum SPECULATION that collapses are instantaneous is just wrong ... ????

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/5986/1658

Please anybody explain why it was moved ????

 

Speculation: 'opinion/reasoning based on incomplete information: a conclusion, theory, or opinion based on incomplete facts or information' (from http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861711484/speculation.html )

Edited August 28, 2010 by Duda Jarek

[DJBruce]

I don't know the exact reason this thread was moved, but I do know the forum has this resource:

Why Was My Post Moved to Speculation?

Edited August 28, 2010 by DJBruce

[Duda Jarek]

Ok - let's look at this link:

'objective criticism' - I had to miss it?

'No maths' - it's about approved and verified mathematical consequences, results of simulations of Coulomb and Lorentz law...?

'Incomprehensible' - these laws and way for searching for their consequences can be found in elementary books...?

'You are contradicting accepted science' - doesn't glorious quantum mechanics says that particles have also corpuscular nature? Particle physics that electrons are extremely small? It's exactly about their trajectories ... ?

'No evidence' - these peer-reviewed papers show good agreement with many different kinds of experiments ... ?

'No physical basis' - I would understand saying that QM founders didn't have experimental basis to know that wavefunction collapse isn't simultaneous, so they've assumed it as practical idealization ... but models from this topic are more recent and didn't need any such speculations - their basis is just Coulomb and Lorentz law ... ?

'Obvious errors' - I thought I've explained the problem with angular moment using a cat (can be even Schroedinger's)?... is there something more?

'It's not science' - they don't try to convince that each wavefunction collapse like photoemission is 'out of physics' or splitting universe phenomena, but just oppositely - show that we don't need any new exciting explanations - that we can even try to look at internal dynamics of such processes using standard, noncontroversial physics ... ?

'I have evidence, from this book and article' - there are some peer-reviewed papers from the best journals listed in Wikipedia article I've linked, but there can be easily found more of them... ?

 

I have to admit that I still don't understand why it was moved?

Edited August 28, 2010 by Duda Jarek

[DJBruce]

How do you explain this failing of this model,

 

Gryzinski's (1965;72) free-fall atomic model is tested by being used in classical calculations on electron capture in fast collisions between protons and hydrogen atoms. It is found to be unsatisfactory.

"Classical Free-Fall Model", D R Bates and E Snyder

 

If Gryzinski's model is correct and useful why after almost 50 years has it not been accepted as credible science, and is viewed more as pseudoscience?

[Duda Jarek]

Great - extremely scientific description 'unsatisfactory' on one paper means that understandable noncontroversial physics has to land in pseudosicence?

As I've read in Gryzinski's lecture - he improved later his original models from 1965: http://www.cyf.gov.pl/gryzinski/teor5ang.html

These calculations just required computers and probably they are still simplified - there is a place for improvement ... when I was young I believed that science is about expanding what we do understand ...

 

By the way: do you find quantum mechanical description of dynamics behind wavefunction collapse like photoemission satisfactory?

[DJBruce]

Great - extremely scientific description 'unsatisfactory' on one paper means that understandable noncontroversial physics has to land in pseudosicence?

 

Well I would say one such description for a theory that is widely accepted would not be a problem. However, for a theorem that is noncontroversial because it is generally excepted as pseudoscience such a description would be very damning.

 

These calculations just required computers and probably they are still simplified

 

Where are you pulling this from? I didn't see any mention to computers in the page you linked to. Not to mention the fact that there were definitely computers in the late 1960's and the 1970's

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

I moved it. When you changed the course of the thread from discussing a particular model to discussing possible internal dynamics of QM, and your dissatisfaction with it, was when this became speculation. QM is mainstream. Untested alternatives to it are not.

[Duda Jarek]

DJBruce, You've confused me, so I had to look at dictionary once again: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pseudoscience

pseudoscience - " A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation."

 

Which of: charge, Coulomb law, magnetic moment, Lorentz law, Lagrangian mechanics ... are considered to be without scientific foundation?

If you want, here is a nicer set: out of physics collapses, splitting universes, infinite vacuum energy density creating virtual particles, infinite masses not always magically renormalizable, momentum chosen randomly (conservation?), almost pointwise particles are probability clouds, cat is simultaneously dead and alive, there are only subjective physics of different observers, nonlocality, indeterminism, a dozen of basic interpretations, which everybody not understand in own way, ...

 

And do you imagine comprehensive search as on e.g. fig. 2,3 from the link to be made by a few persons not using modern computers?

 

swansont, do you mean the Science article? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/5986/1658

So is quantum mechanical description of dynamics of photoemission satisfactory?

Does being a theory mainstream means that it's satisfactory?

What is untested about Coulomb, Lorentz law and Lagrangian mechanics?

Edited August 28, 2010 by Duda Jarek

[Bignose]

D. Greenberger, K. Hentschel, F. Weinert, eds., 2009. Compendium of quantum physics, Concepts, experiments, history and philosophy is a book that describes many of the experiments with results supporting QM. In order for the Gryzinski to be considered equal, it needs to be able to predict to the same accuracy the results of every experiment QM predicts. Until that is accomplished, QM is the clearly superior model because it describes more accurately. When a model comes along that describes more accurately than QM, then QM will be supplanted. This is how it has worked the entire history of science.

 

This thread is being called pseudoscience, because it is not following the entire history of science. A model that does NOT predict things as accurately as a current one is being called equivalent. But, science does not agree with that statement. Science only acknowledges two models as equals if they each describe things to similar accuracy. When one model disagrees with experimental evidence to such a large amount, it is not equal to another that describes a lot of experimental results accurately.

 

So, again, unless the Gryzinski can be shown to describe every result QM does to the same level of accuracy, then QM is the superior model. To call it by anything else is not science, hence pseudoscience.

[DJBruce]

DJBruce, You've confused me, so I had to look at dictionary once again: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pseudoscience

pseudoscience - " A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation."

 

Which of: charge, Coulomb law, magnetic moment, Lorentz law, Lagrangian mechanics ... are considered to be without scientific foundation?

If you want, here is a nicer set: out of physics collapses, splitting universes, infinite vacuum energy density creating virtual particles, infinite masses not always magically renormalizable, momentum chosen randomly (conservation?), almost pointwise particles are probability clouds, cat is simultaneously dead and alive, there are only subjective physics of different observers, nonlocality, indeterminism, a dozen of basic interpretations, which everybody not understand in own way, ...

 

Lets look at Paul Thagard's criterion for defining psuedoscience:

 

A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: [228]

 

1. it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but

2. the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations.

 

In this specific case the questions are:

 

1. Has Gryzinski's free-fall model been as progressive and quantum mechanics?

2. Have those believing in the theory made significant attempts in solving the theories problems, evaluating it in relation to quantum mechanics, and been selective in their acceptance of evidence?

 

The answer to question one is a resounding no. In no way has Gryzinski's model come close to the amount of progress made by quantum mechanics. The level of progress between the two is not even comparable.

 

The answer to question two is also a no. Gryzinski has failed to compare the success of his theory to that of quantum mechanics. Instead he simply belittles quantum mechanics without acknowledging its success. Your reaction to being show a paper that dis confirms Gryzinski's theory shows well the level of selectivity in the community of the theorems believers.

 

So by Thagard's criteria Gryzinski's free-fall model is pseudoscience. Add the fact that it is generally outside of mainstream physics and is discounted my virtually all reputable physicist means it is definitely pseudoscience.

[Duda Jarek]

Bignose,

So let's look at Gryziński's lectures, for example in http://www.cyf.gov.pl/gryzinski/teor7ang.html there is compared both calculations for hydrogen molecule.

Quantum calculations (H.Haken, H.Ch.Wolf, Molec. Phys. and Elem. of Quant. Chem. p. 45-51, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995) need heuristically modifying standard approach, introducing fitted succeeding artificial coefficients to get agreement with experiment ... comparable with what is get straightforward using just Coulomb and Lorentz force ... how would you comment it?

 

And generally look at first posts - it's not about saying that only one them is true!

We know that QM imply classical picture (e.g. Ehrenfest theorem) ... it's about seeing them equivalent - as just different pictures of the same ...

Like that we can see evolution of coupled pendulums through their positions (classical picture), or through their normal modes: eigenstates of evolution operator - in this eigenbase evolution is literally 'superposition of rotations of coordinates' - unitary (quantum picture).

 

I've heard many things here, but still no concrete counterarguments - so I ask again: why do you believe that these pictures cannot be just equivalent?

That quantum orbitals are not just simple mathematical representation of some stable dynamical state (like in nuclear shell model) - that these probability densities cannot be sharpened - became governed by physics: deterministic, like seen as made by concrete trajectories?

What about corpuscular nature of particles? Extremely small size of electron as particle? Seeing double-slit, Stern-Gerlach through concrete trajectories governed by Coulomb, Lorentz law?

 

DJBruce,

His classical scattering theory was widely used (like 450 citings) and I haven't seen nonpositive comments about it (?)

His atomic models are natural consequence - just succeeding scatterings from nearby .. and the only nonpositive comment I've found is this enigmatic 'unsatisfactory'.

One of goal for this thread was to understand this situation - why these understandable, noncontroversial finally working modern successors of well known Bohr model are just unknown and not developed further?

Doesn't this 'discussion' itself suggest that it's rather a sociological problem? - please give me one concrete argument why they cannot be just equivalent?

Edited August 28, 2010 by Duda Jarek

[Bignose]

Doesn't this 'discussion' itself suggest that it's rather a sociological problem? - please give me one concrete argument why they cannot be just equivalent?

 

I never said that they couldn't ever be equivalent. But, it is true that today there aren't equivalent.

 

Again, you need to show that the Gryzinski model can reproduce every calculation that QM can, to similar accuracy. Until that happened, they are not equivalent.

 

The supporters of the Gryzinski model need to do this. It isn't up to the QM people to show where Gryzinski is wrong. It is up the Gryzinski supporters to show that their model is as good or better.

 

But, until that happens, they aren't equivalent. Science prefers the model that is better at predicting more -- whether they use "fitted coefficients " or not. No more, no less.

 

If you truly want to have the Gryzinski model viewed as equivalent, may I suggest you start posting the many thousands of predictions that the Gryzinski model does as well as QM. Again, I gave you a reference as a start to show the experiments and the predictions QM gives which demonstrates how closely they agree. Until the Gryzinski is demonstrated to predict every single one of those, then is will always be viewed as lessor by science.

[Duda Jarek]

He continued this way you propose as long as he was alive: look e.g. here http://www.ipj.gov.pl/~gryzinski/hydrogen_atom%20html.htm

I'm planning to start working on different 'classical' model in near future - soliton particle model like skyrmion, but modeling not only single particles, but with promising correspondence of structure of solitons and their interactions to the whole particle menagerie (natural expansion of quantum phase concept/stress tensor: ellipsoid field - between too abstract skyrmions and too simple optical vertices - 4th section of http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724 ) ...

Such solitons are simultaneously spatially localized (corpuscular nature) and have 'internal periodic motion' (like precession of spin): wave nature - sometimes it's essential to be somewhere and sometimes to 'fit with own phase' for interference-like effects ...

... but I would also like to take a closer look, make simulations myself of these classical atomic models ...

 

This way: reproducing ALL experiments seems as quite a lot of work and computer power, especially for small number of persons ... and honestly: would anybody really looked at it (if now nobody do it) ...

As a mathematician you should know well that there is also much shorter way to show equivalence of two theories: compare their bases, not consequences!

 

Ok, I will repeat myself (look at first posts for more details):

For both quantum mechanics and field theories (linearized, in eigenbase of evolution operator), the basic evolution is unitary, untrue?

But QM has additionally decoherence ... which in modern view is believed not to be out of unitary picture, but thermodynamical consequence of interaction with environment, untrue?

Classical thermodynamics: that when we cannot trace particle, we should assume Boltzmann distribution among possible trajectories, leads to going to the lowest Hamiltonian eigenfunction (with nonzero projection) - similar calculus as Feynman path integrals for imaginary time - this simple, natural thermodynamical model has 'squres' against Bell's intuition ...

It explains decoherence and for example makes that stable orbits while stochastic perturbation shifts toward the nearest quantum state...

 

So again: What is still missing to get 'full QM' - equivalence of bases of both theories?

 

And generally: doesn't the need of introducing heuristic fitted coefficients suggest that theory is far from perfect?

Doesn't bother you the basic technique while quantum calculations: adding succeeding guessed terms with fitted coefficient?

Would really fundamental theory need something like that?

Edited August 28, 2010 by Duda Jarek