newedana wrote:
newedana wrote:

This is a recap of messages posted at other threads (such as 'Wave as
Wave, Particle as Particl' 4 May 2005, and 'Yoonatom vs Standard
Model'. 14 May 2005):

Bohr's atomic model and other primitive models like Quantum oscillator

You have still not explained what's primitive about them.


were established before the discovery of neutron in 1934.

Yes. So what???


These atomic
models are imperfect and incorrect even in explaining hydrogen spectrum

Bohr's atomic model is long outdated, and the quantum oscillator is
not a model for hydrogen. So where exactly is the problem? The *real*
models used for the hydrogen atom (by applying the Schroedinger or,
even better, the Dirac equation, or QED) work quite nicely, and agree
with the observations to very good accuracy.


in addition to their numerous fallacies.

You have presented no evidence so far that they contain even one
single fallacy.



However, the hydrogen spectrum can be more scientifically analyzed by
Dr. Yoon's physics. The wavelength of all 6 sets of hydrogen spectra,
Humprey, Pfund, Brackett, Ritz-Paschen, Balmer, and Lyman, calculated
by Dr. Hansik Yoon's formula surprisingly coincided with the
experimentally observed ones.

Because what he uses is essentially simply the Balmer formula!

That reproduces the *main* features of the spectrum, obviously!

But what Yoon totally fails to explain and ignores are the finer
details, like the fine structure, the hyperfine structure, the Lamb
shift, the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the Zeeman effect,
the Stark effect, etc.

OTOH, standard physics addresses and explains all these effects.



Of course, Dr. Yoon didn't use such unscientific models as QM or
relativity in this calculation.

What is unscientific about those?


Moreover, his formula estimated
(predicted) other wavelengths not yet observed up to the time.

Hydrogen has been studied for at least 100 years now. The probability
that there are spectral lines which have somehow been overlooked in
all that time is virtually non-existent. Hence if Yoon's model
predicts that such additional lines should exist, that nicely
disproves his model.


For example, in the case of Ritz-Paschen series, the estimated wavelengths
were 8201.40 Angstrom,... 8860.40, 9012.5, 9226.6, 9545.97(*),
10049.4(*), 10938.1(*), 12818.1(*), etc. Here, wavelengths with (*)
symbol have been experimentally observed up to the time. In the case of
Lyman series, 911.269A,... 926.226(*), 930.748(*), 937.803(*),
949.743(*), 972.537(*), 1025.722(*), 1215.668(*).

If someone already observed the wavelengths without (*) symbol, try
to observe the Pfund series, 22781.2A, ... 28714.5, 3.375.6,
32952.1, 37385.4, 46525.1(*), 74578.0(*) etc.


All these additional lines lie in spectral regions which can be easily
observed, and have been studied for about 100 years. They don't exist.
Yoon's model is wrong. Live with it.




According to Dr. Yoon's theory on
the hydrogen spectrum, for Lyman series the bombarding electrons

What bombarding electrons???


[snip more gibberish]



Atomic energy has nothing to do with the stupid equation, E=mc^2.

What is stupid about this equation? And how do you explain that it
*works*?


Dr. Yoon starts to build the equation of hydrogen spectrum from
differential equation of torsional mass oscillation, since orbital
electron ring is elastically connected to its nucleus, and perform a
precessional oscillation around its nucleus.

And how does the manage to get the Rydberg frequency?


He applies the classical
rule of one string vibration instead of quantizing electron energy.

I already told you that there is a strong analogy between the two!


[snip]


He does not accept the spin motion

How often do we need to tell you that spin has nothing to do with motion?


because this motion is imaginary
mathematical motion and invented for Pauli's exclusion principle.

How often do we have to tell you that these claims are nonsense?


Instead he takes account one or two electrons in an electron ring
sitting opposite side,

Why should only two fit into there?


and exert Meissoner's magnetism

How often do I need to tell you that the name is Meissner?


with definite
directionality by revolving the same direction, so the revolving
directionality determines the direction of Meissoner's magnetism. He
does not use e=h nu, the basic equation of QM theory.

That is *not* the basic equation of QM!

Anyway, how does he explain the photo effect without that equation? Or
the Compton effect? Or blackbody radiation?


Dr. Yoon also proves that the light is not a flow of photons in his
work.

Don't confuse "assert" with "prove".



Bye,
Bjoern
#