Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum The law of conservation and transformation energy

Yes Bill you are correct and I understand what you are saying now thank you for that clarification.

I expressed in another thread once that the whole model of atoms as something like little planetary systems seems so bizarre, most realized back then it was wrong and yet such a silly concept has gained such acceptance with the public.

I once did an excercise to try and work it out because it was suspected it was wrong in 1913 they knew it was definitely wrong in 1917 and by the time Pauli had finished his work in 1925 it was dead and buried and yet it survived and haunts us today.

Disney even made films about this rubbish and cemented the idea with the public and so today we have people still convinced atoms look like bohr's crazy atom.

I had to laugh even if you go to the dummies guide

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/atomic-structure-the-bohr-model.html



No kidding because the Bohr model is garbage thats is why we use the quantum model so why has the Bohr model not been buried and given it's last rites.

It's not that hard to teach the quantum model and usually it makes a hell of a lot more sense once the students understand it.

My only answer I can come up with is the word Quantum scares people because apparently Quantum Mechanics is a scary thing.

Oh I should say dummies does do a good job on the quantum atomic model ... see not that scary

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/atomic-structure-the-quantum-mechanical-model.html

I note even our mate Socratus noted there is something wrong with Bohr's model as per his ABC on QM book quote ... I wonder if he read on further and understand how QM solves the problem and even why QM can explain why it will only react with certain frequencies.

I should also say this is my favourite image of an atom because for people it makes it clear the idea of the electrons being not interconnected to the nucleus is removed which to me is the biggest misleading part of the rutherford and bohr models.

I have only been registered for 2 years. I have been lurking for many many years. I finally registered when somebody said something so ridiculous that I felt I had to respond. So I can recall many many times when you have done your hand waving attempting to convince people that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Bill Gill

then perhaps you should have clarified that in your post.



my waving my hand is not as good as the rest of the world waving their hand?

you call it waving your hand as if to taunt me , am I wrong about that?

am I waving my hand when I ask that question?

is there another sentence you could have used that would not have caused me to think that your choice of words was a taunt?

its as if you are trying to extract an emotional response from me.

I agree completely. It just seems a shame that so many non-science things appear to become big deals.

I know that I hit the reply button on your post orac , but Im replying to the image you posted , not anything that you included
as text in your post condemning the bohr atom.



if the above is a model of an atom , and the electron
(or whatever quantum mechanics has converted it into) is probably somewhere in the universe at some point in time , or somewhere in the vicinity of the nucleus traveling inside the red balloon looking orbital things pictured above.

1) the electrons charge must be changing levels almost as fast as the speed of light.

2) what causes the energy level changes that obviously must be occurring?

3) are there no energy levels anymore in QM?

4) are there still electrons in QM?

5) does the electron actually orbit the nucleus or does it
pass through the nucleus , or does it get close to the nucleus then fly away because of some QM effect?

Im just curious , I welcome anyone to reply , but please keep it civil.

I agree also , I think its mainly just filler.

but it does turn out to have a snowball effect.

so , lets agree to agree that we agree to end this.
or at least that we agree to end this , do you agree?

LOL

Maybe he is measuring time in internet years. An internet year can seem like ten years, so 2 years can seem like 20 subjectively. :-)

I think I first registered on SAGG in the summer of 1999 , that was back when Amaranth Rose I was on the forum.

it does seem like a long time ago even though it was only 13 years.

I show up as registering in 2006 now I think because the site
dropped it's database , remember that?
it happened several times.

Drat, I lost the post I was trying to put together.

I used to post fairly regularly back before SAGG started requiring registration to post. I kept looking in regularly even though I wasn't posting. Then as I said above I registered to respond to a particularly bad post.

Bill Gill

Paul I have always been willing to civil so long as things don't become a troll excercise.

I am usually quite explicit about what science consensus believes and what I believe I do have some discrepencies with science consensus like all scientists do but I can't prove my beliefs so they are unproven ideas of mine.

Really understanding the model is extremely easy the link provided does it.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/atomic-structure-the-quantum-mechanical-model.html

What is important here is not whether you or I believe it but that experimentation proves it to be the fact. Again science is not a popularity vote and noone has been able to prove the model wrong.

Infact only this week for example now that getting temeprature near absolute zero has become mundane thanks to laser cooling scientists worked out they could seperate gases based on there quantum spin property of the model

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-one-way-street-atoms.html

and we now even watch the transistions between classic phases of matter

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-ultracold-atoms-reveal-quantum-effects.html


So again it's not up to me to convince you the Bohr model is wrong science has already done that and thrown it in the bin.

If you want the Bohr model back at science you must explain each and everyone of the thousands of experiments that currently prove substaintive proof of the quantum model you can't just wave hands at it and say I don't know but I don't like it. Einstein disliked Quantum Mechanics and as good a scientist as he was we didn't let him do it either.

So science has assigned the Bohr model to the bin the reality is that it should have been done so in 1925 and it certainly should not be appearing in current text books.

For me the reason it does because of past historic disquiet over QM from great scientists like Einstein. People trusted Einstein in this case he was wrong and in someway that legacy will take time to eliminate.

I did my early science years as an Einstein GR/SR junkie and disliked QM. However as experiment after experiment result rolled in throught the early 2000's you could see that QM was not only correct and not going to go away or be explained away.

Now I study QM and it is a most interesting area because it is moving so fast and getting faster because with QM understanding has come the ability to simplify the equipment.

Laser cooling has change the landscape in getting down to absolute zero the enormous cryogenic labs of the past which limited which universities had the ability to do research have gone. QM experimentation is now within the reach of any university and thus the field has exploded.

Looking back to the '70s and early 80s when I was trying to explain very basic mineralogy to young people, many of whom had a distinctly limited learning ability, the Bohr model was an ideal tool for getting the idea over. It was all that was needed for the task. You could then feel as though you were doing your bit for science by adding something like: "it's not really as simple as that, but it gives a reasonable picture of how the chemistry works".

I suppose I, and people like me, have to take some blame for keeping the Bohr model "kicking", if not actually alive.

I am going to take a chance and reply to the dummies link
you provided , hopefully you can answer my question about the
wording on the page and its assoiated image.

please dont include the history of QM as my question does not require a full history , only a simple answer.







I can fully understand (a) in the above image of a QM model.

moving on to (b) I get lost
there is no 3p shown!

would the 3p if shown only represent a smaller orbital?

plus: the web page did not make me really understand the model.
the only thing that the web page showed me was that the electron orbits in the same way as it always has.


the 2p..3p ... and so on are only probability orbitals , not electron orbitals , and are only used to estimate where electrons
might be as they orbit in 1s ...2s ....3s ... etc using mathematics.

maybe that's why they use ( p ) for probability.

if QM is just a means of estimation that can be utilize in actual equipment used to carry out experiments then it cannot claim that
the bohr atom is incorrect as a atom model.

the bohr atom model would be an incorrect model of a QM probability model however.

using QM math to trigger a strobe light is probably how
actual scientist see electrons as they orbit in s1..s2..s3 orbitals.

but I think it is safe to say that actual electrons in orbit around an actual nucleus do not follow the orbital paths
p , d shown in the QM atom model.

You need to remember its 3D so they have mark x,y and z axis for (b) the electrons have 3 possible axis if they were all full they would form 3 clouds along each axis. There will be plenty of movies etc on youtube about it I am sure.

Electrons don't orbit in the planetary way you want to make them which is where you are running into problems. These are historic errors that come from you being taught errors. They spin in wave like patterns within those strange orbital shapes.

The problem dates back to 1922 and this experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment

The bohr model was dead the moment that experiment was done and no amount of explaining could save it the result is inconsistant with what would happen with a bohr type atom.

Since then we have experiment after experiment to isolate the quantum parameters and as I have said Bohr model is dead and buried.

There is also an obvious inconsistancy in Bohr model with antiparticles. How do you make an antipartilce molecule what the big protons orbit the small electrons in the middle :-)

So you have a choice now read about the various experiments that provide science proof of what is happening and try and understand it or do the Paul hand wave and stay with some outdated and clearly wrong idea.

So which is it to be try and understand or stick your head in the sand?

here is a actual image of an atom.
it clearly shows that electrons orbit atoms the way planets orbit a sun.



doesnt look anything like one of the computer generated QM probability atom model's now does it.

could it be that the model only focuses on the probability areas that the electron might be found in?


a shadow of a Yb ytterbium atom




6 rings Yb ytterbium atom



as for hand waving I'm posting up mostly actual images of actual atoms other than a chart type image here and there
as the above Yb atom chart.

you are posting up computer generated images of imaginary atoms.

I wouldn't call actual images of actual atoms hand waving or sticking my head in the sand.
I would like to point out that your imaginary atoms must be somewhere in the sand , can you see them.

do you see how your trolling extracted an emotional response from me above?

this is why trolling is not allowed , granted I have been guilty of the same things in the past , I admit that , but I
am trying to refrain from trolling , but your trolls are creeping in again , building momentum with your trolls.

theres no need to include the type of language you use on a science forum.

http://www.networlddirectory.com/blogs/p...-bohr-atom.html



I'm going to say that bohr was right all along and the sand bucket has been very busy for a long time.

I can accept that the QM probability model of an atom can be
used in determining where an electron might be in an atom.

but I cant accept that the electrons could orbit an atom the way you seem to be trying to say that they do.

it might be clear to QM but I just cant see that up here
where the sand doesn't block my vision and perception.

Despite a reluctance to back up the resident troll, I have to point out that even in the Bohr model an antiparticle molecule would consist of atoms with their constituent particles in the same relative locations as in normal atoms, with the same masses. Only the particles' charges would be be reversed. Positrons would be in orbit around anti-protons. Of course, in no way does that support the Bohr model, which as a matter of fact is now well and truly defunct, whether or not Paul likes it. But as we shall no doubt be reminded, Paul knows better than mere physicists.

the remark you made about a resident troll is a troll!

at least your post focuses on the scientific content and not the social aspects of the discussion.

perhaps this forum might just survive as a science forum vs a social forum.

or is that anti social forum!

Sorry as you can imagine this is all sort of confusing to me because it's not often I would get into discussion about how people percieve stuff that is wrong.

It doesn't make alot of sense so what is "elementary charge" something that just occurs in the model like static electricity?

Science says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment

YOU ARE WRONG .... BOHR MODEL HAS BEEN FALSIFIED.

END OF STORY

Not important what I and science believe the Bohr model is false and can not be upheld.

If you can devise and experiment to falsify QM atomic model knock yourself out it's that simple and I would have to accept your result.

The rules of science are that simple.

LOL

I suppose that's the body of your argument.

well , if there were a atom on a space ship traveling at near
the speed of light.

say .9 c

wouldnt the atoms electrons that travel at near the speed of light be traveling around the atom's nucleus faster than the speed of light durring 1/2 of each orbit or orbital in either or any model you choose?

just suppose the electron were only traveling at .9 c
around the nucleus.

.9c + .9c = 1.8c !!!



will the electron borrow some anti speed from the other side of the universe as it rounds the turn , just to prove that
QM is correct even when its clearly wrong?

LOL

of course your talking about the spin of the electron and the above only talks about the electron as it orbits the nucleus.

when we add in the speed of the surface of the electron that
is traveling at 1.8c what would the surface speed be then.

because the surface speed of 1/2 of each spin will probably be in the direction of travel at some point in time.



its funny how the impossible can become possible so quickly.



I dont know about that , hide and watch!

you guys are going to have to stop setting limits on things you dont have a clue about.

We are setting limits on things ( for example: c=1, T=0K )
that we don’t have a clue about.
From these two parameters (c=1, T=0K ) was started
all modern speculations in Physics.

==..