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?
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?
Here is longer discussion:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/browse_thread/thread/7ce4683ed514b002#
Barry Gold
Jarek Duda <dud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Quantum mechanics says that in photoemission, electron is one
>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
I'm not by any means a QM expert, but ISTM there isn't anything
surprising here. From the article:
When an electron is prized out of an atom, this is not something
that an electron merely settles with the light pulse. An event of
this type always concerns all electrons in the atom.
That is, here comes a photon with a bunch of momentum -- more than can
be absorbed by simply moving an electron to a higher orbital. But,
because of uncertainty, it's indeterminate _which_ electron gets hit
by the photon. So the electrons have to "somehow" settle which one
gets the extra kinetic energy and comes flying out of the atom. This
"negotiation" (an awful, anthropomorphic/teleologic term, but I can't
think of a better one) has to take place at light speed -- because
information simply can't travel faster than that.
So it's not surprising that there's _some_ delay. The interesting
thing, acto the article, is that the delay is about 5 times what the
current model predicts. That's a model of what happens _inside_ the
atom. And, continuing from the last quote:
Without simplifying assumptions, even the most powerful computers
cannot simulate the joint motion.
So, it's quite likely that the problem is in those "simplifying
assumptions". Assume = Make an Ass out of U and Me.
Looks like they'll have to tweak the model.
>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?
Heisenberg, alone, does not say that we cannot model the internal
dynamics. Look up "Hidden Variable Theory" in Wikipedia.
There are experiments in which two electrons are always ejected in
opposite directions with opposite spins: one with "spin up", the other
with "spin down". Or corresponding (and somewhat easier) experiments
in which two photons are ejected with identical polarization.
In each case, if you measure the results, you always find this
correspondance. So... does this correspondance arise from some
"hidden variable" inside the atom that we can't (yet) see? Well,
there's this formula, Bell's Inequality, which must be met if that
were true. And experiments show that Bell's Inequality is
consistently violated.
what it comes down to is you can have:
. hidden variables, or
. locality
pick one.
That is, *if* there are hidden variables, then those hidden variables
involve an interaction that takes place at speed greater than c.
Oops!
To put it mildly, most physicists don't take kindly to non-local
interactions. It would violate Special Relativity, which is even
better establihsed than QM.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster for:
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society: http://www.lasfsinc.org
My blog: http://goldslaw.livejournal.com/
Jarek Duda
Quantum mechanics is nondeterministic, nonlocal probabilistic theory -
you can assume that it's fundamental and so physics is also ugly ...
or just see it as only effective thermodynamical picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_Interpretation
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:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724 ) - 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 ...
Could you link some papers about these multielectron calculations?
What if they also find such delays for single electron?
Another argument for soliton models as localized particles is that
fluxons in 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.