Any comments about Gryziński's free-fall atomic model?
Jarek Duda
Gryzinski 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 goes back to the initial
distance.
This model is a natural consequence of classical scattering theory
developed by the author.
In almost 20 peer-reviewed papers in the best journals he claims to
show that these using just Coulomb and Lorentz force models give
really good agreement with experiment (in opposite to Bohr).
These conceptually simple calculations were verified and approved by
many world class reviewers, so one could think that such impressive
models should be well known ...
... but surprisingly I cannot even find any constructive comments
about them ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model
I'm very interested at finding some serious comments about these
finally agreeing with experiments modern classical models?
Have you even heard about them? About someone working on them?
a student
The first thing that comes to mind is a classical electron radiates
when
accelerated, rather than emitting discrete photon levels.
I've just had a look at a couple of Gryzinksi's papers, referred to in
the Wikipedia article you mention. The 1987 one (Int J Theor Phys
26 (10) 1987, 967-980) is, quite clearly, a semiclassical theory
applied to diffraction of a free electron. Nothing wrong with
semiclassical approximations, but a deterministic local theory
such as this one cannot explain, for example, effects of
entanglement, since such theories must satisfy the Bell
inequalities. Hence it is not a candidate for replacing QM.
The abstracts of the other paper also indicate the model can
only approximate scattering results.
Jarek Duda
In the typical Aspect/Zeilinger-like experiment we have full information
about the entangled photon pair (within the usual minimal interpretation
of quantum theory), because we know its pure state. This state implies
that each of the single photons making up this pair are in a mixed
state.
=======================================================================
The emission in synchrotron is because of momentum conservation - to
compensate electron's acceleration ... but the center of mass of atom
doesn't have to move - 'electron and proton exchange virtual photons'.
Where in atoms energy of such photons would come from?
I understand falling on positron (about 142ns) ... but on proton? to
create neutron? :)
Periodic trajectories are themselves because of being in some
energetic optimum - cannot decrease it just like that to produce
photon.
About Bell inequalities ... let's look at thermodynamics ...
It is used in situations in which we don't/cannot have full
information: mathematical theorems like maximum uncertainty principle
says that we should assume uniform distribution among possible
scenarios (or Boltzmann more generally).
Applying it to random walk on a graph - in the simplest case we should
assume uniform distribution among possible paths, don't you agree?
This natural assumption doesn't lead to standard random walk (each
outgoing edge is equally probable) as it is generally believed, but to
real Maximal Entropy Random Walk:
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i16/e160602
in which stationary probability distribution is squares of coordinates
of the dominant eigenvector of adjacency matrix, which corresponds to
(minus discrete) Hamiltonian.
In this simple natural thermodynamical model we get 'squares' like in
QM, which made that QM violate Bell inequalities - it's very educating
exercise to derive these simple formulas for MERW: you will understand
why we shouldn't require fulfilling Bell inequalities from
probabilistic/thermodynamical models ...
I'm a layman in Gryzinski's models now, but in his lectures beside
scattering, there are also calculated energy levels, magnetic
properties ... but generally scatterings produce much more data what
should make them the best confirmation for a model (?)
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?