Science > Physics > The Complete Disproof of Relativity and current Quantum Mechanics
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Dr. Photon" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2005 10:04:13 AM |
| Object: |
The Complete Disproof of Relativity and current Quantum Mechanics |
from your website
"...This means that the description of the atom today, as is
visualized by current Quantum Mechanics, resembles that of a miniature
solar system type of configuration, where the electrons are imagined
to orbit the nucleus like planets orbit the Sun."
which, as others have told you already, is simply not true. As you
seem to say in your post in this discussion that the Bohr model was
scrapped (which means it is NOT the current QM), then do you retract
the above statement on your website? It was replaced by current QM,
which is largely represented by the Schrodinger eqn.
Description of Bohr model:
http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/6a.html
"While the Bohr Model of the atom is primarily of historical interest
to the working physicist, it displays the essential qualities of the
atom as intuitively as possible.
We start with a model of the atom which looks like a solar system: in
place of the sun we have the positively charged nucleus, and instead
of planets we have negatively charged electrons"
and from the next section
http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/6b.html
"In fact, the energy of an atomic electron depends not only on n, but
on angular momentum, orientation, and spin as well. These effects are
not predicted by the Bohr model, but derive from the more advanced
(and complicated!) Schrodinger and Dirac Equations."
and from your own reference on the Bohr model
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/bohr.html#c5
"The precise details of spectra and charge distribution must be left
to quantum mechanical calculations, as with the Schrodinger equation"
The Bohr model was not dropped because the de Broglie equation did not
work and nobody could fix it. It was dropped because the Schrodinger
equation was more general, and provided all the info naturally. You
have not solved a problem that everyone has been trying to solve for
the last 80 years, it was solved in 1926. (tweaked a bit for
relativistic effects later, but which are not too serious for
hydrogen).
Do you accept that the Schrodinger equation describes the energy
levels of the atom perfectly adequately? And all the transition
wavelengths?
So my challenge to you is: How do you use the de Broglie Equation
(here
it is: wavelength = h / MASS x VELOCITY) to calculate the correct
wavelength values of the atom using current QM and the Mass Increase
of
Relativity?
The de Broglie equation does not incorporate potential energy changes.
From your reference:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/debrog.html
notice that there is kinetic energy, rest mass energy, but no account
of potential energy.
Now look at the Schrodinger eqn
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/scheq.html
which includes "U", the potential energy.
de Broglie is a subset of Schrodinger, and is equivalent when setting
the potential energy term to zero:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr2.html
So the de Broglie eqn is valid when comparing electrons moving at
different velocity in the same potential energy background, whereas it
is not valid when comparing electrons moving at different velocity in
different potential energy backgrounds (such as an electron changing
orbitals). For the latter case the more general Schrodinger eqn is
used, and there is no problem, it agrees with the H spectrum
perfectly.
So whereas Schrodinger has put the potential energy into a separate
term, you have mixed the potential energy into the mass and velocity.
Do you agree? (please reply). Maybe you claim this is a breakthrough?
How do you calculate the velocity of the electron in each level?
Spherical orbits contradict experiment. Look again at the references I
posted, in particular the experimental observation of 4d orbitals
http://cbed.mse.uiuc.edu/images/cu2o.gif
How do you explain this? It agrees with QM within experimental error.
Your question on the fine structure constant is outside my field, and
I admit to not knowing why it has the value it has. From NIST
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?alph|search_for=fine+structure
its value is 7.297 352 568 x 10-3 with an uncertainty of 24 in the
last two digits. How do you derive it, and what value do you get?
You said in previous post "current QM which is also completely wrong".
I presume you have no evidence for this, you just claim it based on
your model???
regards,
BR
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: The Complete Disproof of Relativity and current Quantum Mechanics |
02 Feb 2005 10:05:24 PM |
|
|
BR,
Thanks for your reply. First of all, could you give me the reference of
the person who, in 1926, "solved" the problem of not being able to use
the de Broglie Equation to correctly describe the observed wavelengths
of the electron pilot waves of the Bohr atom? Did he use the electron's
mass and orbital velocity in the denominator? or some other values?
Concerning the Schrodinger equation, it is a wave equation in terms of
"wavefunction" transforming the kinetic and potential energies of a
system into the Hamiltonian and is very useful in predicting the
distribution of the probability of events, the predicted arrangement of
the order of these events, and can be used to predict the future
occurrences of a dynamic system very well. For this purpose it works
fine, but what does this have to do with my discovery of how to use the
de Broglie Equation to, for the first time in the history of QM,
correctly describe the observed values of the wavelengths of the Bohr
atom?
You said: "the de Broglie equation is not valid when comparing
electrons moving at different velocities in different potential energy
backgrounds (such as an electron changing orbits)". And with "current"
QM, you are right. However, since I can use the "CORRCTED" de Broglie
from Reality Physics to calculate the observed value of the photons
emitted from electrons changing orbits, then I just made the de Broglie
Equation VALID for electrons moving at different velocities changing
orbits, and that is my POINT. Now, with Reality Physics, NOT current
QM, we CAN use the de Broglie Equation for what you said it could not
be used for- to correctly describe the H spectrum perfectly, just as
the Schrodinger Equation does.
The reason I said that QM and Relativity are completely wrong is
because they both incorrectly describe the coordinate and inertial
background referece of the universe as a "static" condition (this is
illustrated by the vertical TIME vector in the Light Cone Diagram. The
only way to correctly describe the universe is to understand that both
the coordinate and inertial reference background of the universe are
"ACTIVE", in that they are continually being formed. In my book I
illustrate this as I show how the TIME vector is superimposed upon the
light line since light travels at the speed of time through space -
immediately explaining why a hypothetical clock traveling at the speed
of light records the passing of no time at all (since by traveling at
the speed of light, it is also traveling at: "the speed of time through
space, or "c", meaning it is now moving along with time, leaving no
time passing for the clock to make its hands turn.
Concerning the Fine Structure Constant, QM actually has no ides of what
its value is, or what it is.
According to Reality Physics, the (real) Fine Structure Constant = 137,
and originates from the (remember you heard it here first) Compton
frequency of the electron. The derivation is too long to post, but is
in my book FROZEN LIGHT!.
all the best,
Jeff Lee CENTER FOR REALITY PHYSICS
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
