sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 29, 10:32 am, Benj wrote:
> On Mar 29, 3:46 am, "FrediFizzx" wrote:
>
> > Bohr's model of an atom is obsolete.
>
> What is this? Am I talking into a mirror? I believe I made that point
> to YOU not too many posts ago.

I don't recall you ever pointing that out to me. Got the link? The
statement of yours does not make much sense. It is like word salad.

"Note for example that an "orbital" of an
electron about an atom represents constant acceleration (as it's
moving in a circle) but somehow does not produce radiation causing the
atom to "decay". And as noted by others, when an orbital DOES produce
radiation, it is in a very short time-frame "pulse", rather than by
the Maxwell theory."

> > Do you even know what an "orbital" is?
>
> Do you? Why is it that when a person isn't willing to blindly accept
> your "religion" you feel compelled to conclude that they must be
> ignorant of what you believe? I presume your plan is to whip out the
> Schrödinger equation to "explain" to me what is going on in the atom.
> Yeah, that ought to really settle any question of the "structure" of
> an atom...NOT.

For the benefit of the OP, an orbital is simply a probability pattern of
where one might expect to find an electron in an atom that is in a
certain energy state. Most of the probability patterns are hardly
circular. You should get yourself a good physical chemistry book and
study it.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations