What can change the Bohr radius in an atom

[swansont]

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.

 

Yes, because the choice of the meter is arbitrary.

 

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.

 

Why do atoms elsewhere in the galaxy (and universe) behave the same way? The sun isn't close to them. For atoms sufficiently far away, the sun didn't even exist when they had the same structure that atoms on earth have now. How could it possibly be responsible for that 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.

 

Time is not changing. We do not rely on the earth's rotation to precisely measure time anymore, because it's a relatively poor clock.

 

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

 

That's the point: we were looking for it, and saw no change several orders of magnitude more precisely than the effect you propose. Your idea is falsified.

 

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.

 

No, it indicates that you are engaging in numerology.

[John Cuthber]

"One of the major influences on our earths atomic structure is the sun."

Nope, because we know that the atoms of other stars and (so far as we can tell) planets have the same structure.

"If the earth spin is slowing down then what is causing this slowing down?"

Tidal drag, not that it matters.

If your calculations come out exactly correct today then they will be wrong tomorrow.

If they are not exactly correct today then they are not a basis for a theory.

[Dovada]

Yes, because the choice of the meter is arbitrary.

Is the SI system also arbitrary? No it is a world accepted standard. Without a world accepted standard of communication we would be babbling.

 

Why do atoms elsewhere in the galaxy (and universe) behave the same way? The sun isn't close to them. For atoms sufficiently far away, the sun didn't even exist when they had the same structure that atoms on earth have now. How could it possibly be responsible for that atomic structure?

Everything in the local group of galaxies conforms to many of the same common velocity conditions. The formation of suns and solar systems everywhere deal with many identical cosmic energy structures, so why shouldn't they share in having common internal atomic structures. Do not assume that everywhere within the cosmos is identical to what we notice around our planet as this is speculatively naive.

 

Time is not changing. We do not rely on the earth's rotation to precisely measure time anymore, because it's a relatively poor clock.

Name a good clock.. I heard atomic clocks find their time keeping varies with velocity!

 

That's the point: we were looking for it, and saw no change several orders of magnitude more precisely than the effect you propose. Your idea is falsified.

You where looking in the wrong place. Anyway answer the question if you can "What actually causes the rotation of the earth?".

 

No, it indicates that you are engaging in numerology.

This is no where near to the amount of numerology in what I present to that being used in modern day physics by mathematicians.

 

Where did N=1 or N=2 or N=3 when referring to electron orbits in the quantum atomic model come from? (Numerology?)

 

The physics mathematicians looked for patterns in the physical structure of the atom and worked from there. All I have done is extended that same principle to include conditions outside in the atoms environment, based on one law.

 

“If you cannot take the atom out of the universe, then you cannot take the universe out of the atom!”

 

I do not want anything more than to draw your attention to the limited viewpoints associated with quantum theory and its poor interfacing with classical theory, such that there is most likely an alternative solution.

 

The planets and suns in-fact the whole galaxy and its local group of galaxies is moving in a uniform direction, ask yourself why? and how can this be happening? The energy and power needed to move every atom in the galaxy is immense, much greater than the power contained in the galaxies atomic structure. From this perspective I made the assumption that conditions found within the cosmic environment most likely control many of the atomic functions.

 

The quantum atomic model reminds me of a computer without an interface into the outside world. No interface means it can only talk to itself and to the people who speculatively created it.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Dovada

[swansont]

Is the SI system also arbitrary? No it is a world accepted standard. Without a world accepted standard of communication we would be babbling.

 

It is arbitrary. That we all agree to use the same arbitrary standard is driven by commerce, not science.

 

Everything in the local group of galaxies conforms to many of the same common velocity conditions. The formation of suns and solar systems everywhere deal with many identical cosmic energy structures, so why shouldn't they share in having common internal atomic structures. Do not assume that everywhere within the cosmos is identical to what we notice around our planet as this is speculatively naive.

 

You are using the earth's rotation rate which is not a constant (and neither are those other values) and cannot have an effect on distant systems. My statement that atoms are the same elsewhere is not just an assumption — it is something that is tested by astronomic observation. I don't think you really want to be playing the "naive" card here.

 

Name a good clock.. I heard atomic clocks find their time keeping varies with velocity!

 

We usually number them rather than name them, but I have four atomic fountain clocks and a larger number of hydrogen masers and even more cesium beam clocks within a few hundred feet of my desk. Their time does vary with speed, but you can account for that. Most of the clocks don't move, and time on the geoid is uniform — you only have to account for elevation.

 

You where looking in the wrong place. Anyway answer the question if you can "What actually causes the rotation of the earth?".

 

It's an artifact of conservation of momentum

 

This is no where near to the amount of numerology in what I present to that being used in modern day physics by mathematicians.

 

Where did N=1 or N=2 or N=3 when referring to electron orbits in the quantum atomic model come from? (Numerology?)

 

No, it was the solution to the Bohr model and then the Schrödinger equation. But you will note that these are solutions that the model generated, not numbers chosen to make some ratio work out. i.e. it was predictive and testable and had a physical basis, so even though the Bohr model is wrong, it was science rather than numerology.

[ajb]

This is no where near to the amount of numerology in what I present to that being used in modern day physics by mathematicians.

 

Where did N=1 or N=2 or N=3 when referring to electron orbits in the quantum atomic model come from? (Numerology?)

 

I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.

[Dovada]

I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.

They say crying is good for you. You will cry in the future as the physicists realize what they have overlooked.

 

In the past, our accepted quantum theory, which is primarily founded on the phenomena of particle wave duality, has created a lot of disagreement and frustration within the scientific community. Many scientists, including Einstein did not want to accept quantum theory and actively sought a more down to earth realistic explanation.

 

The reality that just a single positive integer number (n) i.e. n=1 or n=2 could mathematically solve this prediction that an electron should release electromagnetic radiation was unrealistic, but in the absence of more detailed cosmic motion data or other concepts being available at the time, there was no other solution that could work. Over the century this single positive integer number (n) i.e. n=1 or n=2 system became entrenched in the atomic model becoming an unshakable burden that irritated many physicists including Albert Einstein when he said “Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing” and again when he said “The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks”.

 

It is arbitrary. That we all agree to use the same arbitrary standard is driven by commerce, not science.

Confusion usually starts somewhere. We need to agree on something before we attempt to communicate.

The SI system is the world's most widely used system of measurement, which is used both in everyday commerce and in science. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

 

Most of the clocks don't move, and time on the geoid is uniform — you only have to account for elevation.

I have news for you and its all bad - Your clocks are moving - Not only on the surface of a spinning earth but a planet that spirals around a sun that is also spiraling around a moving galaxy.

 

It's an artifact of conservation of momentum

You believe our motion through the cosmos is basically ignorable within your quantum atomic model. Isn't this a bit one eyed? Really ask the questions, why are we in cosmic motion? How does the atom cope with cosmic motion? Using principles based on classic electrical theory should charged particles contained in atomic structure respond to this motion by forming electric current flow, and if this is the case it should be accounted for in our atomic model?

Edited October 17, 2011 by Dovada

[ajb]

In the past, our accepted quantum theory, which is primarily founded on the phenomena of particle wave duality, has created a lot of disagreement and frustration within the scientific community. Many scientists, including Einstein did not want to accept quantum theory and actively sought a more down to earth realistic explanation.

 

Einstein died in 1955. Lots of very talented and capable people have developed quantum theory since then.

 

In a more modern way of thinking, quantum theory is not founded on wave-particle duality but the noncommutativity of physical observables understood as operators on some Hilbert space. It is probably this algebra of operators that is the deep thing in quantum theory.

 

 

The reality that just a single positive integer number (n) i.e. n=1 or n=2 could mathematically solve this prediction that an electron should release electromagnetic radiation was unrealistic, but in the absence of more detailed cosmic motion data or other concepts being available at the time, there was no other solution that could work. Over the century this single positive integer number (n) i.e. n=1 or n=2 system became entrenched in the atomic model becoming an unshakable burden that irritated many physicists including Albert Einstein when he said “Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing” and again when he said “The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks”.

 

You have lost me.

 

The idea that radiation is quantised goes back to Planck (1900). The Schrödinger equation does not really tell us that all radiation is quantised, you need QFT for that, but rather that the interaction of atoms and the electromagnetic field is quantised. Solving the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom tells us that the bound energy states are discrete and can be described in terms of a quantum number n, which is know as the principle quantum number.

 

There are no physical bound states in between these states labelled buy n. Thus the exchange of energy between the electromagnetic field and the single electron of the hydrogen atom must be quantised. It can only happen in lumps and this is defined by the spectrum of the hydrogen atom.

 

It is amazing that such a simple model agrees with nature so well. Small corrections can be incorporated to make this even better.

 

Einstein's quote here is cute. It is a fact that even the more outlandish and counter intuitive predictions of quantum mechanics have been observed in nature.

Edited October 17, 2011 by ajb

[Dovada]

ajb - You seem to fail to understand me. The quantum atomic model has proved strikingly successful but it does not interface into classic electric theory properly. It is going to happen in the future that the quantum atomic model must evolve to overcome its present limitations.

 

1. It does not have the capacity to interface into the principles governing gravitation or explain the cosmic motion of atomic structure.

 

2. It does not explain what happens to the atom when it receives energy levels that are below or in-between the quanta level condition.

 

I realize you seem to disagree here:

There are no physical bound states in between these states labelled buy n. Thus the exchange of energy between the electromagnetic field and the single electron of the hydrogen atom must be quantized. It can only happen in lumps and this is defined by the spectrum of the hydrogen atom.

But these observations only define the spectrum in the area of electromagnetic radiation. The area below or in-between the quanta levels contribute to cosmic motion under the banner of gravitational acceleration. We do after all move for a reason.

 

The quantum atomic model needs to be developed further to enable it to interface and satisfy as yet much of the unsolved phenomena.

 

The purpose here is to stimulate new concepts and ideas that are worthy of discussion.

[ajb]

ajb - You seem to fail to understand me. The quantum atomic model has proved strikingly successful but it does not interface into classic electric theory properly.

 

 

Sure, this is why one needs to quantise the electromagnetic field itself. This is quantum field theory.

[Dovada]

Sure, this is why one needs to quantise the electromagnetic field itself. This is quantum field theory.

No - On the contrary it is the underlying quantum effect that needs to be understood better.

 

The base electromagnetic energy condition within the atom is set up by the cosmic motion environment, and needs to be overcome before the atomic particle (the electron) can change its energy state (orbit level).

Once this changed energy state occurs, the atom within the current environment can no-longer maintain that changed energy state, so the energy is returned to the environment in the form of emitting what is currently referred to as a photon of energy.

 

If energy is fed to the atom at a rate or level which is slower and below this cosmic motion energy state, then the atom can absorb the energy by changing its internal wavelength structures (for example Bohr radius) and subsequent cosmic velocity. It is in this manner that gravitational fields maintain cosmic motion of atomic matter in the form of moving planets, moons and stars etc.

 

It is important to understand that the energy rest state of atomic particles is not rest, but simply the correct level for the cosmic velocity condition. When in the laboratory we poke and prod or play particle snooker we disturb this rest cosmic velocity condition and notice both the particle and environment start to react as they try to re-establish that original rest condition.

 

Basically the photon approach to getting a reaction from the atom is a heavy handed overload condition, a little like firing a bullet into the atom. Sure you will get a reaction but don't assume its the only way to get a response from the atom. Gently does it.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Dovada

[uncool]

Dovada, you claimed that

The quantum atomic model has proved strikingly successful but it does not interface into classic electric theory properly.

 

How exactly does quantum electrodynamics not "interface" with classic electrodynamics? Alternatively, how does quantum electrodynamics not "interface" with the "quantum atomic model"?

=Uncool-

Edited October 18, 2011 by uncool

[Dovada]

Dovada, you claimed that

 

 

How exactly does quantum electrodynamics not "interface" with classic electrodynamics? Alternatively, how does quantum electrodynamics not "interface" with the "quantum atomic model"?

=Uncool-

 

Originally the atomic model was considered stationary and In classical mechanics, electrons would rapidly travel towards and collide with the nucleus, making stable atoms impossible. Hence the quantum model was proposed to overcome this problem. Electrons could then only orbit in discreet quanta states expressed by the number n=1,2,3 etc

 

But we now know that atoms, in cosmic motion traveling at hundreds of thousands of meters per second, composed of charged negative electrons and positive protons thus traveling in the same direction will generate magnetic fields that are out of phase and will subsequently repel each other, thus solving the phenomenon.

 

The quantum atomic model does not explain why the atom experiences cosmic motion or indeed gravitational acceleration which comes under the same banner.

 

The quantum atomic still lacks this interface ability.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Dovada

[uncool]

Originally the atomic model was considered stationary and In classical mechanics, electrons would rapidly travel towards and collide with the nucleus, making stable atoms impossible. Hence the quantum model was proposed to overcome this problem. Electrons could then only orbit in discreet quanta states expressed by the number n=1,2,3 etc

 

But we now know that atoms, in cosmic motion traveling at hundreds of thousands of meters per second, composed of charged negative electrons and positive protons thus traveling in the same direction will generate magnetic fields that are out of phase and will subsequently repel each other, thus solving the phenomenon.

 

The quantum atomic model does not explain why the atom experiences cosmic motion or indeed gravitational acceleration which comes under the same banner.

 

The quantum atomic still lacks this interface ability.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked. I asked you specifically:

 

What about quantum electrodynamics does not "interface"?

 

You are talking about quantum mechanics. I am asking you about quantum electrodynamics.

=Uncool-

[Dovada]

how does quantum electrodynamics not "interface" with the "quantum atomic model"

I have never said this.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Dovada