gre Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) It gets the energy correct. That's about it. So you can use it for energy calculations. It has orbits, not orbitals, and that's wrong. It gets the angular momentum wrong. At that point, you have to abandon it. swansont, Please clarify the following for me... 1.) What about the Bohr Radius? Not necessarily as a "set in stone orbital" but a measure of something else? I noticed it does come out of the Schrodinger equation. Does it not have any significance at all? 2.) I wasn't trying to portray "orbitals" at all (an electron flying around a proton), even though I did use the word "orbitals". I was thinking the frequency could be more of a vibrational frequency, I guess like "Zitterbewegung" described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zitterbewegung. I noticed the kinetic energy of the ground state electron (13.605 eV) has a energy-mass of 2.425e-35 kg. I used this mass in the Zitterbewegung equation: 2*m*c^2 / hbar .. And the frequency is the same as I came up with in my previous post. Is this meaningless as well? 3.) How do you calculate the correct angular momentum of the ground state electron. Isn't it sqrt(3)/2 * hbar? Thanks, Greg Edited January 24, 2009 by gre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 The Bohr radius is the most probable distance of the electron when you solve the Schroedinger equation. AFAICT you get the same answer because you've taken an energy and converted it to a mass and then back to an energy, i.e. you've multiplied it by 1. S orbitals have zero orbital angular momentum. The Bohr model predicts angular momentum of [math]n\hbar[/math]. The electron has spin, but that's not part of the Bohr model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gre Posted January 26, 2009 Author Share Posted January 26, 2009 AFAICT you get the same answer because you've taken an energy and converted it to a mass and then back to an energy, i.e. you've multiplied it by 1. I just thought it was strange the frequencies (6.57e15 hz, and 4.13e16 rad/sec), seemed to fit so nicely with so many different different equations, including zero-point field, and a few others. So other than the weird B field calculations, what else is wrong with the calculations in post #19? How would you say it is directly tied to the Bohr Model, do you say because I used the (bohr) radius of the hydrogen atom, and (a*c) as the electron velocity? Thanks, Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I think you're just playing with numbers. Some of them are going to end up being close to each other. I haven't gone through all of those calculations, but I don't see what physical significance most of them would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sione Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) Gre, According to my understanding, you are on the right track. It has orbits' date=' not orbitals, and that's wrong. [/quote'] Orbits are not wrong, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea that electrons obey some classical laws of physics "inside" the atoms, just like they do for everything else. We simply do not know equations of motion that can model atoms and predict their bonding properties, or perhaps we do know equations, but have not tried to do it properly. It gets the angular momentum wrong. At that point' date=' you have to abandon it. [/quote'] What are you referring to? Classical physics predicts and can calculate electron spin and magnetic moments Spin magnetic moment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_magnetic_moment The current quantum mechanics model actually does acknowledge pairing of electrons is due to magnetic forces. I know of papers suggesting magnetic forces gets stronger than electrostatic at certain distances and therefore can lead to attraction of like charges, similarly to what Gre suggests. We simply do not know the right equations or no one has managed to combine electrostatic and magnetic interaction. All the failed Bohr atom models and similar were only concerned with electrostatics and Coulomb equations, but not Lorentz, not magnetic dipole moment, nor magnetic torque equations. I do not see any reason why classical physics can not actually model electron-proton interaction, explain electron coupling and atomic bonding better than quantum mechanics. All the attempts to model interaction of magnetic spin moments of charged particles seem to give good results and actually explain how and why. Basically, it appears there is no complete equation of motion that can model electrostatic and magnetic fields interaction simultaneously. However when these forces are modeled separately we can get some general picture of it, some idea about distances and attraction/repulsion limits, which apparently seem to describe the reality and we get the similar numbers as with QM. The bottom line is, there is no real reason to think subatomic interaction can not be described by classical physics, just like everything else can. Edited January 26, 2009 by Sione fix quote tag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Orbits are not wrong, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea that electrons obey some classical laws of physics "inside" the atoms, just like they do for everything else. We simply do not know equations of motion that can model atoms and predict their bonding properties, or perhaps we do know equations, but have not tried to do it properly. Yes, orbits are wrong. As I mentioned before, the orbit of the ground state Bohr atom has one unit (hbar) of orbital angular momentum, and the excited state has two. But in actuality the 1S and 2S levels have no orbital angular momentum. The 2P state has one unit. The Bohr atom not only gets the value wrong, it doesn't allow for multiple values when n>1, meaning a whole lot of transitions are not explained by the Bohr model. What are you referring to? Classical physics predicts and can calculate electron spin and magnetic moments Spin magnetic moment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_magnetic_moment I was referring to orbital angular momentum. But classical physics has problems with explaining the electron. It's not a physical spin, first of all, and the g-factor isn't 2, and that gets into quantum electrodynamics. We simply do not know the right equations or no one has managed to combine electrostatic and magnetic interaction. All the failed Bohr atom models and similar were only concerned with electrostatics and Coulomb equations, but not Lorentz, not magnetic dipole moment, nor magnetic torque equations. I do not see any reason why classical physics can not actually model electron-proton interaction, explain electron coupling and atomic bonding better than quantum mechanics. All the attempts to model interaction of magnetic spin moments of charged particles seem to give good results and actually explain how and why. Basically, it appears there is no complete equation of motion that can model electrostatic and magnetic fields interaction simultaneously. However when these forces are modeled separately we can get some general picture of it, some idea about distances and attraction/repulsion limits, which apparently seem to describe the reality and we get the similar numbers as with QM. We do know the equations. If you think you can explain the Hydrogen atom classically, and do as well as QM, go ahead and try. The bottom line is, there is no real reason to think subatomic interaction can not be described by classical physics, just like everything else can. I've mentioned a few of the shortcomings of classical physics. QM wasn't adopted because of its charm and good looks — it was adopted because classical physics fails, and QM works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sione Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) Yes, orbits are wrong. As I mentioned before, the orbit of the ground state Bohr atom has one unit (hbar) of orbital angular momentum, and the excited state has two. But in actuality the 1S and 2S levels have no... "Orbits", as a concept, have no direct computational impact, it is an observational description and as such can not be really responsible for the failure of some incomplete theory and damnation of the whole 'classical physics' approach. Orbits are not wrong just because Bohr model does not work for everything, that is way to much to say about some concept of something orbiting something in smooth path, as opposed to jumping around, disappearing and reappearing as in QM. Bohr model has nothing to do with magnetic fields and it is not representative of 'classical physics' approach, it is just one of the many simplifications and approximations, but even then it gives some impressive results. Do you find it logical we can see particles always describe smooth paths and obey classical physics when we collide them in particle accelerators and plot their trajectories, but only "inside" the atom they start to behave like ghosts? QM works, it has rules based on statistics and produces results that fit statistics, but those equations say nothing about mechanics and interaction. Where does classical physics fail exactly? Do you think it is impossible to describe subatomic interaction based on known forces, why? I was referring to orbital angular momentum. But classical physics has problems with explaining the electron. It's not a physical spin, first of all, and the g-factor isn't 2, and that gets into quantum electrodynamics. How do you know it is not a physical spin? Perhaps not, but how curious is then that we can model it as if it is physical spin. Do you find it surprising such quantum property can be modeled with classical physics? By the way, as far as I can see, and what you later suggest yourself, we do have all those equations ...for angular momentum in magnetic field, magnetic moment for orbiting electron or spinning electron. We do know the equations. If you think you can explain the Hydrogen atom classically, and do as well as QM, go ahead and try. Are you saying we have equations, or not? Are you saying we have equations, but they do not work? I'm saying that I might explain Hydrogen atom and more, once we can combine the electrostatic and magnetic equations of motions into one. Such equations do not seem to exist, the equations that will combine Coulomb + Lorentz + Magnetic Torque + Spin Dipole Moment. Without such COMPLETE attempt at modeling subatomic interaction it is not scientifically wise to give up of such possibility, there is simply no evidence that points classical physic is unable to model it. Edited January 26, 2009 by Sione Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 How do you know it is not a physical spin? Perhaps not, but how curious is then that we can model it as if it is physical spin. Do you find it surprising such quantum property can be modeled with classical physics? Because the electron would have to be spinning too fast; the surface speed would have to exceed the speed of light. The failings of classical physics are pretty well documented. Simply regurgitating them isn't really something I am going to spend time on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gre Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 What do the equations in post #19 have to do with the Bohr Model? Anyway, I was hoping this thread wouldn't become a debate between classical and quantum mechanics. The schrodinger/wave-function model is far more useful anything else wrt atomic properties, I don't think that can be argued. Mostly what I'm wondering about is: If there is a possibility that atomic wave functions are dictated by magnetic fields? For example, have look at the hydrogen wave function (3,2,1) seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png Then take a look at these field lines on a CRT with a strong magnetic close to it. Why do these look so similar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gre Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 Because the electron would have to be spinning too fast; the surface speed would have to exceed the speed of light. This is actually something I've been wondering about, as well .... Mass cannot move faster than the speed of light. But what gives the electron the "smear", as it is described? If an electron was to move (in some way) faster than c, could it have the appearance of being in multiple locations simultaneously (as described by QM)? The electron trembling motion/"zitterbewegung" described by schrodinger does mention electron movement at around the speed of light, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sione Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Because the electron would have to be spinning too fast; the surface speed would have to exceed the speed of light. Ok' date=' some theory, some equation does not work, that is fine. Faster than speed of light is also fine, at least as much as disappearing and reappearing out of nowhere, I suppose. Out of curiosity, what is the surface of an electron, what is the size of it? The failings of classical physics are pretty well documented. False statement. The failings of 'classical physics' are not documented because there are no such experiments that can speak for the whole 'classical physics' approach. Few models fail as not complete, but as I said, and just as Greg continuously points out, it is because none of them consider MAGNETIC fields. Simply regurgitating them isn't really something I am going to spend time on. I can prove "failings of classical physics" are not documented at all. Search the Internet and you will find no such documentation. Sure' date=' you can ignore it and not spend any time on it, but then you would be obscuring this simple truth from your sight, which is not scientifically wise. First, if you find some time, you would need to point the exact equation to blame for not providing the results. I still do not know if you are saying that we know those equations, we do not know them or we know them, but they do not work? As far as I can tell all the equations work individually and are used in industry, so where exactly did classical approach fail? What particular equation and laws of physics stop working once electron approaches proton - Lorentz, Coulomb... which equation is wrong and responsible for this failure? Mostly what I'm wondering about is: If there is a possibility that atomic wave functions are dictated by magnetic fields? For example, have look at the hydrogen wave function (3,2,1) seen here: Yes. What I'm trying to say is that it is not "possibility", but rather obvious fact. Why are you so hesitant to accept it, even thought it is your own conclusion as well? I think you are giving excellent supporting arguments, still you seem to would like some more proof? Edited January 27, 2009 by Sione Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I can prove "failings of classical physics" are not documented at all. No, you cannot. Perihelion of mercury. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gre Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Yes. What I'm trying to say is that it is not "possibility", but rather obvious fact. Why are you so hesitant to accept it, even thought it is your own conclusion as well? I think you are giving excellent supporting arguments, still you seem to would like some more proof? I think real proof would require a lot more than just my (extremely non-rigorous) math. I was just hoping for some in depth explanations and discussions. Not acceptance, or arguments wrt other models. Edited January 27, 2009 by gre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sione Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) I think real proof would require a lot more than just my (extremely non-rigorous) math. I was just hoping for some in depth explanations and discussions. Not acceptance, or arguments wrt other models. Sure. However, the discussion here was about the _possibility and I came to argue against people that want to dismiss this blindly, close the case based on prejudice. That is scientifically unwise, so I came to help you out and support your assertion. My arguments are not to disprove or prove theories, but just as yours as I gather, to establish the possibility and refute a priori refusal based on Bohr model or similar approximation. I'm here to support your arguments for the possibility of magnetic fields as a primary source and explanation for subatomic interaction, this is what you're asserting, right? I'm also here to argue against claims that say 'classical physics' approach, which is how is this called, has failed to model atom. I refute that by saying none of the proposed theories consider magnetic fields. Even more, I say we do not have equation of motion to handle magnetic spin, magnetic dipole torque and electrostatic forces simultaneously, and I propose such complete equation could actually produce the full description of electron orbits. To refute my arguments someone only needs to point equation that represents 'classical physics' attempt at modeling subatomic interaction, then we can see if such equation really exists and what is wrong with it, perhaps it is just incomplete? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No' date=' you cannot. Perihelion of mercury. Case closed. [/quote'] Huh, you want to challenge me... again? You have to realize that I'm Pythagoras reincarnation, which gives me quite an advantage about such issues as 'knowledge'. Anyway, you say "Perihelion of mercury" has anything to do with MAGNETIC FIELDS? Perhaps it has to do with subatomic interaction and atomic wave functions? I predict, if you were to include magnetic fields in your equation of GRAVITY, you would get correct results for 'Mercury Perihelion', wanna bet... do you accept the challenge? Real scientists never close any cases.. never, ever. It is scientifically unwise. Anyway, good for you and good for us as well, I suppose we will not hear more from you then. Edited January 27, 2009 by Sione Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Huh, you want to challenge me... again? You have to realize that I'm Pythagoras reincarnation, which gives me quite an advantage about such issues as 'knowledge'. Righto, then. I must have been blinded by your cartoonishly overinflated ego and obvious immaturity. You should lose the attitude, and focus on the info. Anyway, good for you and good for us as well, I suppose we will not hear more from you then. You're right. I left kindergarden decades ago. I have no desire to return to participate in booger wiping. Swansonts comment remains accurate, no matter how vehemently and consistently you ignore it. The failings of classical physics are many. If you pretend this is not the case, then the harm in doing so falls solely on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sione Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Righto' date=' then. I must have been blinded by your cartoonishly overinflated ego and obvious immaturity. You should lose the attitude, and focus on the info. [/quote'] Great, I'm glad we both have a sense of humor and are here for the sole purpose of exchanging the INFORMATION. I stated my claims, it is about evidence now and it is your turn. What is the formula that is to blame for classical physics inability to model subatomic interaction? Your example with Mercury was on the right track, but modeling electromagnetic interaction is far away from modeling gravitational interaction. Peculiarly, even with simple gravity and planetary motions, magnetic fields might have more input than we care to consider. Swansonts comment remains accurate, no matter how vehemently and consistently you ignore it. The failings of classical physics are many. If you pretend this is not the case, then the harm in doing so falls solely on you. No problem, everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but if you care to compare your imagination with reality, then you will try to find some evidence in support of your dreams. You say there are many failings of classical physics, so please share one with us, one that includes magnetic fields and have failed, just one? What laws of physics do you say stop working when electron approaches proton - electric or magnetic? When you say classical physics fails to describe atom, what particular equation you referring to - Lorenz, Maxwell, Coulomb, Faraday? Edited January 27, 2009 by Sione Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 The failings of 'classical physics' are not documented because there are no such experiments that can speak for the whole 'classical physics' approach. Few models fail as not complete, but as I said, and just as Greg continuously points out, it is because none of them consider MAGNETIC fields. The by all means incorporate them and do what the physicists of a hundred years ago, and since, could not. I can prove "failings of classical physics" are not documented at all. Search the Internet and you will find no such documentation. Sure, you can ignore it and not spend any time on it, but then you would be obscuring this simple truth from your sight, which is not scientifically wise. First, if you find some time, you would need to point the exact equation to blame for not providing the results. I still do not know if you are saying that we know those equations, we do not know them or we know them, but they do not work? Your Google-fu has failed you. Ultraviolet catastrophe/blackbody radiation, photoelectric effect, the Hydrogen atom and other atomic structure, relativity (Lorentz vs Galilean transforms, length contraction and time dilation, GR), Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, matter diffraction and the deBroglie wavelength … The beat goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sione Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) The by all means incorporate them and do what the physicists of a hundred years ago' date=' and since, could not. [/quote'] Are you teasing me? Do we agree such unified equation does not exist and therefore could have never been tried? Your Google-fu has failed you. Ultraviolet catastrophe/blackbody radiation' date=' photoelectric effect, the Hydrogen atom and other atomic structure, relativity (Lorentz vs Galilean transforms, length contraction and time dilation, GR), Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, matter diffraction and the deBroglie wavelength … The beat goes on. [/quote'] Please, pick your favorite equation, one by one, it will make things more obvious and focused. Do you realize that most of the formulas you are talking about do NOT have magnetic fields in equation at all? Lorentz equation was expected to model Hydrogen atom without taking torque and spin magnetic moment into account? What particular equation of classical physics failed to model Hydrogen atom - Lorentz, Maxwell, Faraday, Coulomb, Gauss, Ampere? Edited January 27, 2009 by Sione Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Are you teasing me? Do we agree such unified equation does not exist and therefore could have never been tried? What classical equations are missing? The basic atomic interactions are electromagnetic. Please, pick your favorite equation, one by one, it will make things more obvious and focused. Do you realize that most of the formulas you are talking about do NOT have magnetic fields in equation at all? Yes, I do. Which is why I think it's pretty obvious that saying that applying magnetic field equations to them will explain them is a non-starter. It's proof that classical physics fails to explain them. Lorentz equation was expected to model Hydrogen atom without taking torque and spin magnetic moment into account? What particular equation of classical physics failed to model Hydrogen atom - Lorentz, Maxwell, Faraday, Coulomb, Gauss, Ampere? Um ... all of them? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI stated my claims, it is about evidence now and it is your turn. What is the formula that is to blame for classical physics inability to model subatomic interaction? You stated your claims, and now you need to back them up. I've already listed several failings of the Bohr model, which, it should be noted, already incorporates quantized angular momentum, which is not from the classical equations. There is no equation to "blame" since the classical equations don't have the ability to explain quantum behavior. Within the framework of QM, though, you still use classical equations and concepts (where relativity can be ignored). What's missing is the framework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sione Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) What classical equations are missing? The basic atomic interactions are electromagnetic. That is my question to you' date=' but you did answer it later by saying this: What particular equation of classical physics failed to model Hydrogen atom - Lorentz' date=' Maxwell, Faraday, Coulomb, Gauss, Ampere? [/quote'] Um ... all of them? All of them individually? Well, of course! They are not complete, why would you expect them to model atom in a first place? Do you realize all these equations are incomplete, NONE of them models all the forces simultaneously. Do you realize that most of the formulas you are talking about do NOT have magnetic fields in equation at all? Yes' date=' I do. Which is why I think it's pretty obvious that saying that applying magnetic field equations to them will explain them is a non-starter. [/quote'] Are you saying even trying to include magnetic field into equations is wrong? Why is it non-starter to try and include magnetic fields in equations that deal with charged particle? How do you expect to model interaction of charged particles if you omit magnetism from electro-magnetism? It's proof that classical physics fails to explain them. Explain what? Do you say classical physics fails to explain magnetic interaction? Could it be because magnetism is not fully incorporated into equations? You stated your claims, and now you need to back them up. I've already listed several failings of the Bohr model, which, it should be noted, already incorporates quantized angular momentum, which is not from the classical equations. We are not talking about Bohr model, especially because it incorporates quantized angular momentum. My claims are backed up by your statements. You confirmed magnetic interaction IS NOT PART of the equations you provided. That is my claim, I say you can not discredit classical physics by saying incomplete equations did not provide expected results. You can not blame any of the individual equations because they were not even meant to model complete interaction. I can not show you something that does not exist. You are discrediting the whole classical physics based on something that has never even been tried. There is no equation to "blame" since the classical equations don't have the ability to explain quantum behavior. Equations do not have ability? What does that mean, can you explain? Do you have any evidence, at all, to believe modeling atom with classical physics should be impossible? Edited January 29, 2009 by Sione Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 All of them individually? Well, of course! They are not complete, why would you expect them to model atom in a first place? Do you realize all these equations are incomplete, NONE of them models all the forces simultaneously. Maxwell's equations are incomplete, from a classical standpoint? What's missing? The rest are just special cases. Are you saying even trying to include magnetic field into equations is wrong? Why is it non-starter to try and include magnetic fields in equations that deal with charged particle? How do you expect to model interaction of charged particles if you omit magnetism from electro-magnetism? I'm saying that including magnetic fields into systems that do not deal with magnetic fields won't magically make the classical physics work. Classical physics is incomplete — there is nothing that classical physics says that will explain quantum behavior. We are not talking about Bohr model, especially because it incorporates quantized angular momentum. Well, no, actually, if you look back through this thread, we were talking about the Bohr model. My claims are backed up by your statements. You confirmed magnetic interaction IS NOT PART of the equations you provided. That is my claim, I say you can not discredit classical physics by saying incomplete equations did not provide expected results. You can not blame any of the individual equations because they were not even meant to model complete interaction. No, that's a strawman. Maxwell's equations are classically complete. That they do not model atomic structure is because you need quantum mechanics. I think that arguing that classical physics is incomplete to refute the contention that classical physics doesn't explain certain behavior is either contradictory or it means you are trying to redefine what classical physics is, and that's equivocation. Answer this: What is missing from Maxwell's equations that will explain the phenomena I've listed showing the incompleteness of classical physics? I can not show you something that does not exist. You are discrediting the whole classical physics based on something that has never even been tried. […] Do you have any evidence, at all, to believe modeling atom with classical physics should be impossible? Never been tried? Physicists of 100 years ago were just sitting around doing nothing when quantum behavior was being observed, and didn't try to explain it classically? Where in classical equations does quantization appear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sione Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) I'm saying that including magnetic fields into systems that do not deal with magnetic fields won't magically make the classical physics work. Im not sure why would anyone want to model magnetic fields where there are no magnetic fields' date=' lets just talk about electrons, protons and subatomic interaction. Classical physics is incomplete — there is nothing that classical physics says that will explain quantum behavior. My point is exactly that, classical physics EQUATIONS are not complete. They model individual forces, while we need equation that can handle them simultaneously. However, individually these equations of classical physics perfectly explain 99% of the physics. They describe quantum behavior as long as quantum particles are not part of an atom, why is this? It is because with large enough distance some forces can be disregarded, so partial and specif cases equations work, while with atomic distances ALL of the force are very important and we have no equations to model all of them simultaneously. (I will forget week and strong nuclear forces that are even less part of any classical equation to model atom. In any case, we must not blame the whole concept of classical physics just because we have half-baked equations, blame equations) Maxwell's equations are incomplete, from a classical standpoint? What's missing? The rest are just special cases. Lorentz force.... torque and magnetic spin moment is missing, also there are four equations, while we need only one. Can you point out if anyone ever even tried to model hydrogen atom with Maxwell equations? There is no such thing as special cases in real-life, no charge exist without magnetic field. All the cases, all of the electromagnetic interaction is happening "inside" an atom and to model it we need complete equation. Special cases are byproduct of our inability to unify equations and incorporate all of magnetic interaction into one equation. Well, no, actually, if you look back through this thread, we were talking about the Bohr model. Yes, some were talking about it, which leads to the very confusion I'm talking about, so we should NOT talk about Bohr model because it has nothing to do with MAGNETIC FIELDS, this has been said: - "Bohr model has nothing to do with magnetic fields and it is not representative of 'classical physics' approach." - "What do the equations in post #19 have to do with the Bohr Model?" - "We are not talking about Bohr model, especially because it incorporates quantized angular momentum." What classical physics equations Bohr model uses for magnetic interaction - Lorentz, Gauss, Maxwell? Maxwell's equations are classically complete. What "classically incomplete" means, are you saying the same thing as me? Do you agree that we do not have unified equation for full and simultaneous electromagnetic interaction? That is my point. That they do not model atomic structure is because you need quantum mechanics. That is not argument. It is like saying people can not fly because they need airplanes, can you give some more concrete reason. What equation has been tried and how it failed? We agree classical equations do not model atom, only I am pretty clear about why is that. Answer this: What is missing from Maxwell's equations that will explain the phenomena I've listed showing the incompleteness of classical physics? Lorentz force, electron torque and magnetic spin moment is missing, ok? I have no idea if you're asserting Maxwell equations are complete, incomplete or you say they sometimes work and sometimes do not? It is my point that equations are INCOMPLETE, and therefore can not be responsible for the "failure of classical physics", what is your point? You are NOT saying equations are INCOMPLETE, you are asserting they STOP WORKING when electron approaches proton? Never been tried? Physicists of 100 years ago were just sitting around doing nothing when quantum behavior was being observed, and didn't try to explain it classically? That is no argument, but yet another question for me, did we not already agree equations are incomplete? Yes, 100 years and we still have no equation that can model all the electromagnetic forces simultaneously. All I'm asking you to show me that equation, or do I need to wait another 100 years? If you can not show me that equation, then you have no logical reason to say some nonexistent equation could not model atom and that classical physics failed because of something that does not exist and has not been tried. Can you answer my question now: - Do you have any evidence, at all, to believe modeling atom with classical physics should be impossible? Where in classical equations does quantization appear? Could you please explain purpose and meaning of that question? Edited January 29, 2009 by Sione Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 My point is exactly that, classical physics EQUATIONS are not complete. They model individual forces, while we need equation that can handle them simultaneously. However, individually these equations of classical physics perfectly explain 99% of the physics. They describe quantum behavior as long as quantum particles are not part of an atom, why is this? Forces are vectors, so all you have to do is add the forces together. We have equations for forces and torques. That fact that you can name torque and magnetic moment means that these aren't, in fact, "missing" from classical physics. They fail for low-energy bound systems because they weren't developed by modeling such systems. They describe physics in a continuum state. Could you please explain purpose and meaning of that question? The meaning is "Where in classical equations does quantization appear?" If classical physics is to explain QM behavior, the "quantum" part must be in those equations. It isn't. As such, classical physics will continue to fail to explain quantum behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sione Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 (edited) Forces are vectors' date=' so all you have to do is add the forces together. We have equations for forces and torques. [/quote'] Unfortunately, it turns out we can not really combine these vectors. Part of the problem is 'size of an electron' and it actually seems impossible to model magnetic interaction of dynamical system with torque and linear acceleration simultaneously. Who has heard of Jefimenko's equations? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field Electrical currents (moving charges) - All moving charges produce a magnetic field. The magnetic field of a moving charge is very complicated but is well known. (See Jefimenko's equations.) This is not quite Maxwell nor Lorentz, nor quite suitable for individual particles interaction like in atom... and it is still not complete, it does not consider spin magnetic dipole moment, nor induced torque. There is simply no formula to unify all magnetic interaction of individual moving charges, or is there? Even a partial "distribution" simulation is very complicated. That fact that you can name torque and magnetic moment means that these aren't, in fact, "missing" from classical physics. They are there individually, but all I am saying is that there is no equations to model all magnetic interaction simultaneously. Obviously there is some reason for the lack of this equation and it is either that is impossible or simply not discovered yet? The meaning is "Where in classical equations does quantization appear?" If classical physics is to explain QM behavior, the "quantum" part must be in those equations. It isn't. As such, classical physics will continue to fail to explain quantum behavior. Quantum means "particle". Quantization is naturally a part of classical physics as in Q1*Q2/r^2 or M1*M2/r^2, Qs and Ms are quanta and classical physics already have them as particles. Quantization is something you need to mess around when you are dealing with statistics and wave functions. "...explain QM behavior", be aware that real quantum behavior might not be exactly what QM says. I mean do not expect classical physics to make electrons appear and disappear, the goal is to produce the same "orbital clouds", possibly explain bonding. Edited January 31, 2009 by Sione Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gre Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) Here is a link that describes the general direction I was going .. apparently. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Stochastic_electrodynamics Can Stochastic electrodynamics really enable classical modeling of some quantum phenomena? edit: This theory has already been given a black eye by the 'free energy' gang, I see. Edited February 2, 2009 by gre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now