Golden Boar wrote:

Y.Porat wrote:

Golden Boar wrote:

First of all, the reply you gave was to srp, not me.
Secondly, it it not 'my' radius, it is Bohr's radius.
Thirdly, if the electron was in a stable orbit around the nucleus, I
believe the orbit would be ellipticcal, not circular.
Fourthly, the Bohr model is an outdated model, so i guess you could say
that it is just an approximation.

fiftly we agree about the above

but you ddint notice my important remark that dealing with
an 'atm radius' is harmful for more advance !!

I was commenting more on the fact that it easier to use the increased
Compton wavelength than it is to use the reduced mass in this equation.

if you take an atom in a matal latice
does it have a wavelenth??

it certainly has mass that you can determine without any wavelenth!!
and it is in rest.

for instance somenews for you :

all atoms from Fluorine upwards are sort of 'rectangula pipes'
or more acurately octangular pipes

2 all atoms have more or less the same volume!!!
(a big surprise for many people)

see my model at

http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html

the size of atoms can be derived and concluded from tables no 2 and 3
there
)if you are smart enough and open minded)

I'm very open minded, though I don't know about smart enough :)
I checked out your site, but it was too painful on the eyes, it needs a
lot of cleaning up!

indeed a lot of cleam up
but not of itys substance:
for instance
have a look at my tables 2 and 3

i will help you if it is too mysterious for you:
it showes that a small atom like Aluminum
has more or less the same volume !!!!!
is it not a surprise for you and others that talk about 'atom radius '
??

you see there that for instance;

Aluminum Argentum and Gold
havemore or less the same volume in a matal latice!!
how come with all those electrons shells ??

does your Compton wavelength show it ??

------------

I suggest you use some type of drawing or modelling software.

my be i am just a poor amature in site building
but that shoud not diminish the importance of its substance
(for cleaver and honest prople only !! )
-------------

P.S. I disagree with your 'no mass, no physics' argument.

i am very happy that you and others disagree or else......
or else it would not be so revolutionary and innovative (:-)
and imporatnt and powefully simply!!

By replacing

any mass terms in an equation with either energy or Compton wavelength
or both, the equation is usually simplified, as shown above.
Mass is just something like the resistance of an energy packet to
changes in its spacetime co-ordinates.

wrong there is mass even without energy!!
if mass is in rest!
so mass is much more fendamental than your Compton wavelengths.
and if you dont mind
energy is exactly as in macrocosm:
mass in motion!!

Think about it logically.
Can you tell me one thing that is at absolute rest?
Nope, didn't think so!

why not

the chair you sit on it is in reast
why all the big phylosophysing about it??

----------

If nothing is at rest, then how can you have rest mass or even rest
energy for that matter?

so according to you there i sno rest mass at all ??

you have to demand a copyright on it !
--------------

This fits in nicely with special relativity as follows:

Nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light, or be deccelerated to
an absolute rest in a vacuum.

the photon (that has mass) can move at the speed of light
it cannot be accelerated because its velocity is constant and the
maximun veleocity
and nothiong is moving faster so nothing can accelerate it!!

complicated ??!!
-------------

so please a bit much more respect to one of the most fundamental
physical entities that is called mass.

That little con artist has been conning us too long, he pulled a
reverse 'Keyser Soze' on us.

?????

---------

Instead of asking why an electron has the mass it does, we should be
asking why it has the Compton wavelength that it does,

a strange approach
the electron has a wavelength only if it is in motion
if not --- it does not
so what is a more basic definition mass of wavelength??

You are confusing the Compton wavelength with the de Broglie
wavelength.

the electron is not orbiting around the Atom
so De berglie trheory seens to be of dated.

The classical electron circumference, which can be thought of as the
size of the electron, is the electron Compton wavelength multiplied by
the fine structure constant.

that is mathemethics not he physical reality

The Compton wavelength sets the cross-section of interactions, so I
would say this is the more fundamental definition.

as before - it ios not reality it is a mathematical model only!!

mass was discovered much earlier than the cpmpton wave length
and belongs to much more physical entities than waves
so ???!!!

Science progresses.

not anything that is 'new' can replace the older substantiated theory

2 not anything new is vast enough to include everthing in physics.
iow not everything new is relevant to all physics aspects!
the Compton wavelength is a goo sexample to that

you remind me the man that has a big hammer in his hands
so
while he goes out anything on the street looks to him like - nails
!!
------------------

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------