What can change the Bohr radius in an atom

[Dovada]

Is it possible to cause a change the the value for the Bohr radius? What needs to be done to effect a change if it's possible to be changed?

[granpa]

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

[Dovada]

I am sorry I did not clarify what I meant to say.

 

Excitation of an electron is not what I was referring to. I realize that adding energy in the form of a photon strike causes the electron to change orbital state. This excited is considered somewhat unstable.

 

What I really meant to ask is, can for example the Bohr radius be changed to say a percentage of the original value. i.e. 78% or 132% and be maintained.

 

If this is possible, how could it be achieved?

[granpa]

read the article again

[Dovada]

I do not understand how that article helps. Would you point the relevant areas in the article that apply?

[granpa]

In semiconductors, the dielectric constant is generally large. Consequently, electric field screening tends to reduce the Coulomb interaction between electrons and holes. The result is a Wannier exciton,[4] which has a radius larger than the lattice spacing. As a result, the effect of the lattice potential can be incorporated into the effective masses of the electron and hole. Likewise, because of the lower masses and the screened Coulomb interaction, the binding energy is usually much less than a hydrogen atom, typically on the order of 0.01eV. This type of exciton was named for Gregory Wannier and Nevill Francis Mott. Wannier-Mott excitons are typically found in semiconductor crystals with small energy gaps and high dielectric constant

[Dovada]

Not sure if the answer I seek can be derived from these methods, but as you suggested I will (read the article again).

 

Thank you.

[granpa]

the answer is 'changing the dilectric constant'.

[pantheory]

Is it possible to cause a change the the value for the Bohr radius? What needs to be done to effect a change if it's possible to be changed?

Luckily we are in the Speculation forum. The Bohr model is a pretty cool model, and I think quite explanatory. Nowadays theory is less definitive.- in my opinion this is because observations do not enable such certain explanations because I think the understanding of reality has become much more nebulous. An electron is now considered to more akin to a cloud than to a definitive particle. In my opinion there is a great deal lacking in present theory that has not advanced at all since the proposal of the Bohr atom, even though we now know almost infinitely more about the atom and electrons since that time.

 

In fact an atom is vibrating a lot, the nucleus oscillates a lot, even at the lowest temperatures. The electrons are surrounded by a cloud of particles which are called virtual particles. The Bohr radii I think still make great theory but the dogma of such certainty is now known to be wrong. Instead the nuclei and electrons jump all over the place but maintain appropriate distances seemingly related to the original Bohr radii proposal. Basically I believe the current model is quite clueless. I think reality is closer to the Bohr model than is the present day model.

Edited October 10, 2011 by pantheory

[swansont]

The Bohr radius is a constant, and depends on constants. If you mean the radius of the first Bohr orbit, change the amount of charge in the nucleus, or change the electron out for another particle. That radius depends inversely on Z and m

[Dovada]

The Bohr radius is a constant, and depends on constants. If you mean the radius of the first Bohr orbit, change the amount of charge in the nucleus, or change the electron out for another particle. That radius depends inversely on Z and m

 

Hi swansont I am not sure of your use of z and m - is z referring to impedance and m mass.

 

My concern is regarding the nature of the Bohr radius (its cause). I have spent many years trying to discover the reason for its existence. You are right "The Bohr radius is a constant, and the mathematics for its existence depends on use of other constants".

 

This in my mind says that something is causing the constant called the Bohr radius, plus the fact that it is calculated using other constants expresses a concern that we really don't understand what is really behind what is controlling atomic behavior.

 

The fact all atoms share the same radius characteristic tends to indicate that the cause behind the Bohr radius is external to and common to all atoms.

 

For this reason I wanted to find out if anybody knew of what can vary the Bohr radius.

 

Logic says a physics forum is where the most educated minds in this area can be found so hence the question has been asked. Surely others have asked themselves the same type of questions.

[granpa]

the radius is determined by ħ, the angular momentum of the electron.

 

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

 

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

 

Edited October 11, 2011 by granpa

[Dovada]

Could ħ also be defined from external environmental conditions like:

 

Planck’s h-bar = (electron volt x (29,770/464.463))^2 = 1.054x10-34

 

Plank’s constant = (electron volt x (29,770/464.463))^2 x 2Pi = 6.626x10-34

 

Where:

 

electron volt is 1.602x10-19

solar orbital velocity = 29,770 in m/s

 

and

 

earths equatorial spin = 464.463 in m/s

 

I have looked at a lot of strange coincidences in the past.

It seems that the continual motion imposed on atomic charge particles is not considered in quantum mechanics.

[ajb]

Some of this coincidences are just due to the way people have defined various units.

 

Either way, relating various physical constants "numerically" cannot be a very useful exercise in general. You would need to have some physics describing why "constant X has anything to do with constant Y times Z". Otherwise, and especially if the units do not actually match, you are only doing numerology.

 

Predicting why Planck's constant is what it is would be a huge achievement, even just very heuristically.

[Dovada]

Why do we have to use constants in our atomic theory?

 

Consider this fact from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law

 

Coulomb’s law is fully accurate only when the objects are stationary, and remains approximately correct only for slow movement. These conditions are collectively known as the electrostatic approximation. When movement takes place, magnetic fields that alter the force on the two objects are produced.

 

From where I am sitting I see atomic charged particle contained with the earths atoms traveling at some 600,000 m/s which is c/500 times slower than the speed of light.

 

Atomic charged particles moving through the environment of space at this speed produce powerful magnetic fields. Powerful enough to seriously modify atomic behavior. How does the accepted atomic model cope with this condition? It needs to be modified by the use of physical constants.

 

Try to imagine for a moment a scientist travelling always facing backwards whilst travelling into the future, always looking where he has been and not looking directly where he is going. As he travels backwards new information is appearing to him on either side, which does not fit the already accepted assumptions or scientific models he has already entrenched into law. He then franticly speculates wildly, modifies these assumptions by saying if I add this number to the mathematical equation I can keep the precious scientific model I have and save face.

 

This question needs to be answered first "Why are we moving within the cosmos?" If we are to make any real headway in our scientific conquests.

[swansont]

Hi swansont I am not sure of your use of z and m - is z referring to impedance and m mass.

 

My concern is regarding the nature of the Bohr radius (its cause). I have spent many years trying to discover the reason for its existence. You are right "The Bohr radius is a constant, and the mathematics for its existence depends on use of other constants".

 

This in my mind says that something is causing the constant called the Bohr radius, plus the fact that it is calculated using other constants expresses a concern that we really don't understand what is really behind what is controlling atomic behavior.

 

The fact all atoms share the same radius characteristic tends to indicate that the cause behind the Bohr radius is external to and common to all atoms.

 

For this reason I wanted to find out if anybody knew of what can vary the Bohr radius.

 

Logic says a physics forum is where the most educated minds in this area can be found so hence the question has been asked. Surely others have asked themselves the same type of questions.

 

Z is the nuclear charge and m is the mass of the electron, or other particle that's attached to the — people have made muonic atoms.

 

The Bohr theory is wrong, but as far as the model is concerned, we know exactly what is causing the behavior. It's the electrostatic attraction between charges with the constraint that the angular momentum be an integral number of units of Planck's constant. The physical interpretation of that last constraint is that you have a standing wave of the deBroglie wavelength.

[ajb]

This question needs to be answered first "Why are we moving within the cosmos?" If we are to make any real headway in our scientific conquests.

 

Maybe the notion of measurements being relative would help. Look up Galilean relativity (sometime also called Newtonian relativity) and Einsteinian relativity.

[Dovada]

Every atom is subject to incredible external forces which it has to continually conform to using classical electrical theory:

 

The Bohr radius 5.291x10-11 meters may be calculated simply by using the following cosmic values:

 

Where:

 

Mean solar orbit velocity = 29,770 meters/sec

Galactic U velocity = 9,000 meters/sec

Galactic velocity = 600,000 meters/sec

Earth solar frequency = 1/499.0119 = 0.00200396 Hz = (c / radius distance sun-earth)

 

Bohr radius = ((√ 9,000) + 29,770) * 0.00200396 / (Pi * 600,000^2) = 5.2917x10-11 meters

 

Is the cosmos mimicking the atom or is the atom mimicking the cosmic conditions?

 

From this type of information it should be possible to predict some very interesting effects.

 

The object of presenting this information is to create an interest by other intelligent beings in looking at things in a different way, by including the atoms environment into the atomic model.

[swansont]

The huge difference between what you are doing and actual science is that the Bohr radius was predicted by the theory and then confirmed (it's the peak of the QM distribution), rather than conjured up by rearranging numbers until one arrived at the right answer. Why should the structure of all Hydrogen in the universe depend on rotational and the orbital characteristics involving an unremarkable planet gravitationally bound to an undistinguished star in the outer part of an ordinary galaxy? (keeping in mind that our rotational speed has slowed over time, so not only do you have to answer "Why?" but also "Why now?")

[Dovada]

The huge difference between what you are doing and actual science is that the Bohr radius was predicted by the theory and then confirmed (it's the peak of the QM distribution), rather than conjured up by rearranging numbers until one arrived at the right answer. Why should the structure of all Hydrogen in the universe depend on rotational and the orbital characteristics involving an unremarkable planet gravitationally bound to an undistinguished star in the outer part of an ordinary galaxy? (keeping in mind that our rotational speed has slowed over time, so not only do you have to answer "Why?" but also "Why now?")

 

The theory is a hundred years old and a lot more cosmic knowledge has come to our attention using infra red technology since then.

 

We need to remember that atoms on the earth cover the S.I. distance of 1 meter in less than 1/600,000 seconds.

It is for this reason an atom can change its internal electrical resonance to suit its environment. Meaning by changing the velocity of the atom, it can change its internal wavelength structures to suit its current environment, this also suggests its possible to change the Bohr radius.

 

The stability of the cosmic velocities ensure we have a reasonably stable atomic structure.

 

For this reason atoms share the same characteristics everywhere.

 

May I answer you on this point:

"rather than conjured up by rearranging numbers until one arrived at the right answer"

I repeat some of same the cosmic numbers again.

 

In addition to the previous statements the following empirical constant Big G can be calculated using the following two galactic values of 600,000 meters per second and the U velocity 9,000 meters per second.

 

Gravitational constant (big G) = (4.9015 / galactic velocity)^2

 

Big G = ((9,000/ (1836.151))/600,000)^2 = 6.673x10-11

 

The mathematical relationships between atomic structure, the empirical constants and the cosmic motion environment is outstanding, which can only be leading us to one inevitable conclusion; they are interacting under one single universal energy structure.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Dovada

[Dovada]

Just to help clarify and from a realistic point of view the quantum atomic model with its charged particles have to constantly and continually include the following set of cosmic motions.

 

Sidereal Rotation of the earth some 465 meters per second at the equator,

Earth mean solar orbit velocity 29,770 meters per second,

Our galaxy has a spin motion of 225,000 meters per second,

Our galactic motion through to cosmos 600,000 meters per second.

 

Additional to these spiraling motions, the galaxy also constantly presents the following U-V-W motions to the atoms of our solar system.

 

U is the inward 9,000 meters per second motion of the sun and our solar system toward the galactic center,

V is the 12,000 meters per second sun’s motion relative to other local stars around us,

and,

W is the 7,000 meters per second galactic plane vertical motion of our sun and its solar system.

 

Most physical constants can be defined by these values and in many ways these cosmic motions are defining the length width and depth of a single cosmic second for the atoms of the planet earth.

 

The world needs a new breed of physicist in the 21st century who has the clarity of mind to develop and interface our atomic model into functioning with the cosmic universe using classical electrical theory.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Dovada

[Dovada]

For the benefit of astronomers and physicists from countries like the USA and the UK that can or do often refer to cosmic motions, using the older imperial measurement system, instead of the newer SI decimal system need to note that:

 

The use of miles per second when referring to orbit or spin velocities of the planet earth and other galactic motions relating to the motion of the solar system, seriously masks out the possibility of relationships occurring with other areas of physics like atomic structure behaviour.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Dovada

[John Cuthber]

For the benefit of astronomers and physicists from countries like the USA and the UK that can or do often refer to cosmic motions, using the older imperial measurement system, instead of the newer SI decimal system need to note that:

 

The use of miles per second when referring to orbit or spin velocities of the planet earth and other galactic motions relating to the motion of the solar system, seriously masks out the possibility of relationships occurring with other areas of physics like atomic structure behaviour.

 

What on earth was the point of that double post? Nobody has used miles, parsecs yards etc in this thread.

Anyway, what you are doing seems to be numerology which has nothing to do with science.

[swansont]

Sidereal Rotation of the earth some 465 meters per second at the equator,

 

That's what it is today, but it used to be larger. Yet atomic structure is curiously unaffected by this; we can see the effects of atomic structure from distant stars and galaxies and we can put a limit on variations in the fine structure constant. In fact, the earth is currently slowing by a few msec/day, or around 1 sec/year, which means it's effect at around the 10^7 level. And yet the fine structure constant is not changing any more than a part in 10^15 per year. (http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/2238.pdf)

 

If anything having to do with atomic structure actually depended on the rotation rate of the earth, we would have seen it.

[Dovada]

One of the major influences on our earths atomic structure is the sun. It has a surface gravitational acceleration of 274 meters per second per second. If you could stand near the surface of the sun and start to fall toward the sun you would cover the distance of 137 meters in the first second or cover the SI value of 1 meter in 1/137 seconds. Is this just another coincidence.

 

Atomic activity on our planet has always been very sensitive to electromagnetic changes that occur within the cosmos. If the sun develops a hiccup (say a solar flare) then the atoms of the earth also hiccup. Fundamentally this is telling us that what happens within the cosmic environment also happens within our planet’s atomic structure.

 

If the earth spin is slowing down then what is causing this slowing down? (the sun?). And you say the period of time in a day is changing, then time and velocity are both changing, so which of these two platforms is your stable reference point.

 

If anything having to do with atomic structure actually depended on the rotation rate of the earth, we would have seen it.

You would have to be looking for it first! What actually causes the rotation of the earth?

 

where:

radius earth = 6,378,100 meters

wavelength of hydrogen = 0.21106 meters

 

Earth's spin = square-root((0.21106/(2*pi)) * 6,378,100) = 462.87 meters/sec

 

This indicates that the atom knows whats going on in the world and as usual it processes the energy needed at the only practical resonant value it can.

 

Do not say I am using the value of 0.21106 out of context because the earth made of atoms has a colossal cosmic velocity with the earths slow spin condition superimposed on it.