A doubt in planck's quantum law.
By Jagadesh Rao · Tagore Engineering CollegeI may be the liar mentioned by Crespin quoting Einstein. I had attached my article on light in my home page. hv is the arc length of one quantum of li... [more]I may be the liar mentioned by Crespin quoting Einstein. I had attached my article on light in my home page. hv is the arc length of one quantum of light. Skb.Following
Question asked in Quantum LogicOpen How many electrons in uranium?How many electrons in (say) Uranium?-First of 3 notes We “know” the answer. It is 92 for Uranium. The question resolves itself into three parts: ... [more]How many electrons in (say) Uranium?-First of 3 notes We “know” the answer. It is 92 for Uranium. The question resolves itself into three parts: 1. What is the experimental basis for the conclusion and where are the electrons located? 2. Are the electrons permanent denizens of the atom? 3. There should be 92 protons in the nucleus. Where are these located? We shall be addressing these questions serially. The conclusion that I would be driving at is that in all these counts Quantum model for atomic structure fails to explain experimental observations. Skb. 1. Experimental basis for atomic number. The concept of atomic number as the number of extra-nuclear electrons depends on the work of Moseley in Rutherford’s laboratories almost a century ago. The theoretical basis is derived from the Bohr Theory of the hydrogen atom as modified and strengthened by the wave theory of electron. These are text-book matters. (Arthur Beiser, Concepts of Modern Physics, Tata-McGrawHill, 2004; W. E Burcham, Elements of Nuclear Physics; Longman, 1979) The Bohr model predicted that the square of number of electrons (Z 2) in any atom is proportional to the frequency of radiation emitted by it. A plot of Z2 against frequency should be a straight line. This was not the case for the Moseley X-ray frequencies. However a plot of (Z-1)2 against frequency was a straight line. So it was surmised that one electron from ‘1-s’ shell (closest to the nucleus) “fell” into the nucleus under the experimental conditions giving an effective atomic number of Z-1. I am not questioning the worth of Moseley experiments. I accept that it was of first grade quality in conception and execution. The young man’s life was unfortunately cut short by WW-I. His experiments were hailed as confirmation of the Bohr concept of the nucleus as point charge with an electron cloud around it. The nucleus as a heavy central unit was indicated by Rutherford’s work. But the “fall” of an electron into the nucleus was still a difficult proposition to justify. A clever method was soon found out to resolve this problem. If Z (instead of Z2 ) is plotted against square root (√ ) of frequency, a straight line was obtained. (cited in, Dyson 1990 N. A. Dyson, X-rays in atomic and nuclear physics, 2 Ed. Cambridge Univ. Press 1990.) This conclusion is questionable since it compresses the ordinates in a convenient manner. As I like to say, “An electron was falling into the nucleus till 1980; it no longer does so after the date.” There are other objections to the interpretation: 1. The location (disposition) of the extra-nuclear electrons had not been explained in a logical manner. 2. The electronic effects are dependent on the nature and number of substituents of the central atoms in binary compounds. They appear to vanish completely in some hexafluorides including that of Uranium. 3. A recent report in Scientific American India says that X-rays are produced when one unrolls scotch tape from a spool. Such low energy generation of x-rays would throw doubt on the high energy status of X-rays in the “Electromagnetic Spectrum” of radiation. In turn it shows that we understand very little about X-rays. We should not use such uncertain concepts to arrive at an important conclusion like atomic number. Moseley results still show that there is a gradation in the x-ray frequencies in the order predicted by mass numbers of the atoms. To that extent the experiments confirm the intuitive arrangement of elements in the Periodic table. But a quantitative interpretation is not tenable. The location of the electrons in the extra nuclear space: There are only three dimensions in Space, the x, y, z axes of co-ordinate geometry. Pauli’s Exclusion Principle would limit each dimension to two electrons. With two more electrons in first shell the extra nuclear space can logically accommodate only ten electrons or up to Neon. Beyond that only quantum specialists can understand. It is all imagination promoted by mathematics. We had seen the delusional element in the imaginary number of the wave function. The shapes of D-orbital sub-units and beyond are bizarre. This is not an emotional or aesthetic objection. The theory fails completely to account for the shapes of electron orbitals in real space. It also fails to explain the bonding patterns in several elements dealt with in the paper on unitary model and the critique. Skb. PS: A pdf version of this note is available on demand. In this version some symbols like the square may not be transmitted properly.Following
What is polarization of light?
I am sorry I am unaware of these topics. They are details that, I feel, do not concern my posting. If they have relevance please point that out. i am... [more]I am sorry I am unaware of these topics. They are details that, I feel, do not concern my posting. If they have relevance please point that out. i am not a specialist in light. i had dealt with polarization from a general angle. Thanks, Skb.Following
Question asked in Quantum Logic2 What is polarization of light?What is polarization of light? I am not able to attach the drawings to illustrate this. i am giving this note in my profile. Polarization is an import... [more]What is polarization of light? I am not able to attach the drawings to illustrate this. i am giving this note in my profile. Polarization is an important experimentally observed property of light that had been ignored in physics. It cannot be dealt with by mathematics. Polarization is important because it shows the presence of chiral components in light. Quantum Mechanics cannot accept the presence of chiral components because chirality cannot be dealt with mathematically. Polarization had been misunderstood by early wave-theorists. In essence polarization phenomenon proves the existence of chiral components in light. This is anathema to Quantum Mechanics. Light is “polarized” when it is passed through a Nicol Prism. Nicol prism is a transparent calcite (Calcium Carbonate) crystal cut in a particular fashion. Three beams exit from the prism. The first is the original ray slightly refracted beam as in other transparent media like glass. This is not polarized. Two other beams emerge in orthogonal planes. Both are polarized in opposite senses. One beam is in the plane of paper or parallel to it and the other is in a plane perpendicular to it. The second beam gives rise to two images of a dot under the prism. (This is what is called “double refraction or birefringence). There is a Wikipedia section on birefringence. The polarization along the orthogonal or perpendicular plane to paper is called plane polarization. (In the wave theory plane polarization meant arranging/ordering the waves in all planes into a single plane called the plane of polarization.) Wave theory ties itself in knots to explain the presence of two chiral beams in what is called circular polarization. The light wave itself is said to be rotated in a helical fashion either right-handed or left-handed. Thus the two beams observed in circular polarization become an artifact of the instrument. It is our view that the two beams are originally present in light. Polarization separates the two beams. In plane polarization only one beam is studied and in circular polarization both beams are brought into the same field of observation. A B C Polarization drawing Fig. A shows the chiral components of light in red and in blue. They are chiral to each other. B shows the arrangement of the Nicol prism in plane polarization. The red beam is allowed through. The blue beam is blocked. In “circular” polarization the two beams are arranged at an angle of 45° to the arrangement in B by a “quarter wave” plate. It rotates the arrangement of the beams in B by 45°. This enables both beams to be observed serially. C shows the Nicol in circular polarization. Left ward rotation of the Nicol by 45° would allow the red beam to pass through, blocking the blue beam. Rightward rotation of the Niol by 45° would allow the blue beam through but block the red beam. In a system with multiple chiral centers the two beams would be rotated to different degrees, a resultant of different rotations by the multiple centers. The difference between the rotations of the two beams is known as circular dichroism. The important point to note is that there is nothing “circular” in circular polarization. In plane polarization only one beam is used for the study. In the other, both beams are used. Anisotropy in polarized light absorption is designated linear di-chroism which is a misnomer. (The prefix ‘di’ indicates two.) Skb.Following
THE electron !
By Omar Fathy · Military Technical CollegeI am sorry the attachment could not attached.I am sorry the attachment could not attached.Following