Scientific American and Science censorship...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 could not possibly have been other than an inside job.
Next: [Guardian] 'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument
From: maxwell on 31 Jul 2010 10:56 On Jul 23, 10:28 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > ... > > > Bohr worked very hard to solve Helium and he couldn't do it. ... > > Absolutely correct. I have long been a critic of QM based on these > facts. QM is widely touted as one of the great "success" stories of > physics based upon the calculation of hydrogen spectra using the > theory. But it's found that helium is a nightmare and anything else > virtually impossible! Some "success". > ... The orthodox view in QM is that Hylleraas solved the helium atom in 1929. A review of his technique showed that he did "function-fitting" using the first few solutions (wave functions) of the hydrogen atom. Since these are the first few terms in the spherical harmonics series, which form an orthogonal set, it is not surprising that he was able to get a good fit. He was doing the equivalent of finite Fourier transforms in 3D & this technique can fit any function by adding sufficient terms! It is ironic that it was the young Heisenberg's failure to solve the helium atom problem using Bohr's model & Hylleraas's "success" that led to the standard view that "QM is the final form of micro physical theory". I, for one, don't think so.
From: FrediFizzx on 31 Jul 2010 14:28 "maxwell" <spsi(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message news:5491730a-560b-401a-888e-98e3cbe4ca41(a)h40g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 23, 10:28 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: >> ... >> > > Bohr worked very hard to solve Helium and he couldn't do it. ... >> >> Absolutely correct. I have long been a critic of QM based on these >> facts. QM is widely touted as one of the great "success" stories of >> physics based upon the calculation of hydrogen spectra using the >> theory. But it's found that helium is a nightmare and anything else >> virtually impossible! Some "success". >> ... > The orthodox view in QM is that Hylleraas solved the helium atom in > 1929. A review of his technique showed that he did "function-fitting" > using the first few solutions (wave functions) of the hydrogen atom. > Since these are the first few terms in the spherical harmonics series, > which form an orthogonal set, it is not surprising that he was able to > get a good fit. He was doing the equivalent of finite Fourier > transforms in 3D & this technique can fit any function by adding > sufficient terms! > It is ironic that it was the young Heisenberg's failure to solve the > helium atom problem using Bohr's model & Hylleraas's "success" that > led to the standard view that "QM is the final form of micro physical > theory". I, for one, don't think so. You are forgetting the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Chemistry made perfect sense after that. Best, Fred Diether
From: Benj on 1 Aug 2010 02:47 On Jul 31, 2:28 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "maxwell" <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message > > led to the standard view that "QM is the final form of micro physical > > theory". I, for one, don't think so. > > You are forgetting the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Chemistry made > perfect sense after that. In my considerable experience, FreddiFizzle, Chemistry never makes "perfect sense". Where is Uncle Al when you need him?
From: Autymn D. C. on 1 Aug 2010 07:54 On Jul 25, 11:20Â am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > PD has often given me important leads and takes the time to completely > > and competently explain the issues at hand. > > Which proves that PD is a nice guy, but it hasn't helped you that > much, since you are incapable of learning. So are you: http://wiktionary.org/wiki/nice. > Your Rydberg formula for spectroscopy is quite funny - I have to give > you credit. First off - if you send something laughably inept to a > real scientist, they will ignore it, and block you on their email. A scientist is not a they. 1 â 2
From: Autymn D. C. on 1 Aug 2010 07:55
On Jul 25, 10:29 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > need a bigger Y axes and it would be more difficult to see the bigger -> greater |