3 ms·

This purely classical model doesn't make any fucking sense.

by nathan_compton 1y ago

dave333 1y ago
[flagged]
- mhh__ 1y ago
  There is no spooky action at a distance as per se
- nathan_compton 1y ago
  Oh I don't know, the one that predicts the numbers correctly in a simple, transparent way everyone can apply, especially when compared to the ramblings of a weirdo trying to sell something? If you can find the place on this website where he demonstrates the calculation that gives the energy levels of the hydrogen atom or the band gap of a metal, please show me.
  - dave333 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - gus_massa 1y ago
    Getting the energy levels of Hydrogen with a semiclasical method is not difficult. It's the Bohr atom with some disguise. Helium is hard.
    - dave333 1y ago
      Chapter 7 of https://brilliantlightpower.com/GUT/GUT_Volume_1/ https://brilliantlightpower.com/GUT/GUT_Volume_1/ covers two electron atoms.
      - gus_massa 1y ago
        From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_atom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_atom > Helium's first ionization energy is −24.587387936(25) eV. This value was measured experimentally. The theoretic value of Helium atom's second ionization energy is −54.41776311(2) eV. The total ground state energy of the helium atom is −79.005154539(25) eV, or −2.90338583(13) Atomic units a.u., which equals −5.80677166(26) Ry. Where are those calculations in chapter 7? I can't find them. I only find a few nice closed formulas. Hydrogen has closed formulas (almost), but Helium not. If you compare it with the Wikipedia page, the energy of Helium has no closed formulas. There are four approximated method, and the list exclude the brute force method of using Gaussian[1] or Psi[2] that can solve any molecule with a high approximation using a decomposition into a big number of orbitals. If they can give a nice closed formula for Helium (without magical ad hoc constants), it would be huge. Nobody has one, nobody believe there is one. It doesn't matter if the derivation of the formula makes no sense, the Bohr atom made no sense in 1913, but he had a nice formula that made sense like 20 years later. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_(software) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSI_(computational_chemistry) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSI_(computational_chemistry)
        dave333 1y ago
        First ionization energy of two electron atoms calculation is shown on p266 (p292 in the reader app) with a table showing agreement with experiment for many 2-electron atoms on p269 (p296 in reader app).
        gus_massa 1y ago
        It's very interesting, but I'm still not convinced. It's not 100% agreement, only 99.99% agreement and in many of this experiments the errors are so low that a .01% difference is ruled out. I think it's an interesting method to use a classical model to aproximate atoms, and I surprised that it gives very close results, but I think at the end it's like the Bohr atom, that works in simple cases but fails in the complicated ones. I'll try to think an example where the quantum mechanics effects are big enough to cause a problem.

This purely classical model doesn't make any fucking sense.

dave333 1y ago

[flagged]

mhh__ 1y ago
There is no spooky action at a distance as per se
nathan_compton 1y ago
Oh I don't know, the one that predicts the numbers correctly in a simple, transparent way everyone can apply, especially when compared to the ramblings of a weirdo trying to sell something? If you can find the place on this website where he demonstrates the calculation that gives the energy levels of the hydrogen atom or the band gap of a metal, please show me.
- dave333 1y ago
  [flagged]
- gus_massa 1y ago
  Getting the energy levels of Hydrogen with a semiclasical method is not difficult. It's the Bohr atom with some disguise. Helium is hard.
  - dave333 1y ago
    Chapter 7 of https://brilliantlightpower.com/GUT/GUT_Volume_1/ https://brilliantlightpower.com/GUT/GUT_Volume_1/ covers two electron atoms.
    - gus_massa 1y ago
      From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_atom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_atom > Helium's first ionization energy is −24.587387936(25) eV. This value was measured experimentally. The theoretic value of Helium atom's second ionization energy is −54.41776311(2) eV. The total ground state energy of the helium atom is −79.005154539(25) eV, or −2.90338583(13) Atomic units a.u., which equals −5.80677166(26) Ry. Where are those calculations in chapter 7? I can't find them. I only find a few nice closed formulas. Hydrogen has closed formulas (almost), but Helium not. If you compare it with the Wikipedia page, the energy of Helium has no closed formulas. There are four approximated method, and the list exclude the brute force method of using Gaussian[1] or Psi[2] that can solve any molecule with a high approximation using a decomposition into a big number of orbitals. If they can give a nice closed formula for Helium (without magical ad hoc constants), it would be huge. Nobody has one, nobody believe there is one. It doesn't matter if the derivation of the formula makes no sense, the Bohr atom made no sense in 1913, but he had a nice formula that made sense like 20 years later. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_(software) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSI_(computational_chemistry) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSI_(computational_chemistry)
      - dave333 1y ago
        First ionization energy of two electron atoms calculation is shown on p266 (p292 in the reader app) with a table showing agreement with experiment for many 2-electron atoms on p269 (p296 in reader app).
        gus_massa 1y ago
        It's very interesting, but I'm still not convinced. It's not 100% agreement, only 99.99% agreement and in many of this experiments the errors are so low that a .01% difference is ruled out. I think it's an interesting method to use a classical model to aproximate atoms, and I surprised that it gives very close results, but I think at the end it's like the Bohr atom, that works in simple cases but fails in the complicated ones. I'll try to think an example where the quantum mechanics effects are big enough to cause a problem.