Electron moves along the orbit is a kind of periodic movement, isn't it?

No. Unless you have some evidence that there is periodic movement of the hydrogen atom caused by the movement of electrons.

Which you have admitted you haven't.

So, no.

As we known, the solution about the hydrogen atom is the greatest and outstanding work for quantum mechanics.

There was that little thing that Einstein got a Nobel Prize for. And Planck's solution to the "ultraviolet catastrophe".

It took quite a long time for quantum theory to be applied to the atom. Even if the classical model is a reasonable approximation in some cases for the hydrogen atom, it is no use for more complex problems.

 

Yes, and a charge moving in a circle will give you a magnetic field. Do we see this field when we measure the magnetic moment of the hydrogen atoms?

Good question!

Although I don't know wether there is the technology  to do it, but we could apply the magnetic field by moving charges to explain magnetic properties of the magnets and VanderWaalsforce. I don't kown how to explain for these two phenomenon by quantum mechanics.

 

No. Unless you have some evidence that there is periodic movement of the hydrogen atom caused by the movement of electrons.

 

Which you have admitted you haven't.

 

So, no.

There is not the technology which is able to observe the electron moves around the proton.

Edited by Jeremy0922, 22 July 2014 - 11:41 AM.

There is not the technology which is able to observe the electron moves around the proton.

So you have no justification for claiming that such movement exists. Especially when there is plenty of evidence showing that the classical model is inadequate.

What are you going to do about the photoelectric effect?

How are you going to explain the black body spectrum?

Edited by Strange, 22 July 2014 - 11:42 AM.

 

So you have no justification for claiming that such movement exists.

What we can not observe is not mean there is no!

Do you see an electron? do you believe there is elelctron?

Edited by Jeremy0922, 22 July 2014 - 12:04 PM.

 

Good question!

Although I don't know wether there is the technology  to do it, but we could apply the magnetic field by moving charges to explain magnetic properties of the magnets and Van der Waals force. I don't kown how to explain for these two phenomenon by quantum mechanics.

The magnetic moment would affect the energy levels both in the unperturbed atom (Hyperfine splitting) and when it was subjected to an external field where we would see Zeeman splitting of the levels. The technology exists to observe this; the study is one of spectroscopy. People would have seen such an effect several decades ago, if the structure was there. But the answer is no, there is no effect observed. This is why there is no serious consideration of a classical model: any model that disagrees with experiment is wrong. QM gives the right answer.

As to magnetic properties and van der Waal's forces, perhaps you should read up on them. These have been studied for years.

What we can not observe is not mean there is no!

If we cannot observe it, then there is no reason to think it exists.

Inventing an undetectable effect as the basis of a theory is not science.

 

Do you see an electron? do you believe there is elelctron?

I have seen the trail of an electron in a cloud chamber. I have seen many other effects caused by the behaviour of electrons.

So we have observed and measured behaviour of electrons, used as the basis of various theories. You have invented a non-existent effect.

Which do you think I should take more seriously? Science or science-fiction?

 

The magnetic moment would affect the energy levels both in the unperturbed atom (Hyperfine splitting) and when it was subjected to an external field where we would see Zeeman splitting of the levels. The technology exists to observe this; the study is one of spectroscopy. People would have seen such an effect several decades ago, if the structure was there. But the answer is no, there is no effect observed. This is why there is no serious consideration of a classical model: any model that disagrees with experiment is wrong. QM gives the right answer.

I want to know the interpretation of magnetic properties (field) of the magnets by QM, not Zeeman splitting.

when I was asking about what moves a hydrogen atom, I was referring to a gas of hydrogen atoms, not a single atom isolated. As hydrogen gas is compressed, it is the electron of each atom that is doing the repulsing of it's neighbor, and acts as the active mechanism of the compression energy, correct?

Edited by hoola, 22 July 2014 - 03:44 PM.

 

I want to know the interpretation of magnetic properties (field) of the magnets by QM, not Zeeman splitting.

That's a separate question to whether or not classical physics is consistent with the spectroscopic results. (It isn't) The point is that a classical orbit of an electron would have predictable effects on the level splittings. These results are not seen, thus the model is wrong.

 

That's a separate question to whether or not classical physics is consistent with the spectroscopic results. (It isn't) The point is that a classical orbit of an electron would have predictable effects on the level splittings. These results are not seen, thus the model is wrong.

How do you explain the magnetic field by moving charged particle according to quantum mechanics?

Edited by Jeremy0922, 23 July 2014 - 02:11 AM.

What we can not observe is not mean there is no!
Do you see an electron? do you believe there is elelctron?

Long traces in Cloud Chamber are from electrons (they are also called beta rays, or when we're making them using high voltage - cathode rays)

The more kinetic energy has particle, the longer trace.

Long traces in Cloud Chamber are from electrons (they are also called beta rays, or when we're making them using high voltage - cathode rays)

The more kinetic energy has particle, the longer trace.

Thanks for your link, I believe there is electron, although we have never get the image about a standing electron.

Edited by Jeremy0922, 23 July 2014 - 07:07 AM.

Yes, and a charge moving in a circle will give you a magnetic field.

Actually, in coil electrons don't move in circle, but in spiral. Single electron is just once passing through wire.

When electrons flow in one direction in coil of course it will produce magnetic field, that anybody with "compass array" device can see on his own eyes.

But if we will use alternating current, electrons flow once in one direction, once in opposite direction.

Can you detect magnetic field when frequency of AC would be counted in millions or billions Hz?

What does show "compass array" device, if you will place it close to coil through which there is flowing low frequency AC, or high frequency AC.. ?

What does show "compass array" device, if you will place it close to discharge tube with Hydrogen and turn high voltage on to ionize it.. ?
 

The issue I see here is that spectral lines are obtained from discharge tube, with ionized plasma.
But electric neutral Hydrogen gas is not mixture of proton and electron, but H₂ molecule, two protons and two electrons.

ps. Where in USA and UK somebody can buy "compass array" like below one? I searched couple times on Google and can't find anything.. Here it costs $40 in the regular shop.

Whenever somebody asks on physics forum about "moving electron in circle around proton" I know they don't mean it literally. Circle is 2d figure, with missing one axis to 3d. Analyze should be done using the all 3 dimensions.

What are your predictions of magnetic field lines around it for such "coil".. ? Imagine it's single long wire.

Edited by Sensei, 23 July 2014 - 07:13 AM.

 

How do you explain the magnetic field by moving charged particle according to quantum mechanics?

It's not part of QM, as such. It's explained classically and relativistically.

 

Actually, in coil electrons don't move in circle, but in spiral.  

 

I'm not talking about an electron in a coil, I'm talking about an electron in a Bohr orbit and the energy shift that will result if the electron had orbital angular momentum.

 

It's not part of QM, as such. It's explained classically and relativistically.

You are wrong, QM is the theory for solving the structure of atom, molecule,  and solid-state, the magnetics properpties are depended on the structure, so,QM should explain it.

You are wrong, QM is the theory for solving the structure of atom, molecule,  and solid-state, the magnetics properpties are depended on the structure, so,QM should explain it.

You are not the arbiter of what QM is. This is simply a straw-man justification for rejecting QM. Perhaps you should actually study the subject and learn about it before criticizing.

 

Thanks for your link, I believe there is electron, although we have never get the image about a standing electron.

Image not (hard to get image of particle at rest),

but whole electrostatics is about measuring charges coming from electrons at rest that repel each other..

http://www.sparkmuse...STATIC_MISC.HTM

Wimshurst machine

http://en.wikipedia....mshurst_machine

Electroscope

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Electroscope

Don't you have these devices.. ??

 

You are not the arbiter of what QM is. This is simply a straw-man justification for rejecting QM. Perhaps you should actually study the subject and learn about it before criticizing.

I am not the arbiter, but have the right to question it.

 

Image not (hard to get image of particle at rest),

but whole electrostatics is about measuring charges coming from electrons at rest that repel each other..

http://www.sparkmuse...STATIC_MISC.HTM

 

Wimshurst machine

http://en.wikipedia....mshurst_machine

 

Electroscope

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Electroscope

 

Don't you have these devices.. ??

Thanks

 

I am not the arbiter, but have the right to question it.

Saying that a particular theory needs to explain a phenomenon outside of its reach is not questioning it. Electromagnetism doesn't explain gravity, but that does not indicate any problem with E&M. Explaining magnetism is within E&M, not QM.