Rutherford vs Schroedinger

Rutherford assumed electrons and protons retained their classical nature
while part of a gold atom, thus his calculations of the existence and
size of the nuclei of gold atoms lacked quantum mechanical considerations.

Schroedinger (http://www.emr.hibu.no/lars/eng/cat/Default.htm)
recognized that the Rutherford model of the hydrogen atom consisting of
two point masses cannot account for the Heisenberg uncertainty relation
or Planck constant. I interpret this to mean that a hydrogen atom is
not likely a proton that is close to an electron.

The idea of orbitals as non-relativistic characteristics of electrons is
not quite accurate. It has been physically determined that photon
emissions are mass to energy conversions
(http://www.ill.fr/nfp/npp/Highlights/1998/1.htm.) If the energy of a
photon emission from an atom was simply the difference in energy between
one orbital and another, the weight of an atom before and after the
photon emission would be the same. For example, an electron at
relativistic speed that emits a photon through synchrotron radiation
does not gain or lose mass. In other words, how can an electron change
kinetic energy due to photon emission when all the energy of the photon
emission was supplied by the change of mass of the atom.

Dont forget that not all photon emissions from an atomic system are via
electron orbital transfer. Think in terms of vibration and rotation as well as
orbits.

"Thomaswithey" wrote in message
...
Dont forget that not all photon emissions from an atomic system are via
electron orbital transfer. Think in terms of vibration and rotation as
well as
orbits.

An "atomic" system (i.e. a system consisting of a single atom) exhibits
spherical symmetry in the absence of a magnetic field. For a spherically
symmetric atom the concepts of "vibration" and "rotation" are meaningless.

In the presence of a magnetic field the atom becomes ellipsoidal, but the
energy levels of the atom also change, so it's another ball game.

A molecular system (for which vibration and rotation are well understood) is
another problem.

BTW, are you any relation to George Wythe, who signed the Declaration of
Independence?


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Thomaswithey wrote:
Dont forget that not all photon emissions from an atomic system are via
electron orbital transfer. Think in terms of vibration and rotation as well as
orbits.
Radicaler wrote:
I make no claim that photon emission only occurs through mass change.
All quantum emissions are "mass change" emissions, albeit the energy of
emission depend on both the atom and its environment (including magnetic
environment.)

tadchem wrote:

"Thomaswithey" wrote in message
...

Dont forget that not all photon emissions from an atomic system are via
electron orbital transfer. Think in terms of vibration and rotation as

well as

orbits.


An "atomic" system (i.e. a system consisting of a single atom) exhibits
spherical symmetry in the absence of a magnetic field. For a spherically
symmetric atom the concepts of "vibration" and "rotation" are meaningless.

In the presence of a magnetic field the atom becomes ellipsoidal, but the
energy levels of the atom also change, so it's another ball game.

Radicaler wrote:
Granted magnetic field intensity, frequency of excitation radiation,
type and environment of target atom influence frequency of emission. For
me, that is not sufficient proof that an atom became ellipsoidal. Are
you claiming that a magnetic field alone could cause the electron and
proton that formed a hydrogen atom to become discrete again?

"radicaler" wrote in message
...

snip repost

Granted magnetic field intensity, frequency of excitation radiation,
type and environment of target atom influence frequency of emission. For
me, that is not sufficient proof that an atom became ellipsoidal. Are
you claiming that a magnetic field alone could cause the electron and
proton that formed a hydrogen atom to become discrete again?

No. The Schroedinger equation is solved through the use of coordinates that
possess the same symmetry as the potential field applied to the electron.
Combine the spherically symmetric field of the proton with the axial
magnetic field and one gets a system that is only solvable through the use
of elliptical coordinates. The solutions producing the bound orbitals of
the electron are all ellipsoids. There are also hyperbolic solutions but
they are not for bound states - they describe scattering experiments.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

tadchem wrote:
"radicaler" wrote in message
...

snip repost

Granted magnetic field intensity, frequency of excitation radiation,
type and environment of target atom influence frequency of emission. For
me, that is not sufficient proof that an atom became ellipsoidal. Are
you claiming that a magnetic field alone could cause the electron and
proton that formed a hydrogen atom to become discrete again?


No. The Schroedinger equation is solved through the use of coordinates that
possess the same symmetry as the potential field applied to the electron.
Combine the spherically symmetric field of the proton with the axial
magnetic field and one gets a system that is only solvable through the use
of elliptical coordinates. The solutions producing the bound orbitals of
the electron are all ellipsoids. There are also hyperbolic solutions but
they are not for bound states - they describe scattering experiments.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA


Radicaler wrote:
Are you stuck on the idea that QM is based on changes in kinetic energy,
or that protons, electrons and orbitals normally exist within an atom?
The Schroedinger equation only mathematically describes the observed
patterns or characteristics of atoms in terms of electrons / protons /
orbitals, but is not proof that electrons, protons or orbitals exist as
such. If Schroedinger himself did not believe there was something wrong
with his own application of mathematics, he would not have written his
"cat paradox paper."

If an electron crashes into a positron, annihilation occurs. What if
when an electron instead crashes into a proton, the mass of the proton
causes the energy of the collision to be retained. This is similar to
the frictionless absorption / emission of a photon, but in the case of
the electron / proton collision - nearly frictionless. Neither proton
nor electron would exist as such within the atom.

Rich DeSantis
Pittsburgh, Pa.

"radicaler" wrote in message
...

snip

What if
when an electron instead crashes into a proton, the mass of the proton
causes the energy of the collision to be retained. This is similar to
the frictionless absorption / emission of a photon, but in the case of
the electron / proton collision - nearly frictionless. Neither proton
nor electron would exist as such within the atom.

'nuff said.

*plonk*


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

tadchem wrote:
"radicaler" wrote in message
...

snip

What if
when an electron instead crashes into a proton, the mass of the proton
causes the energy of the collision to be retained. This is similar to
the frictionless absorption / emission of a photon, but in the case of
the electron / proton collision - nearly frictionless. Neither proton
nor electron would exist as such within the atom.


'nuff said.

*plonk*


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA


radicaler wrote:
I thought the idea of a nucleus as being an energy converting mass was
an elegant solution to many intractable problems with QM, atomic theory
and molecular theory.

For example, the quantum emission of infrared radiation. The IR
wavelength is far greater than the diameter of an atom (little
possibility of the atom acting like an antenna.) The particle nature of
electromagnet radiation enables an IR photon to become mass when stored
by an atom and becomes kinetic energy when emitted by an atom.

Getting back to electron emission / absorption: An electron can be
removed from a hydrogen atom with just a few volts or by the kinetic
energy of "high" temperature collisions. Do you think that promotion of
an electron from an orbital is a good explanation for the electron
removal?

The problem is that orbitals do not exist (you recall that photon
emission is a mass change, not a KE or a promotion of an electron from
one orbital to another.)

Still clinging to the idea that electrons/protons exist within an atom?
What keeps the electrons and protons apart? Exactly how does a
photon from visible light interact with an electron when a photon
produces mass, not kinetic energy change within an atom?

Electrons are not like photons because all electrons weigh the same.
Electron emission is a QM event because the KE needed for the emission
of an electron varies among elements. I might later try to explain
electron emission from an atom because I find it interesting.

Rich DeSantis
Pittsburgh, Pa