newedana wrote:

I notice you did, as usual, not bother to answer any of my questions
for evidence, formulas etc., and ignored all my arguments.


You better read Dr. yoon's article published in 1987 Apr in Nature
(magmillan Co. London) as a letter form titled" Fiber Synthesis by
Growth-Packing" as a star article( shown at News and view column in the
same issue). It is a polymer physics discribing a simulation experiment
of forming native fibers such as wood pulp or cotton fibers, or
proterin animal fibers such as wool or your hair, utilizing aromatic
polyamides. I believe his article was a monumental work in the history
of physical chemistry.

Nice for him. But why do you think that someone who is able to do
great experiments in physical chemistry is also qualified to set up
theoretical models?


Herhaps you may be also skeptical why his
experiment can be a monumental work, and how did Nature publish his
manuscript as a star article.

No.

I am well aware that people can be great experimenters and
nevertheless write nonsense on theory. Plichta or Galeczki&Marquardt
come to mind.



I know early that QM man cannot
differenciate the acoustic wave from electromagnetic wave.

I have no clue what on earth this is supposed to mean.


And also
cannot differenciate the electron from light in term of forming wave.

Or that.


In your idea light is corpuscles, but in Dr Yoon's idea light is an
electromagnetic wave which is continuous in character,

Wrong. Get an education.
Try understanding what "wave-particle dualism" means.

How does Dr. Yoon explain the photo effect and the Compton effect?


forming numerous
layers of concentric spherical wave fronts surounding its source.

BFD. Huyghens wrote this already centuries ago.


Your QM man

Who?


believes that light is corpuscular photons

Wrong. Get an education.
Try understanding what "wave-particle dualism" means.


which can travel in
the vacant space with their momentum given by its source,

Hey, you got that right, congratulations!


as though a batted baseball flying in the sky,

Wrong. Get an education.
Try understanding what "wave-particle dualism" means.


but Dr. Yoon thinks that light
propagation is an equilibrating process of electromagnetic energy
emitted by atoms building light source.

How does Dr. Yoon explain the photo effect and the Compton effect?


In Dr.Yoon's idea electron can
coexist with protons in nuclear structure,

How does he explain Hofstadter's results on the structure of nuclei,
protons and neutrons?


but your QM man does not accept such an idea.

Because it has experimentally shown to be wrong.


That is, Dr. Yoon has entirely different idea from
yours,

And his idea has experimentally shown to be wrong over 50 years ago
already.

Someone doing great experiments on physical chemistry shouldn't
try to set up a theory about nuclei without checking at least
the *basics* of the literature on all the experiments done there!


and so can say that gammer rays can be emitted by oscillating
electron rings at the nearest site of nucleus.

Can he explain the observations *quantitatively* based on this idea?


He estimated
theoretically that the electron ring with 1/431 of radius of that
emitting Lyman series of hydrogen spectrum, can emit such gammer rays.

Please show the derivation.

And please show the evidence that such rings exist.

Please explain all the observations which show that in contrast,
*orbitals* do in fact exist.


You better go to the library of Chicago University and read his text.

Why should I, as long as you present only rhetoric and ignore most
questions and arguments and evidence?


Diffracted x-ray behaves like corpuscles, and cannot propagate by
inverse square distance rule.

But it was *experimentally* *shown* that x-rays obey the inverse
square rule. In fact, this is checked routinely in *many* undergrad
lab courses in physics in thousands of universities wordlwide!


newedana says to Bjoen Feuerbacher.

Displaying his ignorance and his denial of reality yet again.


Bye,
Bjoern