I've recently found that after Bohr model there was introduced by 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 ??? 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?
This theory compares it with the theory that objects follow circular paths round the nuclei of atoms. This is obviously not a correct model of the atom. '' In this model electrons don't circulate as in Bohr model, but make almost radial free-fall to the nucleus and because of magnetic moments'' To be honest, it's a nice model, but they neither free fall to the nucleus as much as it orbits them. It exists as a mesh of probabilities... so it cannot orbit nor free-fall, but it can exist in every place within the atom, so long as it does not counteract the Pauli Exclusion principle.
This model doesn't use not entirely clear quantum concepts - for which Feynman words: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" probably still applies, but just uses natural and intuitive classical mechanics - which we can be sure of and without any controversies. They looks to show in well peer-reviewed way, that the common belief: that Bohr and Sommerfed models are the limits of classical models - is just wrong. As I see they compare precise calculations and numerical simulations with plenty different experiments, showing that e.g. energy levels, scatterings, magnetic properties, etc. gives really good agreements with experiment. One could say that it looks to good to be true ... so I'm searching for somebody who looked at them more deeply, worked with them ... ?
OP is cross-posted here: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28209 Gryzinski appears to be non-quantum and non-relativistic, so it has failings which burn it to death upon comparison with multi-electron atoms, high-Z nuclei and high-energy collisions. It is not a fundamental physical theory. A poster on the other site cites a letter which may be all the review you need. D R Bates and E Snyder "Classical free-fall atomic model" Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 6, 7, L159-160 (July 1, 1973) http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3700/6/7/001
Please look for example to his lecture - he compares it to well known quantum calculations, like hydrogen molecule: www .cyf.gov.pl/gryzinski/teor7ang.html to get agreement with experiment using QM, there have to be introduced succeeding fitted artificial coefficient (up to 1995) - I haven't checked it myself yet, but would you call such theory 'satisfactory'? While it looks that using just uncontroversial Coulomb and Lorentz force we can get straightforward good agreement... Let's take this discussion back to the other forum (where I can put links normally).
I guess the point is that we can derive the Bohr model from some underlying quantum theory, including the Bohr radius and the Bohr energy. We are pretty confident that Nature obeys quantum rules at small distances, so that kind of closes the case.
Yes, we generally know that we can derive classical from quantum (e.g. Ehrenfest theorem) ... but the question is if maybe it can also work the other way - so called Born's ensemble interpretation of QM - that maybe classical and quantum pictures are equivalent. We can look at coupled pendulums through their positions (classical picture), but also through their normal modes - that their evolution is 'superposition of rotations of phases' in this eigenbase of evolution operator (quantum picture). Taking a lattice of such pendulums, we get crystal with phonons. Now make infinitesimal limit - we get a field theory, like waves on water, GRT, EM, Klein-Gordon, QFT - if we go to 'normal modes' - eigenbase of evolution differential operator - we get 'superposition of rotations' - quantum picture. It's because these PDE are hyperbolic - 'wavelike' - in all these theories the basic excitations are waves. Now if we cannot trace the behavior, we have to use thermodynamics - use mathematical theorems like maximum uncertainty principle - assume uniform or more generally Boltzmann distribution among possible scenarios. So if we don't know which trajectory particle has chosen, we should choose Boltzmann distribution among possible trajectories, untrue? It leads to what? Brownian motion? Wrong! If we do it right, we get going to square of coordinates of the dominant eigenfunction of Hamiltonian stationary probability density (a bit similar to Feynman path integrals) - we get that when we cannot trace particle, we should assume wavefunction collapse - 'quantum' decoherence as thermodynamical result. Brownian motion is good enough approximation for diffusion in fluids, but in fixed structure of defects in solids: physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41659 Modern experimental methods literally allows for magnified photos of atoms: measure where exactly single electrons were before being tear off: www .mizozo.com/tech/09/2009/15/first-picture-of-an-atom.html in classical picture point-like electron starts moving on some trajectory around, stabilizing thermodynamically own statistics (using some complicated deterministic motion) to expected probability density (maximizing entropy) and finally is tear off by potential - natural thermodynamical model: Boltzmann distribution among possible trajectories says that this stabilized probability density (time average) is exactly the same as for the lowest quantum state. About the duality, 'wave' nature is not only about plane waves, but something more general, like modes of conjugated pendulums or quantum orbitals - just a periodic motion ('rotation of quantum phase'). Look at electron - it behaves similarly to a gyroscope - there is precessive motion involved (called zitterbewegung in QM) - after each period it returns to given state. So such 'classical' electron is both corpuscle and has 'internal periodic motion' - is 'wave' - which frequency is related by fundamental constant: h. In some situations it's essential for it to just be somewhere and in another it has to 'fit well with own phase' to the situation - duality. So this poor little particle doesn't have to constantly worry to which kingdom he has to magically jump now, but is in both simultaneously. These modern classical atomic models make some of the way for seeing QM no longer as only inconceivable dogmatic theory, but for example as naturally emerging in mathematically clear and natural field theories.
Cold fusion? Cold fusion is generally classified as fringe science and so I wasn't treating it seriously, but there was recently PhysOrg article about public demonstration of generating 12kW for half an hour from nickel+hydrogen by device in which such amount of chemical energy just wouldn't fit ... it's difficult not to be skeptical about such absolutely revolutionary claims, but it motivated me look closer at this field and so I became aware that there are thousands of papers about cold fusion, hundreds of groups reported excessive heat: http://www.lenr-canr.org/index.html If it's not just a massive scum of hallucinations, there is needed some theoretical explanation of such eventual low energy nuclear reactions - one of reasons of rejecting such possibilities was lack of theoretical understanding: used directly quantum mechanics says that probability of tunneling through such repelling barrier between nucleuses is completely negligible. But what if we can sharpen a bit quantum mechanical probability cloud of electron - try to imagine some movement of localized electron behind this picture ... Imagine such free-fall electron's trajectories which nearly pass nucleus - its electric field could pull proton behind ... straight to hit the nucleus - localizing electrons make cold fusion much more likely... And so Gryzinski write in his book that a few days after the Pons&Fleishmann announcement, he explained such phenomena as naturally appearing in his model and it was published in Nature a month later (April 1989). He was enthusiast of cold fusion, had a few papers about it and two patents. The main reason of reluctance to imagine particles as quite localized entities as seen while scatterings, seems to be the interference phenomenon. But QM doesn't have monopoly for interference - it's completely natural also in classical physics like on water surface ... or I've just found PRL paper reporting interference of macroscopic droplet: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v97/i15/e154101 If we accept particles as shape/structure maintaining localized construct of the field (solitons), there is still interference expected for them - just decompose them into plane waves using Fourier transform and (in linear approximation) plane waves interfere. It's just that soltions are far from the concept of (various number of) classical particles - there is also extremely complicated communication between them going through the field causing e.g. interference effects. Generalizing this picture into more trajectories leads to Feynman's path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. Classical trajectories can be seen as some useful approximation, for example the base of semiclassical approximation or ... stochastic perturbation - alternative view on such practically randomly perturbed trajectory is that in such case the safe is to assume Boltzmann distribution among possible paths, what as in euclidean paths integrals, leads to transformation of classical trajectories into 'near' (overlapping) quantum eigenstates (presentation) What do you think about the possibility of cold fusion and of localized particles?
