Do photons have inertia?

The point is very simple, at relativistic speeds, you can't use \(f=m \frac{v^2}{r}\). Do u think otherwise?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't get anything wrong. You are a liar. And, the Bohr model does NOT have relativistic speed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Bohr model does not have relativistic speed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are missing the point, no one said it does. But the electrons do have relativistic speeds. So, the point is that you have been using the wrong expression for centripetal force, that's all. Following your logic, we should still be using Newtonian mechanics. Besides, hasn't the Bohr model been replaced by more accurate models (see Sommerfeld, Dirac, etc) about 90 years ago?

 

Apparently you have no clue what the Bohr model is. The Bohr model which I correctly gave is NOT RELATIVISTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I explicitely told you in the last line of my post what?
That the result had SMALL correction due to relativity and you are a LIAR for quote mining my post not including that everywhere you lied about me making a mistake. QUOTE MINING IS LIEING. And yes we ARE still using Newtonian mechanics.

 

I agree with this, now kindly answer my question:

 

Excellent.

None other than historical, as explained earlier several times, the Bohr model has long been obsoleted. The Schrodinger equation has been obsoleted by its covariant formulation (Dirac-1928).

 

Fine show us what the energy levels are according to this "covariant formulation", in specific how wrong the Bohr levels are.
I claim the correction is small. You said my derivation of the Bohr levels was wrong. Give us a reference that says the Bohr levels are something other than what I derived and then, show what they are according to (Dirac-1928)

 

The point is that you need a correction because you started with the wrong formula for force. Had you started with the correct relativistic formula, there would have been no need to this correction. Are you still denying that the correct general formula is \(f=\gamma m \frac{v^2}{r}\)?

 

See for example. But of course, you knew that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Stop lieing. To use a relativistic formula to derive the Bohr levels would be wrong because the Bohr model is not relativistic. YES, \(f=\gamma m \frac{v^2}{r}\) is not the correct formula to derive the Bohr levels as the Bohr model is NOT NOT NOT relativistic.

 

No I said the BOHR LEVELS. Sorry you failed.

 

...and this is why the Bohr model, by virtue of not being realistic was abandoned about 100 years ago.

...is the general, correct formula to describe the force for uniform circular motion.

The Bohr levels do not describe reality in a rigorous way, this is why the Bohr levels were replaced by the Sommerfeld levels about 100 years ago.

You keep missing the point that the Bohr model does not describe reality. This is why it was abandoned about 100 years ago.

What is "phyisic"? Something that you teach the fortune tellers? Your knickers are twisted again.

 

Irrelevent. You said my derivation of the Bohr levels was wrong. You LIED.

Irrelevent. You said my derivation of the Bohr levels was wrong. YOU LIED.

At this point this is harassment of both me and those who actually do wear them. You should seriously be apologizing by now.

 

I simply pointed out that you use the wrong formula for "centripital" force, whatever that may be <shrug>

LOL

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're saying that nonrelativistic formula is the wrong formula for Bohr's model; which is NOT relativistic. YOU LIED. You're also infering that I didn't clearly state that relativistic correction made some small difference.
YOU LIED.

 

I am simply saying that you started with the wrong premise, a premise that has been obsoleted about 100 years ago. The fact that u recovered the Bohr formalism is irrelevant, the formalism has been made irrelevant but Dirac about 100 years ago.
It is exactly as you were insisting in using Newtonian mechanics in trying to explain the advancement of Mercury perihelion or the starlight bending by the Sun though the approach has been rendered obsolete and incorrect (100 years ago).

 

You're saying the premesis I used wasn't the right premesis for deriving the Bohr levels. You LIE.

You said I used Newtonian mechanics to derive procession etc. YOU LIE.
My derivation is clearly seen as general relativity at my chapter on the Schwarzchild black hole

 

When Tach comes back from his ban, perhaps he will be kind enough to provide the solution to Dirac equation for the hydrogen atom.

 

Yes. In fact I've taught special relativity at university level.

I can't help but notice you ignored my request for you to provide a link to a post of yours where you show you have a working understanding of this level of material. Instead you just insinuate I don't, despite there being plenty of evidence to the contrary. Are you unwilling to answer the question?

I'll let Cambridge know their Masters mathematics course doesn't meet your standard.

I'm wondering, do you really believe what you're saying? It's obvious to anyone who hangs around this forum enough who the competent mathematicians and physicists are. Any rational person would put me on such a list. As I just asked you, I can't think of a single instance where you've shown you have any understanding of mathematics. So are you just clutching at straws, doing a Reiku, where you lie and lie and lie, hoping reality bends to your deceit or do you really think I don't have a maths education/capability to reach even high school?

Where did I say I'd give a complicated answer to a simple question? I was talking about the work I do day to day, in my job, as a (and I quote my employee contract) "research mathematician". I solve real world problems, problems other companies can't solve in-house. Sometimes a complicated problem requires a complicated answer.

You are the one who doesn't get it. SR, pure SR, is about light in a vacuum. When you include interaction with a medium you need to model the constituents of a medium on a quantum level, which means you use quantum field theory. Quantum field theory explains how packets of light move slower than c through typical materials yet still obey SR, because QFT obeys SR yet can also say light moves through water slower than c.

I'll ask you again, can you provide a link to a single post of yours where you show you have a working understanding of any area of mathematics or physics beyond that expected of a high school leaver. If I have to ask a third time then I might have to consider your unwillingness to answer direct relevant questions in this manner to be trolling.

Tach, regardless of the point at hand when a typo is clearly a typo to reply as you did is being deliberately obtuse. If someone kept using say.... your instead of you're then pointing it out is fine. If someone typed you'er then it would be a typo, just as it's obvious WD137 knows how to spell 'physics'. Giving the response you did does nothing to add to your argument and only makes you look like you're clutching at straws, regardless of how valid the rest of your post is or isn't. When you return from your holiday please keep that in mind.