gre

The Bohr model is not 100 percent correct, that is a fact. But aren't some aspects of it correct? The orbitals, energy levels, etc? You can't say it is 100 percent incorrect, imo, or just WRONG.

Not sure. QCD isn't my field.

 

I think at this point you're grasping at straws. Either the atom follows the physics that has been discovered, or you disregard basically all of physics. Proposing that we essentially understand nothing about atomic physics in order to accommodate your hypothesis is a nonstarter.

I agree it is pointless to try to reinvent the physics of how things work. But I feel there is something missing when it comes to understanding what things really are (and where they come from). It seems strange that most physicists are perfectly content believing an atom is just a mathematical construct floating through space.

As for the hydrogen hyperfine structure, I don't have enough understanding of quantum spin (what it physically represents) to even touch it.

I've just been playing with classical concepts and properties of the Bohr hydrogen atom.

Here are a couple more concepts that have led to my questions. I

 

Hall Voltage in Hydrogen?

 

V(Hall_Voltage) = ((-I*B) / d) / (n * e)

 

I = current

B = magnetic field strength

d = depth of conductor

n = charge per volume

e = elementary charge

 

Calculate the current:

 

If the electron orbital frequency in hydrogen might be:

f = (2.187e6 m/s) / (2*pi*5.29e-11 m) = 6.5796e15 Hz

 

The (orbital?) current might be:

I = f * e = .001054181 A

 

For the conductor depth I used the Bohr radius: d = 5.29177e-11 m

(just to see what would happen)

 

The charge per volume is:

n = (1 electron) / ((4/3) * pi * bohr_radius^3) = 1.61104e30 (1/m^3)

 

Calculate the magnetic field strength within the electron orbital using this equation:

 

B = E / ub

(or p=qBr )

 

Where,

E = kinetic energy of ground state electron = 2.1798e-18 J

ub = Bohr Magneton = 9.27400e-24 (J / T)

 

B = (2.1798e-18 J) / (9.27400e-24 J / T) = 235051.76 T

 

Solve the equation:

 

V(Hall_Voltage) = ((-I*B) / d) / (n * e)

 

V(Hall_Voltage) = (((-1) * (.001054181 A) * (235051.76 T)) / (5.29177e-11 m)) / ((1.61104e30 1/m^3) * (1.60217e-19 C))

 

 

V(Hall_Voltage) = -18.1409185 Volts

 

This was pretty close to the Rydberg constant (13.605 eV)

 

-18.1409185 / 13.60569 = 1.3333333 or (4/3)

 

If the charge per volume (n) is changed to:

n = (1 electron) / ((pi * r^3) = 1.61104e30 (1/m^3)

 

 

The solution becomes: -13.60568 V

 

Here's another one:

Inductance, Capacitance, and LC resonance in Hydrogen?

 

In an electronic LC circuit, the resonant frequency can be found with.

 

w = sqrt(1/L*C)

 

w = angular frequency (radians/sec)

L = Inductance (henries)

C = Capacitance (farads)

 

If this concept is applied to hydrogen:

 

The ground state electron in hydrogen might have a frequency of:

f = (velocity) / (wavelength) = 6.57968395e15 hz

where,

velocity = (fine_structure_constant * speed_of_light) = 2.18769 m/s

wavelength = (2 * pi * bohr_radius) = 3.324918e-10 m

 

The self-capacitance of hydrogen's ground state orbital/shell might be:

4 * pi * eo * R

where,

eo = vacuum permittivity = 8.8541878e-12 (A^2 s^4 / kg * m^3)

R = radius= bohr radius = 5.291777e-11 m

 

The hydrogen ground-state inductance might be (I'm not sure about this equation. Inductance of a sphere?):

L = ((r^2 * m) / e^2)

 

r = radius = bohr radius = 5.291772085e-11 m

m = electron_mass = 9.10938188e-31 kg

e = elementary charge = 1.60217e-19 C

L = inductance in henries

 

 

Calculate radians/sec from hertz:

w = (2 * pi * f) = 4.1341373522e16 rad/sec

 

Calculate Hydrogen (theoretical) Inductance:

L = (r^2 * m) / e^2 = (5.291772085e-11^2 meters^2 * 9.10938e-31 kg) / (1.60217e-19^2 Coulombs^2)

L = 9.937347518e-14 Henries

 

 

Calculate the Capacitance of Hydrogen:

C = 4 * pi * 8.85418782e-12 (Permittivity : A^2 s^4 / kg m^3) * r (meters)

C = 5.887805e-21 Farads

 

 

Hydrogen LC Resonant Frequency?:

w (angular frequency) = sqrt(1/LC)

 

4.1341373522e16 (rad/s) = sqrt( 1/ 9.937347518e-14 (m^2 * kg / C^2) * 5.887805e-21 (A^2 s^4 / kg m^2)

 

4.134167e16 (rad/s) = (f * 2 * pi)

 

Is just basically playing with numbers/nonsense?

This might just be basic algebra, and the solutions just come from "putting a variable in ... and you get it back out" .. But could it be something more?

The magnetic moment of the proton is well-known.

Yes, but what about the possibility of a strong internal magnetic fields within the proton between gluons and quarks? Doesn't QCD predict something like this?

If you want to try and take the tactic of inferring the magnetic field from the "shell curvature" (by which I assume you mean the Bohr orbit) then you need to reconcile this with the Hyperfine splitting of Hydrogen — the energy difference between the two orientations of the electron magnetic moment in that field — being h * 1420 MHz. (or ~10^-24 J)

 

Since the Bohr magneton is ~ 10^-23 J/T, that implies about 0.1 T

Maybe all properties including, electron energy, mass, magnetic field, and radius scale down with the hyperfine splitting?

What does quantum theory predict happens to the orbital of a hyperfine split H atom vs a normal ground state H atom?

That equation was based on the thought (flawed most likely) that all particles have a very strong intrinsic internal magnetic fields (undetectable outside of its radius, normally) and a much weaker detectable magnetic field or magnetic dipole moment (which may be a part of the normally 'invisible' internal field). I know this is all probably speculative nonsense, but don't quarks sometimes have very strong magnetic fields in QCD (or chromomagnetics)?

Merged post follows:

If the magnitude of a magnetic field (within an atom or shell) can be measured by the radius of its shell curvature.

Then,

p=qBr

The electron vibrational or orbital momentum for ground state hydrogen is:

p = (electron_mass * 2.187e6 m/s) = 1.9928e-24

r = 5.29e-11 m

q = elementary charge

B = (p / (e*r)) = 235051 T

This is basically where I got the equation above.

Can you explain to me what I did wrong?

Thanks for the help swansont. Sorry these questions are probably boring to you.

qE is the electrostatic force on a charge, then (qv * B), is the magnetic force on a moving charge.

In ground state hydrogen would it looks something like this?

ub = bohr magneton = (e*hbar)/(2*electron_mass) = 9.27400e-24 (A m^2)

v = 2.18769e6 (m/s)

B = (((1/2) * electron_mass * v^2) / ub = 235051 T

(qv * B) = (1.602e-19 C) * (2.187e6 m/s) * (235051 T) = 8.2387e-8 N

In a ground hydrogen atom, would the Lorentz force equation look something like this?

F = qE + qv x B

qE = (1/(4*pi*electric_constant)) * (1.60217e-19 C)^2 / (5.29177e-11 m)^2

qE = 8.2387e-8 N

Here is another way to write it. I doubt this is valid either.

F = (m * (c^2 / r)) (centripetal force)

or

F = E/r

E = relativistic energy

r = Compton wavelength / (2*pi)

Does QFT ever consider time to as a "field" property of matter?

I just read you can also multiply the energy density by the area to get a rough estimate.

Merged post follows:

ajb, did you come up with an exact number for the strong force (newtons) within a proton?

Thanks.

Greg

Is mass the only requirement for frames of reference, or is it 3D space and mass?

Why not just say, since space, time, and mass can't exist at c, then reference frames can't either. Would that be true?

What are the requirements for a "valid" reference frame? Why can't entities moving at c have one? I thought a photon moving at c would be considered a "singularity" of a reference frame, but I guess not.

I think I understand the wave nature of photons. But here's another thought.. Maybe photons do have mass in their own reference frame.

Since an electron's mass is converted into a photon instantaneously, since its acceleration is instant, exactly at what point does the electrons mass turn into a photon? And how is it proven photons don't have mass that we can't see.

That fact photons have momentum does seem weird at first. My question is how do they have momentum? All objects that have momentum, must have at least one of the following, I believe.

1.) Mass and velocity .. (Photons don't)

2.) Electric field, and velocity .. (Photons do)

3.) Magnetic field, and velocity .. (Photons do)

Edit: Why not say any field with polarity and a velocity?

Why can't the momentum of photons be described at the transfer of an electro-magnetic field (with velocity)?

Well mass density is something that we can determine.... If an object's density decreases as it's velocity increases maybe the mass density from your specific frame would be directly related to your "time" . For example, a photon has 0 mass and 0 density, and it's time rate is also 0.

The density of a hydrogen is pretty close to the density of the earth, maybe since we are all moving through space at similar velocities?

Can you give me an example?

Merged post follows:

F = (p * E)/hbar

F = (protonmass^2 * c^3)/hbar = 714795.07 Newtons

This looks a lot like a Planck constant. Can Planck constants represent a maximum as well?

Merged post follows:

I was just informed the strong force between quarks (in newtons) is to the order 100,000 newtons. Which agrees with my calculation.

Any comments?

That would be problematic in regard to the postulates of relativity — the laws of physics are the same in all frames and there is no preferred frame. If the constants depended on the frame, you could tell what your speed was with respect to some arbitrary frame, without measuring anything in that particular frame. And then there's the effect this would have on c.

If everything scales down equally at relativistic velocities, including: mass, energy, time, and all the constants and rules. How would you know if they change at all?

At relativistic speeds does a mass's density increase?

I was just wondering if since time is dependent on velocity, maybe vacuum constants are as well.

Thanks! Next question : ).

Does it dictate the rate which time passes as well?

[math]c^2 = \frac{1}{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}[/math]

That is an interesting equation.

Does it imply the speed of light is dictated by vacuum permittivity, and vacuum permeability?

Why couldn't something like this work:

F(binding_proton) = (p * E)/hbar

E=(protonmass*cc^2)

p=(protonmass*cc)

Using this equation, the total binding energy between all quarks (in a proton), would be:

F(binding_proton) = 714795.07 N

Then you could get the proton mass-energy by multiplying:

F(binding_electron) * 1.3214095e-15 m / (2*pi) = 1.503e-10 J (or torque)

I did the same for the electron, and got F(binding_electron) = .212013 N ..

multiply by the Compton wavelength of the electron, you get .511 MeV.

I thought this was a strange coincidence: F(binding_electron) * (alpha^4/4) meters = 1.503e-10 J

How about a ground state hydrogen atom's quarks

Merged post follows:

I'm just thinking there should be a way to calculate the strong force between quarks (in proton) with it's relativistic energy. Wouldn't a quark's bond strength be equal to its hadrons mass-energy?

Between quarks.

Is it possible to calculate the magnitude of the strong force in newtons?