Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 11.0: Resurrection of Niels Bohr's Model for Quantum Gravity

**OsherD** · #1 August 21st 06 posted to sci.physics

From Osher Doctorow

Niels Bohr's model of the atom has now become the "black sheep" of
physics because of things like its failure to explicitly include
probability, and so Nonconformists like me should probably take a
second look at it for possible benefits.

A surprising thing happens when we look at Bohr's model of orbits in
more detail. It's an awfully good approximation under certain
scenarios. Like Quantum Field Theory (QFT) which partly succeeded it,
some of those approximations are quite a bit beyond the usual idea of
"chance".

There's something similar to this in mathematical Combinatorics and
Number Theory, where Fermat's Last Theorem is "too good to be true,"
and in fact its proof in the last 2 decades has left specialists
wondering about the deeper nature of numbers. Like discrete energy
levels in Bohr's model, Fermat's Last Theorem only holds for integers
(the discrete energy levels aren't necessarily integers, but the level
indices are). By the way, Fermat's Last Theorem is false when we
leave the integers.

Readers who look up the keywords "Bohr model" under Wolfram or
Wikipedia and Hyperphysics (or subtopics under the last mentioned) will
find quite a few hints that the model might be generalized to
non-discrete or continuous physics (Condensed Physics, for example)
with a great deal of care and attention. For example, if energy E_n
at level n is regarded as proportional to radius r or radius divided by
length of the total cubical region considered, then we get an
"interpolated" Bohr model. If the "interpolated" model corresponds to
nothing physical (and I don't agree that this is correct), then welcome
to the club with tachyons, monopoles, ghosts, virtual particles, and so
on now part of physics, not to mention complex analysis and Clifford
algebras.

If you want to go a bit deeper into the "shortcomings" of the Bohr
model with possible ideas for remedying them, look at Wikipedia's "Fine
structure", "Hyperfine structure," "Zeeman effect," Hyperphysics'
"Zeeman effect," "Transition probabilities and Fermi's golden rule,"
Wikipedia's "Spectral line," "Levy skew alpha-stable distribution,"
Wolfram's "Schrodinger equation," etc.

I'll try to continue this later.

Osher Doctorow

**Tom** · #2 August 21st 06 posted to sci.physics

"OsherD" wrote in message
oups.com...
From Osher Doctorow

Niels Bohr's model of the atom has now become the "black sheep" of
physics because of things like its failure to explicitly include
probability, and so Nonconformists like me should probably take a
second look at it for possible benefits.

A surprising thing happens when we look at Bohr's model of orbits in
more detail. It's an awfully good approximation under certain
scenarios. Like Quantum Field Theory (QFT) which partly succeeded it,
some of those approximations are quite a bit beyond the usual idea of
"chance".

There's something similar to this in mathematical Combinatorics and
Number Theory, where Fermat's Last Theorem is "too good to be true,"
and in fact its proof in the last 2 decades has left specialists
wondering about the deeper nature of numbers. Like discrete energy
levels in Bohr's model, Fermat's Last Theorem only holds for integers
(the discrete energy levels aren't necessarily integers, but the level
indices are). By the way, Fermat's Last Theorem is false when we
leave the integers.

Readers who look up the keywords "Bohr model" under Wolfram or
Wikipedia and Hyperphysics (or subtopics under the last mentioned) will
find quite a few hints that the model might be generalized to
non-discrete or continuous physics (Condensed Physics, for example)
with a great deal of care and attention. For example, if energy E_n
at level n is regarded as proportional to radius r or radius divided by
length of the total cubical region considered, then we get an
"interpolated" Bohr model. If the "interpolated" model corresponds to
nothing physical (and I don't agree that this is correct), then welcome
to the club with tachyons, monopoles, ghosts, virtual particles, and so
on now part of physics, not to mention complex analysis and Clifford
algebras.

If you want to go a bit deeper into the "shortcomings" of the Bohr
model with possible ideas for remedying them, look at Wikipedia's "Fine
structure", "Hyperfine structure," "Zeeman effect," Hyperphysics'
"Zeeman effect," "Transition probabilities and Fermi's golden rule,"
Wikipedia's "Spectral line," "Levy skew alpha-stable distribution,"
Wolfram's "Schrodinger equation," etc.

I'll try to continue this later.

A lost sheep wandering in the woods of Math and Physics,
attempts to teach and command others what it is all about,
but has not a clue,
time to make kOsher into glue.

Osher Doctorow

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 7.0: Effective vs "Usual" Equations in Quantum Gravity	OsherD	Physics - General Discussion	3	August 16th 06 04:26 PM
Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 2.5: Information/Entropy and W	OsherD	Physics - General Discussion	0	July 31st 06 03:04 AM
Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 1.3: Riccati Eigenvalues	OsherD	Physics - General Discussion	4	July 25th 06 03:49 PM
Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 1.1: Loop Quantum Gravity Contradicts Itself and Opens The Way for "Non-Euclidean" Dynamics	OsherD	Physics - General Discussion	2	July 24th 06 08:15 PM
Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 1.0: Introduction	OsherD	Physics - General Discussion	2	July 24th 06 01:34 AM