How to understand the periodicity of the moving electron in the hydrogen atom

[Jeremy0922]

 

You still haven't answered the question. The question is: do hydrogen atoms move because of the movement of the electrons?

 

I am not asking about classical mechanics, two body systems, or text books. After all, the hydrogen atom is not a classical system so all of that is irrelevant. I am asking about what actually happens.

 

So, again, can you provide a reference that shows experimental measurements of a hydrogen atom oscillating due to the movement of the electron?

 

I think the hydrogen atom is classical system.

[Strange]

 

I think the hydrogen atom is classical system.

 

And I am asking for evidence to support that.

 

Your starting point was that the quantum model cannot explain the periodic movement of the hydrogen atom. But you have not yet provided any evidence that this periodic movement exists.

 

So, your argument appears to be:

 

1. If the atom is classical then there would be periodic movement.

2. Quantum theory cannot explain this periodic movement.

3. Therefore the classical model must be correct.

 

Is that correct?

 

If so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Edited July 22, 2014 by Strange

[ajb]

I took this to mean that you don't get classical equations of motion from the Schrödinger equation.

 

My thought was that as the WKB gives you quasi-classical trajectories then one maybe able to think about "orbits" with a lot of care.

WKB approximation is only a mathematical method or semiclassical calcultion for finding approximate solutions for the quantum sysytem, the reliability of results depends on whether the Schrödinger equation of the quantum system is correct.

See above.

[Jeremy0922]

 

And I am asking for evidence to support that.

 

Your starting point was that the quantum model cannot explain the periodic movement of the hydrogen atom. But you have not yet provided any evidence that this periodic movement exists.

 

So, your argument appears to be:

 

1. If the atom is classical then there would be periodic movement.

2. Quantum theory cannot explain this periodic movement.

3. Therefore the classical model must be correct.

 

Is that correct?

 

If so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

Please read post #10 my answer for ajb

[ajb]

I think the hydrogen atom is classical system.

I think that idea has been rejected over 100 years agao now. You can't explian the orbitals nor the stability usng classical mechanics.

[Strange]

 

Please read post #10 my answer for ajb

 

I have looked at post #10 again. I don't see a reference to experimental evidence for periodic movement of the hydrogen atom due to the movement of the electron.

 

Does such evidence exist: yes or no?

 

I am very disappointed. I thought I was going to learn something new....

[Jeremy0922]

My thought was that as the WKB gives you quasi-classical trajectories then one maybe able to think about "orbits" with a lot of care.

 

See above.

 

In microworld, there are classical and quantum (or resonance) phenomenon, Schrödinger equation is a powerful mathematical tool to solve the resonance phenomenon.

 

I have looked at post #10 again. I don't see a reference to experimental evidence for periodic movement of the hydrogen atom due to the movement of the electron.

 

Does such evidence exist: yes or no?

 

I am very disappointed. I thought I was going to learn something new....

 

I think the structure and linear spectrum of the hydrogen atom could be interpretted by classical theory actually.

[ajb]

In microworld, there are classical and quantum (or resonance) phenomenon, Schrödinger equation is a powerful mathematical tool to solve the resonance phenomenon.

Right, but you could use this with the WKB and path integrals to get at a quasi-classical trajectory. I wonder if you can do this and ragain some notion of an orbit. I really don't know and have not seen it does, maybe you can maybe soemthing goes wrong.

 

I think the structure and linear spectrum of the hydrogen atom could be interpretted by classical theory actually.

Okay, so if you reject quantum mechanics from the start, then you can forget my suggestion.

[Strange]

I think the structure and linear spectrum of the hydrogen atom could be interpretted by classical theory actually.

 

So you admit you have no evidence that there is periodic movement of the hydrogen atom caused by the movement of electrons.

 

Thank you.

[Jeremy0922]

 

So you admit you have no evidence that there is periodic movement of the hydrogen atom caused by the movement of electrons.

 

Thank you.

 

Electron moves along the orbit is a kind of periodic movement, isn't it?

[ajb]

Electron moves along the orbit is a kind of periodic movement, isn't it?

But this exactly the classical notions we are a bit uncomfortable with in this context.

[Jeremy0922]

Right, but you could use this with the WKB and path integrals to get at a quasi-classical trajectory. I wonder if you can do this and ragain some notion of an orbit. I really don't know and have not seen it does, maybe you can maybe soemthing goes wrong.

 

 

Okay, so if you reject quantum mechanics from the start, then you can forget my suggestion.

 

I reject quantum mechanics, because I think QM denies the causality of nature, and I found we mistook classical theory for the problem of the hydrogen atom

But this exactly the classical notions we are a bit uncomfortable with in this context.

If it is trues, I think we should accept it.

[swansont]

 

I reject quantum mechanics, because I think QM denies the causality of nature, and I found we mistook classical theory for the problem of the hydrogen atom

 

Then you need to solve all of the problems that others before you could not.

 

For example, in the Bohr model, the ground state of Hydrogen has 1 hbar of angular momentum. That should give a contribution to the magnetic moment of the atom. In QM, the orbital angular momentum is zero, giving no contribution to the magnetic moment. Only one of these can be correct. Which one?

[ajb]

I reject quantum mechanics, because I think QM denies the causality of nature, and I found we mistook classical theory for the problem of the hydrogen atom

I don't know if the violation of causlity here is rather a philosophical thing, I assume you are talking about things like spontaneous decays and so on. For sure, quantum mechanics gives another view on cauality, but I don't think that is really enough to simply reject it.

 

Also, remember that the hydrogen atom is not the only system well described by quantum mechanics.

Edited July 22, 2014 by ajb

[Jeremy0922]

 

Then you need to solve all of the problems that others before you could not.

 

For example, in the Bohr model, the ground state of Hydrogen has 1 hbar of angular momentum. That should give a contribution to the magnetic moment of the atom. In QM, the orbital angular momentum is zero, giving no contribution to the magnetic moment. Only one of these can be correct. Which one?

 

By QM, angular momentum.is only the interpretation about quantum number from the solution of Schrödinger equation, but I do not wether it means angular momentum in physics. By classical theory, the ground orbit of the electron is a circle.

I don't know if the violation of causlity here is rather a philosophical thing, I assume you are talking about things like spontaneous decays and so on. For sure, quantum mechanics gives another view on cauality, but I don't think that is really enough to simply reject it.

 

Also, remember that the hydrogen atom is not the only system well described by quantum mechanics.

 

As we known, the solution about the hydrogen atom is the greatest and outstanding work for quantum mechanics.

[swansont]

 

By QM, angular momentum.is only the interpretation about quantum number from the solution of Schrödinger equation, but I do not wether it means angular momentum in physics. By classical theory, the ground orbit of the electron is a circle.

 

Yes, and a charge moving in a circle will give you a magnetic field. Do we see this field when we measure the magnetic moment of the hydrogen atoms?

[Strange]

 

Electron moves along the orbit is a kind of periodic movement, isn't it?

 

No. Unless you have some evidence that there is periodic movement of the hydrogen atom caused by the movement of electrons.

 

Which you have admitted you haven't.

 

So, no.

As we known, the solution about the hydrogen atom is the greatest and outstanding work for quantum mechanics.

 

There was that little thing that Einstein got a Nobel Prize for. And Planck's solution to the "ultraviolet catastrophe".

 

It took quite a long time for quantum theory to be applied to the atom. Even if the classical model is a reasonable approximation in some cases for the hydrogen atom, it is no use for more complex problems.

[Jeremy0922]

 

Yes, and a charge moving in a circle will give you a magnetic field. Do we see this field when we measure the magnetic moment of the hydrogen atoms?

 

Good question!

Although I don't know wether there is the technology to do it, but we could apply the magnetic field by moving charges to explain magnetic properties of the magnets and Van der Waals force. I don't kown how to explain for these two phenomenon by quantum mechanics.

 

No. Unless you have some evidence that there is periodic movement of the hydrogen atom caused by the movement of electrons.

 

Which you have admitted you haven't.

 

So, no.

 

There is not the technology which is able to observe the electron moves around the proton.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Jeremy0922

[Strange]

There is not the technology which is able to observe the electron moves around the proton.

 

So you have no justification for claiming that such movement exists. Especially when there is plenty of evidence showing that the classical model is inadequate.

 

What are you going to do about the photoelectric effect?

 

How are you going to explain the black body spectrum?

Edited July 22, 2014 by Strange

[Jeremy0922]

 

So you have no justification for claiming that such movement exists.

 

What we can not observe is not mean there is no!

Do you see an electron? do you believe there is elelctron?

Edited July 22, 2014 by Jeremy0922

[swansont]

 

Good question!

Although I don't know wether there is the technology to do it, but we could apply the magnetic field by moving charges to explain magnetic properties of the magnets and Van der Waals force. I don't kown how to explain for these two phenomenon by quantum mechanics.

 

The magnetic moment would affect the energy levels both in the unperturbed atom (Hyperfine splitting) and when it was subjected to an external field where we would see Zeeman splitting of the levels. The technology exists to observe this; the study is one of spectroscopy. People would have seen such an effect several decades ago, if the structure was there. But the answer is no, there is no effect observed. This is why there is no serious consideration of a classical model: any model that disagrees with experiment is wrong. QM gives the right answer.

 

As to magnetic properties and van der Waal's forces, perhaps you should read up on them. These have been studied for years.

[Strange]

What we can not observe is not mean there is no!

 

If we cannot observe it, then there is no reason to think it exists.

 

Inventing an undetectable effect as the basis of a theory is not science.

 

 

Do you see an electron? do you believe there is elelctron?

 

I have seen the trail of an electron in a cloud chamber. I have seen many other effects caused by the behaviour of electrons.

 

So we have observed and measured behaviour of electrons, used as the basis of various theories. You have invented a non-existent effect.

 

Which do you think I should take more seriously? Science or science-fiction?

[Jeremy0922]

 

The magnetic moment would affect the energy levels both in the unperturbed atom (Hyperfine splitting) and when it was subjected to an external field where we would see Zeeman splitting of the levels. The technology exists to observe this; the study is one of spectroscopy. People would have seen such an effect several decades ago, if the structure was there. But the answer is no, there is no effect observed. This is why there is no serious consideration of a classical model: any model that disagrees with experiment is wrong. QM gives the right answer.

 

I want to know the interpretation of magnetic properties (field) of the magnets by QM, not Zeeman splitting.

[hoola]

when I was asking about what moves a hydrogen atom, I was referring to a gas of hydrogen atoms, not a single atom isolated. As hydrogen gas is compressed, it is the electron of each atom that is doing the repulsing of it's neighbor, and acts as the active mechanism of the compression energy, correct?

Edited July 22, 2014 by hoola

[swansont]

 

I want to know the interpretation of magnetic properties (field) of the magnets by QM, not Zeeman splitting.

 

That's a separate question to whether or not classical physics is consistent with the spectroscopic results. (It isn't) The point is that a classical orbit of an electron would have predictable effects on the level splittings. These results are not seen, thus the model is wrong.