This topic is more about psychology then physics, James please don't remove it!

I would like your opinion about the fear of making discoveries. Why people are afraid to think differently?

I remember an old interview with Barbara Shipman- a Ph.D. in mathematics at the University of Arizona, about quantum bees -http://www.math.rochester.edu/about/newsletters/spring98/bees.html,
there she answers to a question wouid she continue her research - I am afraid from the questions that this research can arsise, It can change entirely our picture about microworld - something like that.

I tought at that time that she is only kidding, but later I realized that all of the "serious" scientists over the world would never permit a totally new trend in modern theoretical physics (which is corrupted and unapliable about some very important matters). There is no point in publishing any research different from the modern beliefs in Physics Review and the other "famous" physics magazines.

The question is why? We are supposed to live in the century of information when ideas are valued by theirs contend not from the shape. It is amazing, but the "educated" people today accept new ideas much harder then not-educated. I had losed just recently a lot of time with one prominent professor about the description of gravity by diffusion equations, at the end he just told me -" I don't like your description. I like QM and classical mechanics. You have too much words and too little math." And he ended the discussion.

Is that everything that matters - what people like? What about the reality?

Why do you think anybody is afraid to think differently? Maybe they just dont want to waste their time.

No offense, but your post indicates that you’re pretty ignorant of the attitude that most working scientists have. The discoveries that profoundly overturn our ideas about things are the most celebrated ones in science, and are the sort of thing that scientists get famous and win Nobel Prizes for.

Why do you think anybody is afraid to think differently? Maybe they just dont want to waste their time.

this was nasty, because this is their job - to think. It is not easy job :)))

No offense, but your post indicates that you’re pretty ignorant of the attitude that most working scientists have. The discoveries that profoundly overturn our ideas about things are the most celebrated ones in science, and are the sort of thing that scientists get famous and win Nobel Prizes for.

Yes but I had the feeling that there is something like forbiden zone. Maybe there is some limitation of how much we should know. The major reason for development of science is human curiosity about phenomenons of nature. Science is different then religion because not ecerything is postulated, thepe is laws, principles. But today, scientist are no more curious. They only want to keep their jobs. It is unacceptable to discard ideas in this way. The science today had become more like a religion. Scientists do not doubt the foundations of their knowledge, they use imperative way of description which excludes any further discussion. Tell me, what big discoveries had be made in the teoretical physics during last 20 years? Or the last 50 years?

The last major revolution in physics (classical Newtonian physics to quantum physics and relativity) took over 200 years. Do you think that for 200 years scientists were simply scared of progress? Hardly. Major scientific revolutions don’t just come along every few decades. Your complaint that there hasn’t been a major revolution in physics in the last 20-50 years simply isn’t realistic.

Every physicist would love to be the one to come up with the next huge physics breakthrough. Look at how much attention string theory is getting, and it can’t even be experimentally verified yet…

Keep in mind that our modern theories are very good, and excellent at predicting how nature behaves. Quantum physics and relativity have been confirmed by virtually every experiment that has ever been devised to test them. If a new revolution in physics were to occur, the new theory would have to either:

1)explain things that quantum physics and relativity can’t explain (which would be hard, because so far as I know we've never found anything that they can't explain)
or
2)explain everything that quantum physics and relativity explain, just as well as they do, but be simpler

But today, scientist are no more curious.What evidence do you have to support this silly statement?

Tell me, what big discoveries had be made in the teoretical physics during last 20 years? Or the last 50 years?Be aware that theoretical physics is only one small branch of science. Also, there are cycles in all sciences. Some periods will have huge changes in the fundamentals and then a much longer time must be spent on the implications of those fundamental changes. Both periods are critical for scientific progress.

-Dale

Xgen,

Some of the major progress in physics in the last 50 years:

Experimental:
Discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background, 1965
Confirmation of gravitational radiation in a binary pulsar, 1974
Discovery of the Quantum Hall Effect, 1980
Discovery of the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect, 1982
Discovery of high Tc superconductors, 1986
Realization of Bose-Einstein Condensation, 1995
Discovery of massive neutrinos, 1998
Discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, 1998

Theoretical:
Quarks, 1961
Quantum Chromodynamics, 1965
Electroweak unification, 1967
Density Functional Theory, 1970's
Proof of renormalizability of gauge theories, 1971
Discovery of asymptotic freedom, 1973
The Renormalization Group, 1974
Inflation, 1981
Explanation of fractional quantum Hall effect, 1983
The Standard Model of Particle Physics

As far as being curious, scientists are more active and adventurous than ever. We are now beginning to understand the most complicated systems in existence: living organisms. The twin pillars of quantum field theory and general relativity are the two most precise intellectual constructions ever, and they have been tested in ways that our predecessors couldn't even dream of. The theoretical physics departments of many universities are practically overrun with string theorists who are looking to explain things that haven't even been observed. Progress in the field of quantum computing is astonishing. A new era of precision cosmology and astrophysics that began with the cosmic microwave background is now in full swing. Fantastically difficult detections of remote planets are now commonplace. I could go on forever. Have you been to a physics colloquium recently? All they talk about is the promise of new physics. Why are we building the multibillion dollar Large Hadron Collider? Why are we looking for tiny variations in Newton's law of gravitation at short distances? Why is the most sophisticated experiment ever devised by humanity being designed so that we can directly measure gravitational waves? I don't think its because scientists aren't curious anymore.

Now, there are two things that most scientists are not interesed in. Your bee lady is an example of one, bees with a "sixth sense about a quantum mechanics" just isn't the way the world works. There are a million reasons why it doesn't make any sense, all of them verified by experiment. Thermal fluctuations alone make it impossible for quantum behavior to manifest at that scale. What makes many physicists irritated about such claims isn't the claim itself, but the ignorance of the basic physics that makes the claim silly. The other thing we don't really care about it more complicated descriptions of the same old things. If you have a new theory, it had better agree with all the experiments and predict something new, or at least be much simpler. Nothing else will cut it. It's a tall order to be sure, and while I won't deny that it's possible, you should be aware of the odds. A million people come to physicists every day with their "great idea". How many of them have something real? None. Maybe you're convinced that one day your theory will fit the bill, that's fine, but don't expect the scientific world to care until then. Ironically, it is precisely our profound curiosity that makes this so true, we simple aren't interested in rehashing the past.

I hope this helps you understand why most scientists don't agree with your comments.

Nice post PM!

I don't know why some people have the impression that science is stalled, especially considering the impressive rate of new technological developments that people use on a daily basis. As though the technology could improve without the science improving. And as though a science that allows the development of a working device could possibly be unrelated to "how the world really works".

-Dale

The majority of these posts have provided a wealth of material for answering the original question of the thread starter, if that person will just do a small amount of reading between the lines.

Thank you for the answers.

I still not agree that modern theoretics scientist are doing their job. While the 19 and 20-th centuries was centuries when the industrial progress was lead by engineers, and almost totally was based on classical physics (except nuclear energy, but believe me the people that deals with it do not use none 'modern' theories, they barely use QM). So all of this 'discoveries' which you are talking has very little contribution to the technological and industrial growth in the last century.

The reason is not as Nasor says that a time need to past. The formulation of the building stones of the modern physics are not good, from a point of view of applications. That is why the modern theories about relativity, gravity and quantum particles are not appliable, they are not easy to understood, program or do anything usefull.

Physics Monkey, had posted a list of discoveries, from all of them the only really significant discovery is discovery of quarks, but there is so many questions conserning quarks that theory about quarks is not at all in some complete shape.

Such claims, that science is standing of unbreakable concrete had been made in the begining of 20-th century, only few years ago the 'stable' picture had smashed by sub-atomic discoveries which proved that classical physics is totally unappliable in sub-atomic scales. Now, I claim that modern physics is totally unappliable in the scales where the quantization of space and time takes into account.

I had prepared at least 10 big unknowns whick leads to the question - Isn't needed a totally new theories about elementary particles, space-time, matter, gravity and interactions?

10 BIG UNKNOWNS OF MODERN PHYSICS

1. Relativity - is there absolute space? SRT do not understands it. Can we detect it? Can we position ourselfs wrt cosmic space?

2. Space-time - is there quants of space and time? How big are they? What are consequences from this quantization?

3. Gravity - where gravity comes from? Is there gravitons? What is the mass (there is no exact definition of mass in modern physics!!!!), how bodies attract each other?

4. Particles - why some particles are stable and other not? Is there exotic particles which we dont know in the black holes? Can we produce such exotic particles? Can we produce anti-matter? Can we make anti-matter energy sources?

5. Quarks - why quarks are confined? What is the entanglement? Is there more quarks? (modern gluon theories are shit)

6. Nuclear physics - there is no complete theory that explains the atomic nuclei

7. QED - the explanation of Cosmic Microwave Background as result from the big bang is very silly, why vacuum is staying in temperatures 3,4 K? What are the particles which are causing these temperatures?

8. Dark matter - where come it from?

9. Electroweak unification - one day people will understand that this had been a big fraud, weak interactions are very different then electromagnetic, their nature and exact scheme of realization (exact math and mechaniks) are unknown, the situation with strong interctions is not much different

10. Electric charge - why wlectric charge for all particles is fixed? Why it do not vary like mass?

There is many other questions. It is not true that modern theory explain all experiments. You can explain everything if you introduce enough parameters, as well as any function y = f(x) can be represented with arbitrary precision to y = a + bx + cx^2 + dx^3 + ............, I can propose 100 experiments which if realized properly will lead to unexplainable results.

The problem with experiments however is more intrinsic. When you go down and down, the expereiments can not influence the subjects of the micro-worlds because they are too small and insignificant (many of them are very short living). Sometimes 'experiments' can be realized entirely as computer simulations. So if you wait someone to make experiments, to prove that it disagrees with all the parametric callibratrion theories and only then try to search another solution you will wait a lot. You can not at all make experiments if you dont first have a theory.

So, in summary, because not every single question has been answered it must be because scientists are not curious. That is a very illogical conclusion. I further notice that several of your questions have been answered (e.g. question 1, the answer is: no). I suppose that because scientists disagree with you the scientists must not be curious. Another illogical conclusion.

-Dale

Xgen,

You will find you are in the minority when you claim that the only important discovery from my list is quarks. In fact several of the other discoveries have had a much more pronounced effect on your everyday life. Let me illustrate by refuting your claim that the technology of the past century is based mostly on classical physics. You mentioned nuclear power but underplayed its importance since it is a major source of energy domestically and militarily. The massive super carriers and ballistic missile submarines of the US Navy could not function on classical sources of energy. Of course, to be fair, even coal or oil use is actually based on quantum theory when you consider the origins of the chemistry involved. Now think about this, how much has the advent of nuclear weaponry alone influenced the world? All modern electronics is based on the quantum theory of the solid state. Your computer that you used to type your messages wouldn't work without quantum mechanics. Now days, defects are purposefully introduced into microchips in order to prevent quantum coherence from interfering with the classical functioning of the computer. The laser is quantum mechanical in operation. The GPS system that is so important for global navigation is able to function only because of precise corrections supplied by general relativity. Again, I could go on forever. Here again we see that you thesis that modern physics is somehow irrelevant is not informed by reality. You still haven't answered my question, if scientists have lost their sense of curiosity then why are the most fantastic experiments ever conceived being carried out in greater numbers than ever before? Think about the politics of money in the US, would we honestly foot a large portion of the bill for the Large Hadron Collider if Americans weren't interested or curious? Why is Nasa so well funded? Why does the National Science Foundation exist? It isn't because no one is curious.

Now regarding your list of unanswered questions, I don't really see your point. As DaleSpam already noted, you seem unaware that many of your questions have already been answered. For example, a complete theory of nuclei does exists in principle, it is called quantum chromodynamics. The trouble is not fundamental unknowns but "merely" the difficulty of applying the basic theory to a very very complicated system. Some of your assertions are also clearly the product of an uninformed opinion, for example, where do you get off asserting that electroweak unification is a "big fraud". Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Are you aware that electroweak unification has consequences that have been verified experimentally. With reagrd to any remaining resonable questions, we are pursuing these questions in earnest precisely because we are incredibly curious. Furthermore, whatever we find will not invalidate quantum theory and relativity, they will remain valid in their considerable domain of application.

I urge you to look at the evidence and realize that your opinion of modern physics is ill informed.

The reason is not as Nasor says that a time need to past. The formulation of the building stones of the modern physics are not good, from a point of view of applications. That is why the modern theories about relativity, gravity and quantum particles are not appliable, they are not easy to understood, program or do anything usefull.
Quantum physics has great predictive power. The computer that you’re using to write your posts was designed using quantum physics. If quantum physics didn’t have such awesome predictive power, your computer wouldn’t work.

Also, your assertion that modern theories are “not easy to understand” makes it seem like you haven’t really ever studied classical physics. Classical mechanics/classical dynamics classes are often considered amongst the hardest physics classes at universities. Many more students failed the classical mechanics course than the quantum courses.

Do you actually have any education in physics or science? Or are you self-taught from web pages and "A Brief History of Time"?

Physics Monkey, Nasor

I remember when I studied about one QM exam I find out that Bohr theory accualy explains quite well all subatomic physics - X-rays, photoelectric effect, compton and so on, the QM give us only the electron densities. I assure you that nuclear energy is based on E = mc^2, mass-energy conversion. What do you know about atomic reactors? QM is used in nuclear physics only as cosmetics. Reactors are accually crude equipments which do not need sub-atomic precision or QM for their design. I know people that are dealing with it and I assure you that their QM level is much below students in universities (reactors had been maded by engineers not by teoreticians). I never sayed that nuclear power is not important.

Can you provide me with a list of curious people which I can contact and which I can talk with normaly and free about some very dfferent models and theories about the microworld? People that not insult me, do not call me crackpot, crank ...., people which are not puffed up and which do not give answer like - You should read all these books in my library, you should read many physics magzines, you should graduate in physics as magister and so on......, before you dare to come to talk with me?

It is easy to talk and hard to act. Computers are not made because of QM. Yes, I am familiar about theory of semi-conductors, I know about Fermi level , about the quantum effects at low temperatures. I am well enough informed. I know that all modern sciences are based on QM, QED, Standard Model ....., but they had in reality very little influenced the real and working applications. Also, QM is only math apparatus it needs external ideas and can not even be called 'theory'. It is not a complete quantum theory because it is not self-consistent. It uses as granted classical concepts that should be derived. It is only image of classical physics, it just introduce quantizations of momentum and energy, otherwise it is not different then the classical EM and wave theory. Really quantum theory, that deserve to be called QM should work with quantum space and time.

Anyway, I am not against QM. I had worked in that field (as a hoby) and I respect people that make research based on QM. What I do not agree is that all ideas that come from outside logic are filtered and censured, they are not permited to be published, dicused, validated with experiments...., for example I had developed a model about particles called 'Snake Model', it is much better and advanced then 'The String Model'. It is "external" model, it uses totally different formulations and math. It goes much deeper in description of matter then any modern theory. Do you want to discuss it? Do you want to jump in the deep?

I remember when I studied about one QM exam I find out that Bohr theory accualy explains quite well all subatomic physics - X-rays, photoelectric effect, compton and so on, the QM give us only the electron densities. I don't think that this is true; the Bohr model is easily disproved by diffraction experiments that show the shapes of electron orbitals. They correspond perfectly to the predictions of QM, but not to at all to Bohr's model.

The Bohr model is able to predict the quantization of electron energies around an atom, but that's it; it can't explain where the electrons have been observed to actually be, can't account for the electron's quantized angular momentum, spin, etc. Indeed, the obverved behavior of electrons should be impossible under the Bohr model.

If there is a way to explain all those things with the Bohr model, I would certainly be interested to hear it.

Using QM it is possible to calculate, from the ground up, how complex chemical reactions will occur. That's not even remotly posssible with the Bohr model or any classical mode that I'm aware of.

Can anything but QM explain why diatomic oxygen has a bond order of 2 and is paramagnetic?

Can you provide me with a list of curious people which I can contact and which I can talk with normaly and free about some very dfferent models and theories about the microworld? People that not insult me, do not call me crackpot, crank ...., people which are not puffed up and which do not give answer like - You should read all these books in my library, you should read many physics magzines, you should graduate in physics as magister and so on......, before you dare to come to talk with me?You should talk with professors in your local university's physics department. Although you will find some that are "puffed up" and some that will insult you, I am sure you can find at least one patient professor who will be glad to discuss modern physics and the progress of science. However, almost all of them will probably require you to read books; if they don't then they probably aren't very good professors.

-Dale

Xgen,

The Bohr Model is certainly not sufficient to "explain quite well" all of subatomic physics. This is simply a wildly incorrect statement. I could provide evidence to this effect, but you don't seem very interested in actual evidence so I won't bother this time. You have yet to answer any of my questions and you continue to make statements that are blatantly false. I feel like this conservation has reached the limit of its usefulness. You are obviously yet another uninformed individual who is nevertheless certain that modern physics has it all wrong.

Feel free to elaborate on your theory, though be aware that physicists, myself included, are very demanding these days. Also, as Dale suggested, you will find many professors who are interested in discussing physics and helping you learn. What you will not find is anyone willing to listen to you make blatantly false statements in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

Xgen, you are superficially correct: there are two areas that are forbidden territory for scientists, but they have nothing to do with lack of curiosity.

Lack of Data:some topics simply have insufficient background information to permit a meaningful development of a hypothesis. It takes the addition of new data, or a radical re-interpretation of old data, to validate speculation in such fields. From time to time a scientist will dip his toe in such an area, but in a manner that makes it clear their thoughts are provisional and speculative. Others will nibble around the edges, removing some of the uncertainty. Eventually the accumulated growth in speculative possibilities and raw data reaches a balance point that either triggers an outright solution, with the introduction of new paradigm, or an explosion of research in the field.
That does not occur earlier, not because scientists lack curiosity, but because they neither wish to waste time on questions that are not ready to be answered, or that would not be funded, for the same reason.
Lask of Coherence: speculation that ignores existing solutions and is therefore out of step with currently accepted thought. Now there is no problem with challenging existing thought, if this focuses on areas where solutions are lacking. But no scientist, who is entitled to such a name, could be expected to delve into areas where problems exist only in the minds of those ill-informed in the field.

Earlier you raised an objection to the idea that physics professors might say "You should read all these books in my library, you should read many physics magzines, you should graduate in physics as magister and so on......, before you dare to come to talk with me?"
And I have to ask you, where did you get the immense arrogance to think it should be otherwise? How can you expect to be taken seriously challenging the current theories if you are unfamiliar with them in detail. I find it amazing that you feel you should somehow be singled out for special treatment. Have you any idea how many nutters come up with the new, improved physics? But this is different, because you have the true answers.
Excuse me if I remain highly sceptical.

Physics Monkey,

Bohr Model, together with the Zommerfeld extemsion is a simplified description of the sub-atomic processes, Bohr orbits coinsides with the centers (max densities) of the electron clouds, which distribution is given by QM. Bohr model had existed before QM it has a very big list of applications and it, together with Planck hypothesis about radiation of black-bodies and maybe einstein's explanation of photo-electric and heat radiation of atoms, had been the real jump from classical to quantum physics. QM is better as math but do not brings much new information.

I already sayed that I am not against QM, please read my posts. I had made a programs for QM calculations for potentials in crystalls. Even for single atoms, bigger then He, hamiltonian can't be solved precisely and thus it is solved numerically - with hartri-fock and etc.,

QM is limited in its fields of application, direct application of QM in atomic nuclei for example brings immense problems.


Feel free to elaborate on your theory, though be aware that physicists, myself included, are very demanding these days. Also, as Dale suggested, you will find many professors who are interested in discussing physics and helping you learn. What you will not find is anyone willing to listen to you make blatantly false statements in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.


that is why i am not talking with 'demanding' people, it is not necessary to know all the details of modern physics and only then to talk about a different physics, it is enough to know the basics of physics, and I know it well enough. this is arrogant and imperative talk which makes any discussion impossible, run-away from the real problems, because modern physics had a big problems and you cant even realize it.

Ophiolite,

it is more complicated, without theory you can not make experiments and you can not collect data. While up to the last century discoveries had been made accidently or without a developed theory. That had been possible because physics had not been so complex. Now it is different. The probability someone, accidently, to discover something that disagrees with modern physics and only then to start to think about different theory is insignificant.

Earlier you raised an objection to the idea that physics professors might say "You should read all these books in my library, you should read many physics magzines, you should graduate in physics as magister and so on......, before you dare to come to talk with me?"
And I have to ask you, where did you get the immense arrogance to think it should be otherwise? How can you expect to be taken seriously challenging the current theories if you are unfamiliar with them in detail. I find it amazing that you feel you should somehow be singled out for special treatment. Have you any idea how many nutters come up with the new, improved physics? But this is different, because you have the true answers.


the nutters are not so many, every person should be treated specially, you should be able to make the difference, otherwise you are just seeking excuses, you are sending something in the garbage before to read it at all, is that the scientific appoach? Or you are just afraid to answer questions?

Xgen,

You are wrong, plain and simple. That is now painfully apparent to all of us who actually know what we're talking about. However, I'll give you a chance: calculate the Lamb shift using the Bohr theory or your theory.

Ophiolite, it is more complicated, without theory you can not make experiments and you can not collect data. While up to the last century discoveries had been made accidently or without a developed theory. I am glad you qualified this with 'up to the last century'. Now do you mean up till the year 2000, or up tll 1900? If you mean up till 1900, then all I have to say is pigeon droppings. If you don't know what I mean then I have to say you shouldn't be denying the advances in physics over the last fifty years.
All good science begins with observation. Please point me to the research papers that model Type 1 migration of gas giants published before close orbiting exoplanets were discovered. Your statement is simply false. Much theory is derived from serendipitous observations, or from observations intended to be descriptive.
You may argue that you are talking only about physics. However, your opening post declares that the same is true of all science. I know this is not the case in geology, biology or astronomy. I suspect it is not the case in physics. And posters who appear better versed in the subject than you seem to concur. Excuse me if I follow their lead.

the nutters are not so many,
that is not my perception.
every person should be treated specially, you should be able to make the difference, otherwise you are just seeking excuses, you are sending something in the garbage before to read it at all, is that the scientific appoach? If someone has something of merit it will eventually be accepted. Do we (i.e. science) sometimes throw out the right idea for the wrong reason? Of course we do. Scientists are also human.
A classic example that occurs to me is that of Alfred Wegner and his theory of Continental Drift. The geological community rejected this partly because they believed there were insurmountable reasons related to rock strength that made it impossible, but largely because he was operating outside his field of meteorology.
However, if every individual who came up with an idea from outside the mainstream was given a hearing, scientists would have no time to conduct their own research. The solution is simple. Deliver your ideas through the mainstream. Easy? No, but it's the only way that's going to work.
I'm waiting with interest to see you explain the Lamb shift. I should be delighted if you could. [By the way I couldn't tell the difference between a Lamb shift and a Goat sidestep.]

There's a difference?

Xgen, i LOVEyour spirit of inquiry, and your insights into the 'closed system' of modern physics.....please donyt allow your spirit to be squashed

if i could recommend anything it is NO SPECIALIZATION, as i think that along with 'group scientists' has been oneof THE major conttributions to the imapasse you are experiencing.

as you say, it has all become SO fukin complex now that specialization allows no over spill. so the whole is neglected. and when you have scientists working in groups funded by State, well..........do i need to say that original research is not gonna be encouraged

it has to be pointed out also that QM, despite its revolutionary entrance and achievements is yet still stuck in a materialistic worldview. it is THAT worldview which now needs shakin up!

You are wrong, plain and simple. That is now painfully apparent to all of us who actually know what we're talking about. However, I'll give you a chance: calculate the Lamb shift using the Bohr theory or your theory.

I just was saying that is inportant not to know every detail but the physics principles. I admit, I can't calculate Lamb Shift and many other effects neither with QM, Bohr or my theory. So what? I can derive and explain all the classical physics, I can explain gravity and relativity, EM and weak interactions. For me is important the mechanics, I am not at a stage of experiments. One day I will be, I will explain Lamb effect, hyperfine structure of the atoms and much other things. Then I will talk with you and the others stucked-up with QM suckers.

I just was saying that is inportant not to know every detail but the physics principles. I admit, I can't calculate Lamb Shift and many other effects neither with QM, Bohr or my theory. So what? I can derive and explain all the classical physics, I can explain gravity and relativity, EM and weak interactions. For me is important the mechanics, I am not at a stage of experiments. One day I will be, I will explain Lamb effect, hyperfine structure of the atoms and much other things. Then I will talk with you and the others stucked-up with QM suckers.

Thank you for that promise of "One day." It sure isn't today.

Where you currently are, judging by your attitude and words, is much like a child telling an adult (the scientific world) that an airplane can't possibly fly - and that you will prove it - IF only people will listen. And at the same time you refuse to study all the information available about airplanes. Seriously, just how dumb is that? And you expect anyone at all to pay attention to you? Not a chance!

Physics Monkey,

Bohr Model, together with the Zommerfeld extemsion is a simplified description of the sub-atomic processes, Bohr orbits coinsides with the centers (max densities) of the electron clouds, which distribution is given by QM...QM is better as math but do not brings much new information.
You've said things like this a few times now, but I don't think this is true. How could the Bohr model predict something like a p-orbital?

Also, QM definitely does give new information. QM correctly predicted the ground state orbital angular momentum of an electron, which the Bohr model got wrong! Additionally, the Bohr model is unable to properly predict spectral lines and intensities - which QM is able to do perfectly.

Xgen,

How can you talk as if experiments aren't important? You seem to treat experiment as a minor detail that can be added on later. This isn't going to work, it's why Kant wrote one if his big books and why the Greeks didn't figure it all out. Also, I find it hard to believe to you have "explained EM and weak interactions" when you can't do a simple one loop calculation in quantum electrodynamics. Despite the fact that you failed, I will give you another chance based on your own claims. Here it is: having explained electromagnetism and the weak interaction you can certainly calculate couplings and mixing angles, right? Please do so.

Xgen,

How can you talk as if experiments aren't important? You seem to treat experiment as a minor detail that can be added on later. This isn't going to work, it's why Kant wrote one if his big books and why the Greeks didn't figure it all out. Also, I find it hard to believe to you have "explained EM and weak interactions" when you can't do a simple one loop calculation in quantum electrodynamics. Despite the fact that you failed, I will give you another chance based on your own claims. Here it is: having explained electromagnetism and the weak interaction you can certainly calculate couplings and mixing angles, right? Please do so.

I do believe Xgen is about to do a disappearing act - since he ran up against people who actually know what they're talking about rather than the sub-educated agreement he was expecting to get. :D

Thank you for that promise of "One day." It sure isn't today.

Where you currently are, judging by your attitude and words, is much like a child telling an adult (the scientific world) that an airplane can't possibly fly - and that you will prove it - IF only people will listen. And at the same time you refuse to study all the information available about airplanes. Seriously, just how dumb is that? And you expect anyone at all to pay attention to you? Not a chance!


No, you are like the child which looks at the planes, I am from the one that construct airplanes. Or let me guess, airplains are also made because of QM?

Also, QM definitely does give new information. QM correctly predicted the ground state orbital angular momentum of an electron, which the Bohr model got wrong! Additionally, the Bohr model is unable to properly predict spectral lines and intensities - which QM is able to do perfectly. [quote]

QM had steped on Bohr Model. If we introduce spin in Bohr model, we will get the same results as QM.

[quote]How can you talk as if experiments aren't important? You seem to treat experiment as a minor detail that can be added on later. This isn't going to work, it's why Kant wrote one if his big books and why the Greeks didn't figure it all out. Also, I find it hard to believe to you have "explained EM and weak interactions" when you can't do a simple one loop calculation in quantum electrodynamics. Despite the fact that you failed, I will give you another chance based on your own claims. Here it is: having explained electromagnetism and the weak interaction you can certainly calculate couplings and mixing angles, right? Please do so.


I am working in different way. First, I am explaining the schema by which this interactions - gravity, EM and week is realized. Weak interactions are causing some particles to decay. Yes, it has some resemblance to EM, because in EM charged particles glues (couples) with photons and after that also decays. Gravity is simlar but is about gluing with gravitons.
I can eventually explain why some particles, like neutron has exactly the lifetime they has, how this lifetime depends from the medium and so on. I can eventually explain why some nuclei are unstable and why they had exactly the lifetimes they has and so on...
I am open for discussion. If you seriously want to make a connection between my model, which is sub-structural from a point of view of QM, and the Standard Model, ok I will help as much as I can. But this 'translation' from the language I use, to your language is your responsibility. I can't do everything. And this is not the point right? You only want to degrade my research and to make me fool. Your approach is negative, the point is not what the model cant explain, but what the model can explain .

No, you are like the child which looks at the planes, I am from the one that construct airplanes. Or let me guess, airplains are also made because of QM?

My point is a simple one. You have made astounding claims yet have produced and presented NONE of your so-called work nor any links to where we might examine it.. And since you readily admit that the general scientific community would reject it, how can you possibly be so silly as to think someone here would accept it? Especially since you've shown nothing.

By your own admission your model doesn't explain a single experiment. Lest you forget, let me remind you that lots of talk about the way things "really work" doesn't equal understanding. Come back when you can actually talk and reason intelligently based on evidence. If you continue to pursue this nonsensical course, you will fail. I only hope that one day you can see this, as we would love to have you on the reasonable side of the fence someday.

QM had steped on Bohr Model. If we introduce spin in Bohr model, we will get the same results as QM. Again, I don't think this is true. How would introducing spin into the Bohr model produce the correct ground state angular momentum for an electron? I'm pretty sure it's fundamental to the Bohr model that an electron couldn't have a ground state angular momentum of zero; since (according to the Bohr model) angular momentum is what keeps the electron in its orbit about the nucleus, if its angular momentum dropped to zero it would be expected to lose its orbital stability. Since it has been experimentally confirmed that electrons can have an angular momentum of zero, we know that it isn't angular momentum that keeps the electrons in orbit - which means that the basic principle of the Bohr model is wrong. Angular momentum of zero is, however, predicted by QM.

Also, the orbital shapes that QM predicts for electron orbitals (which have been experimentally verified) are produced by solving the Schrodenger equation, but I can't imagine how they could possibly be produced by the Bohr model. I'm not really an expert on the Bohr model, so I could be wrong here (anyone feel free to correct me if I am) but I don't think that an electron could ever adopt a configuration like, say, a dz^2 orbital about a nucleus if it was simply being kept away from the nucleus by its orbital angular momentum. The electron would have to orbit in some sort of circular or elliptical manner, and should never be able to produce the strange orbital shapes that QM correctly predicts.

Nasor,
I am also not expert in Bohr model, and may be you are right, I am not sure that if you inttroduce spin in Bohr model, and if you correctly solve the equations of movement the result would be different then QM, it is interesting to try, from Bohr model at least are clear the forces which governs electron movement in the atom, it had big sucess at the time because it had derived with very big precision the Rydberg constant, the difference between Bohr model is that Bohr model is 'deterministic' while QM is 'probabilistic', I am sure that there is a way the complex p,d and etc QM orbitals to be obtained by Bohr model too

By your own admission your model doesn't explain a single experiment. Lest you forget, let me remind you that lots of talk about the way things "really work" doesn't equal understanding. Come back when you can actually talk and reason intelligently based on evidence. If you continue to pursue this nonsensical course, you will fail. I only hope that one day you can see this, as we would love to have you on the reasonable side of the fence someday.

As a matter of fact, there is many experiments which I can propose to verify different conclusions based on my model. Some of these experiments are not even sub-atomic. They are macroscopic and they prove that space and time are discreet and that particles had snake-like form ("open strings" in the string model terminology). They prove that gravity is also quantum which lalso means that Einstin's curvatures are nothing more then nice 3D graphics. Gravity realizes through gravitons diffusion.
I can eventually propose many other experiments if i had support from experimental centers. Also, as I had told you,, I can derive all the classical physics from my model. This means that all the classical physics is a prove for my model. There is millions of experiments and observations which are proof for the basic statements in the Snake Model. Even if there is errors in the other conclusion this can be further easy corrected.
But all of this dont matter for you. You only want to know about hyperfine electron structures, Lamb shift and neutrino mixing angles. You will always find some excuses to throw away any ideas that are different from your primitive understandings of the elementary and sub-atomic physics.

My point is a simple one. You have made astounding claims yet have produced and presented NONE of your so-called work nor any links to where we might examine it.. And since you readily admit that the general scientific community would reject it, how can you possibly be so silly as to think someone here would accept it? Especially since you've shown nothing.

the topic here wasnt intended as a presentation of the Snake Model, to reach to this I want first to be sure that it will get fair appreciation, i am not going to waste my time with prejudiced people, I can post here a document about Snake Model basic math but tell me honestly -Is there any point? You had already made your decision.

the topic here wasnt intended as a presentation of the Snake Model, to reach to this I want first to be sure that it will get fair appreciation, i am not going to waste my time with prejudiced people, I can post here a document about Snake Model basic math but tell me honestly -Is there any point? You had already made your decision.

You'll never know until you try. Claiming my (our) decision is already made is a very poor excuse. A poor excuse, indeed! If you post it you can be sure it will be examined. What's holding you back? There are people here that are perfectly capable of determining it's validity.

Nasor,
I am also not expert in Bohr model, and may be you are right, I am not sure that if you inttroduce spin in Bohr model, and if you correctly solve the equations of movement the result would be different then QM, it is interesting to try, from Bohr model at least are clear the forces which governs electron movement in the atom, it had big sucess at the time because it had derived with very big precision the Rydberg constant, the difference between Bohr model is that Bohr model is 'deterministic' while QM is 'probabilistic', I am sure that there is a way the complex p,d and etc QM orbitals to be obtained by Bohr model tooI think you kind of missed my point. The fundamental principle of the Bohr model is that an electron's angular momentum keeps it in orbit about a nucleus. This means that, according to the Bohr model, the electron could never have an angular momentum of zero - it would lose its orbital stability. Quantum mechanics, however, predicts that an electron should indeed be able to have a ground-state angular momentum of zero. It has been experimentally confirmed that electrons have a ground state angular momentum of zero, which proves the fundamental principle of the Bohr model to be wrong. This isn't the sort of thing that you could fix by 'tweaking' it or introducing new terms. Yes, the Bohr model is clear, deterministic, etc.; but unfortunately it does not correspond to reality.

You'll never know until you try. Claiming my (our) decision is already made is a very poor excuse. A poor excuse, indeed! If you post it you can be sure it will be examined. What's holding you back? There are people here that are perfectly capable of determining it's validity.

Ok, I will prepare a web-site and I will post documents that describe the Snake Model math. You will see that this is serious mathematicaly grounded model. Keep an eye on this forum.

I think you kind of missed my point. The fundamental principle of the Bohr model is that an electron's angular momentum keeps it in orbit about a nucleus. This means that, according to the Bohr model, the electron could never have an angular momentum of zero - it would lose its orbital stability. Quantum mechanics, however, predicts that an electron should indeed be able to have a ground-state angular momentum of zero. It has been experimentally confirmed that electrons have a ground state angular momentum of zero, which proves the fundamental principle of the Bohr model to be wrong. This isn't the sort of thing that you could fix by 'tweaking' it or introducing new terms. Yes, the Bohr model is clear, deterministic, etc.; but unfortunately it does not correspond to reality.


Yes, Bohr Model has problems with the orbital angular momentum. The problem comes from this that a classical expression for the moment is used - L = mvr = nh/2pi, which is not precise. Also, in the solar model of the atom it is not allowed the electron for example to fall down on the nucleus. But it accually happens, there is different then 0 probability that electron is inside the nucleus which is important for many processes inside atoms like radioactive decay. Accually, the nucleus is transparent for the electron, electron is attracted but it can't collide with the nucleus, it just goes from the other side. Maybe some of this 'non-stable orbits' accualy are legal solutions. I don't know, it do not seems right that a probabilisic mechanics gives different result then deterministic. Classical equations and Shrodinger converges when h converges to zero. But I think that there are possible quantum deterministic equations.