Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #681147

Re: Why the Bohr model failed

Show all headers | View raw

On 02/04/2018 06:58, poraty149@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 11:53:20 PM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 7:57:08 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 12:32:36 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
>>>>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and an atom is three dimensional. He tried to build out his atom by then putting other circles at various angles, forgetting that in his dream the electrons were connected by ribbons to the Center, so as soon as you put one path across another it's bye-bye ribbons. To keep the ribbons attached, everyone has to go the same way around the Center, while the whole Center turns at right angles synchronously.
>>>>> This is the orbital that keeps the ribbons attached:
>>>>>   http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF

A more interesting question is why the Bohr model worked so well,
even to the extent on having to allow the the motion of the nucleus.
A triumph of classical Newtonian reasoning in correctly giving:-
	
	The 'reduced mass' of the electron = m*M/(M+m)
.
even as electrons became a somewhat nebulous thing eh!

Now i know that mechanics of the quantum variety will tell us that these 
days it is all well understood by QM, but it seems very odd to me that 
such a simple series should have such a complicated explanation. Also 
although QM never tire of telling us what a successful theory it is,
i haven't seen very convincing plots of theoretical versus experimental
plots of line spectra of multi-electron atoms and molecules.


>>>> More likely it failed because it was just too Bohring!
>>>>
>>>> Double-A
>>> ===============================================
>>> (:-)
>>> see better much more advanced and innovative
>>> the y Porat model
>>> Bohr at his times  could not know
>>> what we can know  now -at  our times!!
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
>>> TIA
>>> Y.Porat
>>> ==========
>>
>>
>> You have put a lot of thought into that, haven't you?  But why should we think it is anymore realistic than string theory?
>>
>> Double-A
> ==========================
> had you got my book ie
> not only its abstract
> you would see there
> unprecedented cross and double  trippes cross verifications
> to things  you could not dream that any one could explain
> for instance
> we have the geologic clcok ''
> ie
> the radioactive elements
> 
> kalium argon and calcium
> are involved
> in a very slow process of  ONE  !!!radioactive  proces
> they are not found in just **one raw** of the periodic (Mendeleev table
> thy are in different places
> now
> listen carefully?
> waht i found id that
> 
> ALL OF THEM HAS THE **SAME  BASIC NUCLEAR SKELETON !!
> 
> unprecedented !!
> all of them are some closed family !!!!
> (even not on e the same mendeleev table raw
> butone afterther other by periodic number ))
> that small (minor ) radioactive process
> that take some known time
> is connecting all of them to one basic 'family!!
> unprecedented and never before explained
> except my model
> ----
> a similar phenomenon
> with the'' Archaeological clock '
> all of them has a basic'' peculiar'' nuclear ''skeleton'
> that only my model is involved in it !
> ie
> the elements Carbon 14 is transformed to
> 
> Carbon 12 !!
> ==
> just 2 examples !
> there are others as well
> good enough ??
> 
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> =============================


Not sure it is "good enough" Mr. Porat, but if you can predict the line 
spectrum of Carbon 12, or 14, or Calcium, or Copper, or anything, (at 
some specified temperature and pressure), better (or even more simply) 
than QM, then that would be "good enough" for me eh!

keith atein

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Why the Bohr model failed Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 20:36 +0100
  Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 17:51 -0700
  Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 23:32 -0700
    Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 23:23 -0700

csiph-web