In chemistry, Schrödinger <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger>,
Pauling <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauling>,
Mulliken<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Mulliken> and
others noted that the consequence of Heisenberg's relation was that the
electron, as a wave packet, could not be considered to have an exact
location in its orbital. Max Born
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born> suggested
that the electron's position needed to be described by a probability
distribution <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution> which
was connected with finding the electron at some point in the wave-function
which described its associated wave packet. The new quantum mechanics did
not give exact results, but only the probabilities for the occurrence of a
variety of possible such results. Heisenberg held that the path of a moving
particle has no meaning if we cannot observe it, as we cannot with
electrons in an atom.
Terry is just saying the probability that the electron will be closer to
the neucleus is higher. I do not see a conflict
On Sunday, September 2, 2012, David Roberson wrote:
> Not a problem. If a classical orbit is true for any length of time,
> quantum mechanics has some explaining to do. Again, is this evidence for a
> hole in that theory?
>
> Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'hohlr...@gmail.com');>>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');>>
> Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 9:44 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:RSH in Electric Fields
>
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'hohlr...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
> > Granted that the Bohr model is simplistic; but, for a few hundreths of
> > a nanosecond, the Rydberg atom of hydrogen is essentially a neutron.
>
> I think my time scale is off. We might be looking at hundreds of
> femtoseconds.
>
> In the words of my granddaughter, "Whatever." (word)
>
> T
>
>
>
