How to understand the periodicity of the moving electron in the hydrogen atom

[Jeremy0922]

 

That's a separate question to whether or not classical physics is consistent with the spectroscopic results. (It isn't) The point is that a classical orbit of an electron would have predictable effects on the level splittings. These results are not seen, thus the model is wrong.

 

How do you explain the magnetic field by moving charged particle according to quantum mechanics?

Edited July 23, 2014 by Jeremy0922

[Sensei]

What we can not observe is not mean there is no!

Do you see an electron? do you believe there is elelctron?

Long traces in Cloud Chamber are from electrons (they are also called beta rays, or when we're making them using high voltage - cathode rays)

 

The more kinetic energy has particle, the longer trace.

[Jeremy0922]

Long traces in Cloud Chamber are from electrons (they are also called beta rays, or when we're making them using high voltage - cathode rays)

 

The more kinetic energy has particle, the longer trace.

 

Thanks for your link, I believe there is electron, although we have never get the image about a standing electron.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Jeremy0922

[Sensei]

Yes, and a charge moving in a circle will give you a magnetic field.

 

Actually, in coil electrons don't move in circle, but in spiral. Single electron is just once passing through wire.

When electrons flow in one direction in coil of course it will produce magnetic field, that anybody with "compass array" device can see on his own eyes.

 

But if we will use alternating current, electrons flow once in one direction, once in opposite direction.

 

Can you detect magnetic field when frequency of AC would be counted in millions or billions Hz?

 

What does show "compass array" device, if you will place it close to coil through which there is flowing low frequency AC, or high frequency AC.. ?

 

What does show "compass array" device, if you will place it close to discharge tube with Hydrogen and turn high voltage on to ionize it.. ?

 

 

The issue I see here is that spectral lines are obtained from discharge tube, with ionized plasma.

But electric neutral Hydrogen gas is not mixture of proton and electron, but H₂ molecule, two protons and two electrons.

 

ps. Where in USA and UK somebody can buy "compass array" like below one? I searched couple times on Google and can't find anything.. Here it costs $40 in the regular shop.

 

Whenever somebody asks on physics forum about "moving electron in circle around proton" I know they don't mean it literally. Circle is 2d figure, with missing one axis to 3d. Analyze should be done using the all 3 dimensions.

 

What are your predictions of magnetic field lines around it for such "coil".. ? Imagine it's single long wire.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Sensei

[swansont]

 

How do you explain the magnetic field by moving charged particle according to quantum mechanics?

 

It's not part of QM, as such. It's explained classically and relativistically.

 

Actually, in coil electrons don't move in circle, but in spiral.

 

 

I'm not talking about an electron in a coil, I'm talking about an electron in a Bohr orbit and the energy shift that will result if the electron had orbital angular momentum.

[Jeremy0922]

 

It's not part of QM, as such. It's explained classically and relativistically.

You are wrong, QM is the theory for solving the structure of atom, molecule, and solid-state, the magnetics properpties are depended on the structure, so,QM should explain it.

[swansont]

You are wrong, QM is the theory for solving the structure of atom, molecule, and solid-state, the magnetics properpties are depended on the structure, so,QM should explain it.

 

You are not the arbiter of what QM is. This is simply a straw-man justification for rejecting QM. Perhaps you should actually study the subject and learn about it before criticizing.

[Sensei]

 

Thanks for your link, I believe there is electron, although we have never get the image about a standing electron.

 

Image not (hard to get image of particle at rest),

but whole electrostatics is about measuring charges coming from electrons at rest that repel each other..

http://www.sparkmuseum.com/STATIC_MISC.HTM

 

Wimshurst machine

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

 

Electroscope

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

 

Don't you have these devices.. ??

[Jeremy0922]

 

You are not the arbiter of what QM is. This is simply a straw-man justification for rejecting QM. Perhaps you should actually study the subject and learn about it before criticizing.

 

I am not the arbiter, but have the right to question it.

 

Image not (hard to get image of particle at rest),

but whole electrostatics is about measuring charges coming from electrons at rest that repel each other..

http://www.sparkmuseum.com/STATIC_MISC.HTM

 

Wimshurst machine

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

 

Electroscope

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

 

Don't you have these devices.. ??

Thanks

[swansont]

 

I am not the arbiter, but have the right to question it.

 

Saying that a particular theory needs to explain a phenomenon outside of its reach is not questioning it. Electromagnetism doesn't explain gravity, but that does not indicate any problem with E&M. Explaining magnetism is within E&M, not QM.

[Strange]

 

I am not the arbiter, but have the right to question it.

 

Just insisting that it is wrong, while providing no evidence to support that (and ignoring all the other evidence) is not "questioning it".

[Jeremy0922]

 

Just insisting that it is wrong, while providing no evidence to support that (and ignoring all the other evidence) is not "questioning it".

 

I would insist what is right deduction by classical theory, and reject to the misunderstanding about the great theory.

 

[Strange]

 

I would insist what is right deduction by classical theory, and reject to the misunderstanding about the great theory.

 

 

I would insist that what is "right" (i.e. works) is what matches observation and evidence. Classical theory doesn't.

[Jeremy0922]

 

I would insist that what is "right" (i.e. works) is what matches observation and evidence. Classical theory doesn't.

 

A simple fact, an electron which is moving in a electromagnetic field is controlled by Lorentz force and will go along a trajectory,

 

Please give me a reliable interpretation by quantum mechanics!!!

Edited July 26, 2014 by Jeremy0922

[Strange]

 

A simple fact, an electron which is moving in a electromagnetic field is controlled by Lorentz force and will go along a trajectory,

 

Only if you treat it as a classical object.

 

 

Please give me a reliable interpretation by quantum mechanics!!!

 

There are dozens of interpretations. Take your pick.

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

 

I am not going to recommend one because I don't really like any of them. They are just stories (fairy tales, lies) to try and make reality fit our expectations. That is your problem; you want the universe to act as you think it should based on your intuition and expectations as a highly evolved ape. There is absolutely no reason to think that the universe should be comprehensible in those terms.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Strange

[Jeremy0922]

 

Only if you treat it as a classical object.

 

 

There are dozens of interpretations. Take your pick.

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

 

I am not going to recommend one because I don't really like any of them. They are just stories (fairy tales, lies) to try and make reality fit our expectations. That is your problem; you want the universe to act as you think it should based on your intuition and expectations as a highly evolved ape. There is absolutely no reason to think that the universe should be comprehensible in those terms.

1. You think Lorentz force is wong, don't it?

2. and deny an electron could moves along a trajectory!!!

[Strange]

1. You think Lorentz force is wong, don't it?

2. and deny an electron could moves along a trajectory!!!

 

I never said either of those things.

[Jeremy0922]

 

I never said either of those things.

 

Then you explain the fact that an electron could moves along a trajectory by QM.

[swansont]

A simple fact, an electron which is moving in a electromagnetic field is controlled by Lorentz force and will go along a trajectory,

 

Please give me a reliable interpretation by quantum mechanics!!!

The QM interpretation is that in an atom there is no motion along a trajectory.

 

An electron that does move along a trajectory is obeying classical physics, so there is no QM explanation necessary. Classical physics explains it.

[Strange]

 

Then you explain the fact that an electron could moves along a trajectory by QM.

 

It is up to you to show that a classical model of the atom works.

[Jeremy0922]

 

It is up to you to show that a classical model of the atom works.

 

If QM can not explain the fact above, We have the right to question QM!!!

[swansont]

 

If QM can not explain the fact above, We have the right to question QM!!!

 

QM does not explain evolution, planetary orbits or the tides. That has nothing to do with the correctness of QM, it has to do with the limits of applicability of QM.

 

It is up to you to show that a classical model of the atom works.

 

I second this, and also point out that the rules demand it.

[Jeremy0922]

 

QM does not explain evolution, planetary orbits or the tides. That has nothing to do with the correctness of QM, it has to do with the limits of applicability of QM.

 

I second this, and also point out that the rules demand it.

But we are discussing the electron moves in the electromagnetic field.

By my opnion, if we consider the mathematical methods in QM is effective to treat the resonace of the elctron orbit in the atom, almost problem would be settled.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Jeremy0922

[swansont]

But we are discussing the electron moves in the electromagnetic field.

By my opnion, if we consider the mathematical methods in QM is effective to treat the resonace of the elctron orbit in the atom, almost problem would be settled.

 

I thought you were discussing QM.

[Jeremy0922]

 

I thought you were discussing QM.

Generally, there are several mathematical method for solving a physical problem, Schrödinger equation and E=hv were deduced from resonace model by classical theory. I think the mathematical method to solve Schrödinger equation in QM might to be introduced, to solve the resonance problem, or we could select a new method to do that.