Any comments about Gryziński's free-fall atomic model?
Jarek Duda
Gryziński classical model in which electrons make almost radial free-
fall trajectory to the nucleus, which due to magnetic moments is bent
by Lorentz force and so the electron go back to the initial distance.
This model is a natural consequence of classical scattering theory
developed by the author.
In almost 20 papers in the best journals like Physical Review he
showed that (in opposite to Bohr) this model gives really good
agreement with experiment ... but surprisingly I cannot find any
constructive comments about it ???
Hare is a stub of wikipedia article about it with necessary links,
please help expand it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.150.224.239
Have you heard about it? Any comments?
dlzc
On Aug 6, 6:51 am, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've recently found that after Bohr model there was
> introduced by Gryziński classical model in which
> electrons make almost radial free-fall trajectory to
> the nucleus, which due to magnetic moments is
> bent by Lorentz force and so the electron go back
> to the initial distance.
...
> Have you heard about it? Any comments?
Plenty of information on the internet:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3700/9/4/016
http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3700/6/7/001
Classical theories can only go so far...
David A. Smith
Jarek Duda
I've found the first article earlier, I haven't looked closer at the
model yet, but this one looks positively - the concluding remarks from
this paper starts with:
" It has been shown that Gryzinski's model is appropriate for a
description of the
energy-loss spectra of nonreactive inelastic atom-diatomic molecule
scattering processes, particularly for dissociation. The advantage of
the model lies in the clear physical assumptions of the IA and in its
simple analytical feasibility. (...) "
And generally his classical scattering papers has hundreds of
citations ...
About the second paper you linked - I couldn't download it, but as
I've read in Gryzinski's lecture - he improved later his original
models from 1965
http://www.cyf.gov.pl/gryzinski/teor5ang.html
These calculations just required computers.
Anyway probably these model don't solve all problems, but definitely
works much better than Bohr and so physicists should be at least aware
of it ... but they are just silenced ...
Thanks
dlzc
On Aug 6, 7:42 am, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great thanks.
> I've found the first article earlier, I haven't looked
> closer at the model yet, but this one looks
> positively - the concluding remarks from this
> paper starts with:
>
> " It has been shown that Gryzinski's model is
> appropriate for a description of the energy-loss
> spectra of nonreactive inelastic atom-diatomic
> molecule scattering processes, particularly for
> dissociation. The advantage of the model lies in
> the clear physical assumptions of the IA and in
> its simple analytical feasibility. (...) "
> And generally his classical scattering papers
> has hundreds of citations ...
>
> About the second paper you linked - I couldn't
> download it, but as I've read in Gryzinski's
> lecture - he improved later his original models
> from 1965
http://www.cyf.gov.pl/gryzinski/teor5ang.html
> These calculations just required computers.
But it is still classical, and therefore of limited utility.
> Anyway probably these model don't solve all
> problems, but definitely works much better than
> Bohr and so physicists should be at least aware
> of it ... but they are just silenced ...
I doubt that "silenced" is correct. If it is of limited
applicability, and the base of knowledge that a student must be
familiar with grows exponentially, some fantastic work will be left
for the student to discover as his base of experience broadens.
I found no reference at arxiv.org, so his methods are not usable at
the current limits of exploration, at least in that one snapshot.
I had similar epiphany with the works of Wronski:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Maria_Hoene-Wro%C5%84ski
... silly, strange, amazing, and still of limited usefulness.
David A. Smith
Jarek Duda
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"
are still current ... and I think the fact that we still don't
understand the basics is the real problem ...
So we should take what we understand: the natural and intuitive
classical picture to the boundary of its applicability ... while in
the 'well known physics' it stopped almost a century ago ...
It's not true - atomic models can go much further than Bohr's...
Thermodynamics also got toward QM - we use it when we don't have full
information, so using mathematical theorem like maximum uncertainty
principle, we assume some canonical scenarios among possible scenarios
- so when we don't know which (classical) trajectory particle go, we
should assume Boltzmann distribution among them, untrue?
Please do the math yourself (or look to 2nd section of http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.3861
) - it doesn't lead to Brownian motion as is generally believed, but
gives going to square of coordinates of dominant eigenfunction of
Hamiltonian probability density - 'quantum' decoherence to the ground
state.
Sound simple, but it is extension of Maximal Entropy Random Walk which
is quite new:
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i16/e160602
About arxiv - instead of a comment about Gryzinski, I've for example
found a year old paper about new classical model ... which looks that
they haven't even heard about these free-fall atomic models (
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2546 )
Cheers,
Jarek Duda
webpage: http://tcs.uj.edu.pl/jarek?lang=0
dlzc
On Aug 6, 9:21 am, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> About arxiv - instead of a comment about Gryzinski,
> I've for example found a year old paper about new
> classical model ...
"publish or lose your job..."
> which looks that they haven't even heard about these
> free-fall atomic models (http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2546)
In the first 10 hits in the abstracts with
classical atomic
I found only one reference to the Bohr radius, but no references to
Bohr or Gryzinski.
... and I gave up checking after that. Your point is well taken, but
I submit again, classical models aren't going to get us where we need
to go.
People seem to feel the need to reinvent the wheel. I know, I've done
it...
Good luck with your advertising program. ;>)
David A. Smith
erschro...@gmail.com
> Dear Jarek Duda:
>
> On Aug 6, 6:51 am, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've recently found that after Bohr model there was
> > introduced by Gryziński classical model in which
> > electrons make almost radial free-fall trajectory to
> > the nucleus, which due to magnetic moments is
> > bent by Lorentz force and so the electron go back
> > to the initial distance.
> ...
> > Have you heard about it? Any comments?
>
>
> Classical theories can only go so far...
>
> David A. Smith
His papers all seem to date from the 60s and 70s. Plus they're based
on classical physics, not quantum mechanics. Note that his papers are
not cited much if at all either. And his picture of the He atom with
the 2 electrons in orbits on opposite sides of the nucleus, not
centered on the nucleus, is just weird. What happens if you remove 1
electron? Does the other one now swing completely around and orbit
like the 1 in hydrogen? What makes it do that?
Jarek Duda
repairing mistakes of the past.
The belief that Bohr model is all we can do, made that we stopped
bothering about the dynamics behind wave function collapse - 'it's
quantum', 'it leads to indeterminism', 'it's split for parallel
universes' ...
These simple and natural models show that maybe we shouldn't give up
so easily ... that common classical physics can get a bit nearer to
inconceivable quantum mechanics ... and even more - show concrete
dynamics behind it ...
For example look at recent STM pictures of statical electron
probability density on defected lattice of semiconductor:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41659
we see that Brownian motion working well if fluids, no longer works in
fixed structure of solid - instead we would thermodynamically expect
this picture to be quantum ground state of the lattice with such
characteristic localizations ... but how does the current flow look
like - statistical dynamics of 'quants of charge'?
Does quantum mechanics answer to this question?
But if we do 'classical' thermodynamics really as mathematics expects
- instead of Brownian motion we get going to quantum ground state -
and now more: there is a concrete stochastic current flow behind such
picture now:
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/preview.html?draft/93373/000008/ElectronConductanceModelUsingMaximalEntropyRandomWalk
So what do you think is so ... quantum about quantum mechanics - what
is the essence which cannot ever be reached by classical physics?
Anyway Gryzinski's lecture looks as extremely deep considerations,
life work of serious physicist - both theoretician and
experimentalists, working in serious scientific center ... and which
conceptually simple calculations were checked and approved by many
world class reviewers ...
So I would gladly hear some concrete comments from a person who has at
least looked at it closer?
Jarek Duda
wrote:
> His papers all seem to date from the 60s and 70s. Plus they're based
> on classical physics, not quantum mechanics. Note that his papers are
> not cited much if at all either. And his picture of the He atom with
> the 2 electrons in orbits on opposite sides of the nucleus, not
> centered on the nucleus, is just weird. What happens if you remove 1
> electron? Does the other one now swing completely around and orbit
> like the 1 in hydrogen? What makes it do that?
I haven't looked at it closer yet, but ...
His classical scattering papers have e.g. 469 citations:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v138/i2A/pA336_1
and these atomic models are just natural consequence - succeeding
scatterings starting from nearby.
They are relatively simple conceptually, got through many review
processes, so I will probably repeat these numerical calculations some
day, but I believe they are seriously checked. And it looks like in
many papers there were deeply considered many ionization, scattering
scenarios.
After 'removing' one electron, EM field will change drastically and
the second one should evolve to more energetically optimal
trajectory ... but I'm not competent to talk about this model ... I
just read his lecture ...
erschro...@gmail.com
> It's not about reinventing something, but just doing it right -
> repairing mistakes of the past.
> The belief that Bohr model is all we can do, made that we stopped
> bothering about the dynamics behind wave function collapse - 'it's
> quantum', 'it leads to indeterminism', 'it's split for parallel
> universes' ...
> These simple and natural models show that maybe we shouldn't give up
> so easily ... that common classical physics can get a bit nearer to
> inconceivable quantum mechanics ... and even more - show concrete
> dynamics behind it ...
Sorry, pal, if it ain't quantum mechanics, it ain't science. Really,
this is not the 19th century. Sure, classical methods may give good
approximations in some areas, but I'm sorry, your comment about
classical vs quantum shows you're 100 years out of touch.
>
> For example look at recent STM pictures of statical electron
> probability density on defected lattice of semiconductor:http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41659
> we see that Brownian motion working well if fluids, no longer works in
> fixed structure of solid - instead we would thermodynamically expect
> this picture to be quantum ground state of the lattice with such
> characteristic localizations ... but how does the current flow look
> like - statistical dynamics of 'quants of charge'?
> Does quantum mechanics answer to this question?
> But if we do 'classical' thermodynamics really as mathematics expects
> - instead of Brownian motion we get going to quantum ground state -
> and now more: there is a concrete stochastic current flow behind such
> picture now:http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/preview.html?draft/93373/000008/Ele...
>
Uh, sorry, no. No hand-waving, no silly models of electrons falling
to a nucleus and bouncing off, none of that brings us anything except
giggles.
> So what do you think is so ... quantum about quantum mechanics - what
> is the essence which cannot ever be reached by classical physics?
Oh just atoms, electrons, molecules, their behavior, ...
>
> Anyway Gryzinski's lecture looks as extremely deep considerations,
> life work of serious physicist - both theoretician and
> experimentalists, working in serious scientific center ... and which
> conceptually simple calculations were checked and approved by many
> world class reviewers ...
Sure, and it's the life work of others showing the earth doesn't go
around the sun, or an intelligent designer made the universe. So?
Jarek Duda
inconceivable?
I'm not saying that nature has to be understandable, but rather that
there is dangerous and well known from history social phenomenon: that
when people believe that they cannot understand something, they for
example introduce Zeus to explain lightning ... having such
'explaination' suppresses further search ... I believe scientists
should be very careful about such giving up in difficult situations -
it's kind of accepting 'intelligent design' ... do you disagree?
So before giving up understanding, we should for example take what we
do understand to its real limits of applicability - in my opinion
situation in which the general belief of scientific society is that
history of models of atoms we can understand has ended almost a
century ago ... while there in fact are practically unknown much
better modern models ... is just sick.
As a scientist, I believe that to understand something
'inconceivable', the basic approach is to really deeply understand
consequences of what we do understand - the essence of
'inconceivability' has to be hidden somewhere in what this fully
exhausted picture is still missing.
Modern history of physics shows that this basic approach not only has
been neglected ... but even seems like it has been silenced ... it's
not about obsolete Bohr model people should be learned first!
So do you believe we should just give up trying to understand
inconceivable dogmas of QM?
If not - isn't really deep understanding of full consequences of what
we can be really sure of (like Coulomb and Lorentz force) the basic
approach?
dlzc
On Aug 11, 11:25 pm, Jarek Duda <duda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Doesn't it] really bother you that the basis of your
> understanding [is] inconceivable?
The model has been physcially verified. We've been able to map the
actual orbital shapes in the surfaces of crystals. Orbitals that can
not derive from "your heor's work". Nature is not limited by what we
can understand.
David A. Smith
Jarek Duda
explanation of lightning using Zeus worked? Or maybe we've get here
because they slowly and consequently expanded what was
understandable? :)
The point is that maybe they are just equivalent - like that we can
look at coupled pendulums through their positions(classical) or
through diagonalized evolution operator - normal mode - in base in
which we have 'superposition of rotations - unitary evolution -
'quantum' picture...
For both quantum mechanics and field theories (linearized), the basic
evolution is unitary (in eigenbase of evolution operator), untrue?
But QM has additionally decoherence ... which in modern view is
believed not to be out of unitary picture, but thermodynamical
consequence of interaction with environment, untrue?
Classical thermodynamics: that when we cannot trace particle, we
should assume Boltzmann distribution among its possible trajectories,
leads to going to (squares of coordinates of) the lowest Hamiltonian
eigenfunction (of nonzero projection), untrue?
It explains decoherence and for example makes that stable orbit while
stochastic perturbation shifts toward the nearest 'quantum' state...
Maybe we don't have to assume additional dogmas for QM ... but just
see it as naturally emerging in field theories?
Why are you so sure that it cannot be so simple and natural?
What is missing here to 'full QM'?
Jarek Duda
probability cloud, then there is some mystical phenomena and there is
instantaneously(?) chosen (by? out of physics: supernatural? splitting
universe into parallel ones?) one of new probability clouds ...
We are finally reaching measurement precision to see that it isn't
really instantaneous:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100630110910.htm
So maybe there is some internal dynamics behind it - QM isn't
fundamental theory, but only practical idealization and so we can
sharpen its probabilistic picture ... like imagine concrete electron
trajectory, which from particle physics is believed to be extremely
small ...
Heisenberg uncertainty restricts measurement capabilities - does it
say that the picture is also blurred for physics - internal dynamics?
That we cannot model it - imagine what's going on behind the curtain?
Jarek Duda
superconductor are considered for quantum computation:
http://www.rle.mit.edu/media/pr150/44.pdf
Such 'spinning' solitons are simultaneously localized (corpusular
nature) and have some internal periodic process (wave nature) -
sometimes it's important for them to be somewhere and sometime they
have to fit with own phase.
Such localized solutions should go through some (eventually quantum
superposed) classical trajectory.
To summarize: Lagrangian mechanics is local, deterministic theory, but
because we don't have full knowledge, we just have to use
thermodynamical models like assuming Boltzmann distribution among
possible scenarios: trajectories (what leads exactly to quantum
decoherence) - there is no need for such models to be still local or
fulfill Bell's inequalities.
The belief that inconceivable probabilistic theory like quantum
mechanics is not effective but fundamental, can indeed imply that
physics is nonlocal or nondeterministic ... and have lead to that the
common view on physics is quite analogous to creationists philosophy:
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51199-any-comments-about-gryzinski-free-fall-atomic-model/page__pid__562352__st__33
If we don't make such unfounded(?) assumptions, we are finally allowed
to search for some concrete deterministic dynamics behind quantum
processes ...
Probabilistic models on local theories do not longer have to be local!