Andrew Usher wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:qY2rc.31771$Md.30744@lakeread05...

Dear Andrew Usher:

"Andrew Usher" wrote in message
.com...


I do know that Schrodinger's equation is time independent (that's why
it confuses people into thinking that electrons are really smeared out
into orbitals - it is giving an average over infinite time.)

Electrons are not billiard balls. Electrons manage to populate the entire
orbital *without* moving (which would create a magnetic field, and allow
energy loss). "Smeared out" is exactly sufficient to describe this. What
else would you propose?

David A. Smith


'Energy loss' is forbidden because there are no lower quantum states
to decay to, not because of the presence/absence of a magnetic field.
There is always such a field due to the electron's spin, anyway.

This approach is reasonable for a 1s orbital, but what about a
1,000,000s orbital? Look up 'correspondence principle' (as n,k - inf
the Bohr-Sommerfeld orbits become more and more exact).

In the limit of high n and l (what do you mean by "k"?), the probability
to find an electron at the distance from the nucleus predicted by Bohr's
model becomes greater and greater. But this has nothing to do with the
electron actually moving on a circular orbit with that radius.


Bye,
Bjoern