Theoretical Physics Theoretical Physics Help Forum  10Likes
Apr 23rd 2018, 04:08 PM

#1  Banned
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 92
 Quantum mechanics atomic orbitals
Are the atomic orbitals for real???
§ 20. Quantum Mechanics
Quantum mechanics is based on Planck's blackbody derivation of the energy element (hγ) but Planck uses the kinetic energies of the blackbody surface electrons in the derivation of the energy element (e = hγ) since Planck's constant h = 6.6 × 1034 m2 kg/s contains the unit of the mass (kg) yet light is composed of massless light particles. The quantum mechanic wave packet that is used to represent a particle structure is formed by the superpositioning of ten probability waves (fig 13) but doubling the lengths of the probability waves that are used to construct a single wave packet results in the formation of a second wave packet. Increasing the lengths of the original probability waves by 100 times produces 100 successive wave packets. The quantum mechanic wave packet does not depict a particle structure. Davisson–Germer (1927) electron scattering experiment is used to justify electron wave interference but the destruction of electrons to form the nonelectron fringes of the electron scattering pattern represents the arbitrary destruction of electrons which violates energy conservation. de Broglie's electron matter wave is used to represent the structure of a Bohr atom (fig 14) but de Broglie's continuous electron matter wave conflicts with the particle structure of an electron since an electron that has a particles structure depicted with a matter wave simultaneously exists on both sides of an atom. The atomic electron matter wave contained in a circular path cannot be represented in a Cartesian, cylindrical or spherical coordinate system which results in the atomic electron matter wave transformed into a particleinabox electron matter wave (fig 15) represented with Schrödinger's wave equation,
(h2/2m)∇"Ψ(x,y,z) + V(x,y,z) + V(x,y,z)Ψ(x,y,z) = EΨ(x,y,z)......................................... ..........58
Schrodinger's wave equation is used to derive a wave function
Ψ = Σ c u exp[(2πEt/h + θ)i]............(Schrodinger, p. 1066)............................................. .........59
"The wavefunction physical means and determines a continuous distribution of electricity in space, the fluctuations of which determine the radiation by laws of ordinary electrodynamics." (Schrödinger, Abstract).
"The fluctuation of the charge will be governed by the Eq. 28, applied to the special case of the hydrogen atom. To find the radiation, that by electrodynamics will originate from these fluctuating charges, we have simply to calculate the rectangular components of the total electric moment by multiplying (28) by x, y, z respectively, then integrating over space, e.g." (Schrodinger, p. 1066).
"1. The theory which is reported in the following pages is based on the very interesting and fundamental researches of L. de Broglie' on what he called "phasewaves" ("ondes de phase") and thought to be associated with the motion'of material points, especially with the motion of an electron or proton. The point of view taken here, which was first published in a series of German papers, is rather that material points consist of, or are nothing but, wavesystems. This extreme conception may be wrong, indeed it does not offer as yet the slightest explanation of why only such wavesystems seem to be realized in nature as correspond to masspoints of definite mass and charge. On the other hand the opposite point of view, which neglects altogether the waves discovered by L. de Broglie and treats only the motion of material points, has led to such grave difficulties in the theory of atomic mechanics —and this after centurylong development and refinement— that it seems not only not dangerous but even desirable, for a time at least, to lay an exaggerated stress on its counterpart. In doing this we must of course realize that a thorough correlation of all features of physical phenomena can probably be afforded only by a harmonic union of these two extremes." (Schrödinger, p. 104950).
"As an alternative, in 1926 German physicist Max Born sharply refined Schrodinger's interpretation of an electron wave, and it is his interpretationamplified by Bohr and his colleaguesthat is still with us today......He asserted that an electron wave must be interpreted from the standpoint of probability." (Greene, p. 105).
"Just a few months after de Broglie's suggestion, Schrodinger took the decisive step toward this end by determining an equation that governs the shape and the evolution of probability waves, or as they came to be known, wave functions." (Greene, p. 107).
"Schrodinger, de Broglie, and Born explained this phenomenon by associating a probability wave to each electron." (Greene, p. 109).
Schrödinger is structurally representing an electron with a massless electric wave depicted with the wave function but a massless electric wave conflicts with the structure of an electron that has a mass. Schrödinger's electric wave is replaced with an electron probability wave, and represented with a spherical coordinate system but an electron position probability can only represent a positive value or zero and cannot depict a negative value that is required in representing destructive wave interference used to derive the equations of the atomic orbitals, and the representation of a plane wave equation of the probability wave that has a constant maximum amplitude in a spherical coordinate system results in a mathematical implosion that is used with Lagrangian polynomials to derive the equations of the atomic orbitals.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________
Quantum mechanics uses a gauge transformation of Maxwell's equations.
"A similar, but more subtle and deep, situation arises in electrodynamics where one can express the (physical) electric and magnetic fields in terms of scalar (ɸ(r,t)) and vector (A(r,t)) potentials via
B(r,t) = ∇ x A(r,t)............................................ ..........................................60
E(r,t) =  ∇ɸ(r,t)  d/dtA(r,t).......................................... .............................61
....Such a change in potentials is called a gauge transformation, and will be seen to play and important role in the quantum mechanical treatment of charged particle interactions." (Robinett, p.447); (CohenTannoudji, p. 315).
The quantum mechanics gauge transformation is based on Maxwell's equations but representing Maxwell's equations with a gauge potential does not change the fact that Maxwell's equations are derived using Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous nor can the potential of a massless and expanding electromagnetic field be used to represent the particle structure of an atom, ion, nuclei, neutron, proton or electron that has a mass.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________

 
Apr 23rd 2018, 04:38 PM

#2  Forum Admin
Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,554

What is this with Faraday anyway? Do you have any reason why you think that Faraday's law is wrong? Aside from the non "luminous" argument, which objection I really don't understand at all. After all, Coulomb's law doesn't include photons either and you aren't complaining about that one.
Of course atomic orbitals are real. They've been measured and used in Chemistry and Solid State for around 100 years. Why would you doubt them?
Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
See the forum rules here.

 
Apr 24th 2018, 04:34 AM

#3  Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: England
Posts: 786

The terms used to refer to quantum entities always causes conceptual difficulties,
due to the analogies they invoke with macroscopic examples we are familiar with.
If they are referred to as particles, then one immediately tries to imagine analogies with snooker balls (for example).
If they are referred to as waves then the analogies become ripples on a pond.
Neither macroscopic analogy works particularly well,
they can be used for certain simple situations, but in most "real" situations, they fail rather badly.
We have to accept that there is nothing analogous in the macroscopic world.
Quantum entities have their own peculiar behaviours,
which we have devised mathematical models to describe very successfully.
However to actually properly conceptualise the behaviours encoded within these mathematical models requires us to completely discard any macroscopic analogies.
Much easier said than done, hence the (in)famous phrase "shut up and calculate".
__________________
~\o/~

 
Apr 25th 2018, 10:22 AM

#4  Banned
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 92

"We have to accept that there is nothing analogous in the macroscopic world."
Thank you for agreeing.

 
Apr 25th 2018, 11:46 AM

#5  Forum Admin
Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,554

Originally Posted by lovebunny "We have to accept that there is nothing analogous in the macroscopic world."
Thank you for agreeing. 
There's lots of stuff on the Quantum scale that has nothing analogous to the macroscopic world. (Spin as a major example.) This seems to be a problem for you. Why?
Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
See the forum rules here.

 
Apr 28th 2018, 02:39 PM

#6  Banned
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 92

I have no problem using a macroscopic analogy to represent the structure of an atom but when negating situation occur then I believe that one must act accordingly. Well, when it comes to spin how can anyone prove that a component of an atom spins, and, is this macroscopic spin analogy originates from the planets orbiting the Sun? Isn't that kind of a big analogy?

 
Apr 28th 2018, 04:28 PM

#7  Forum Admin
Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,554

Originally Posted by lovebunny I have no problem using a macroscopic analogy to represent the structure of an atom but when negating situation occur then I believe that one must act accordingly. Well, when it comes to spin how can anyone prove that a component of an atom spins, and, is this macroscopic spin analogy originates from the planets orbiting the Sun? Isn't that kind of a big analogy? 
Spin has no macroscopic analogue. See here how to measure spin.
Part of the confusion here is that spin has similar Mathematics to angular momentum, but fermions (for example) have a spin of 1/2. Since electrons have spin 1/2 and if it were a rotation it would have to go around twice in order to come back around to its original state. (Due to the fact that 2 x 1/2 = 1.) This is not a physical rotation about an axis... Nothing macroscopic has this property.
Also... The Bohr model of the atom has a similar structure to our planetary system but in this case the Bohr model predicts that the electrons can't fall into the nucleus. Theoretically we can move the planets in the Solar System around to any distance we like. According to Bohr electrons can only be in certain energy states which require them to be at a specific distance from the nucleus. This was always known to be a flaw in the system. With the advent of Quantum Mechanics Schrodinger was able to derive the atomic orbitals and showed that the electrons are not localized in a specific portion of space, which would violate the uncertainty principle. What Schrodinger did was to describe the orbitals in terms of probability distributions. When the electron jumps between energy levels we no longer talking about different distances from the nucleus.
Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
See the forum rules here.

 
Apr 28th 2018, 04:55 PM

#8  Banned
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 92

I guess we have to take your word for it regarding the spin but doesn't QM use the gauge and what about the negative probability in terms of a macroscopic condition. The gauge is based on Maxwell's equations that electromagnetic fields are massless, and, how can you have a negative probability is a macroscopic sense.

 
Apr 28th 2018, 09:04 PM

#9  Forum Admin
Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,554

Originally Posted by lovebunny I guess we have to take your word for it regarding the spin but doesn't QM use the gauge and what about the negative probability in terms of a macroscopic condition. The gauge is based on Maxwell's equations that electromagnetic fields are massless, and, how can you have a negative probability is a macroscopic sense. 
Gauge has nothing to do with spin. And where are you getting that negative probabilities exist? Please tell me where you think that comes from.
Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
See the forum rules here.

 
Apr 29th 2018, 06:28 AM

#10  Physics Team
Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,576

Originally Posted by lovebunny Quantum mechanics is based on Planck's blackbody derivation of the energy element (hγ) 
Wrong. Planck only suggested that oscillators which make up a solid emit and absorb radiation in quanta. It was Einstein which showed that the radiation itself was made up of quanta. But neither of those are the foundations of quantum mechanics. It takes a theory to do that and that theory is Schrodinger's equation and all that goes into it.

  Thread Tools   Display Modes  Linear Mode  