Francis, After doing some more reading I realize that since the orbit of the electron is a probability distribution according to QM it doesn't matter how spread out the probability distribution becomes, the electron will remain bound to the proton. However, if the electron were to become localized (through an act of measurement) where it is expected to escape according to classical theory, will it escape?
I did learn that for some potential wells there are no bound states. For instance at the bottom of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_potential_well it says that a spherical potential well which is either too small or too "shallow" cannot have any bound states. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > Harry, > > This is why I keep pushing the “suppressed environment” as key to the > riddle – it isn’t the spatial acceleration of the electron or atom but > rather the region of space time that they are migrating thru – the Casimir > geometry forms a gravity warp where virtual particle pairs are excluded – > meaning the region is equivalent to being at the top of a gravity well > relative to us outside the cavity and therefore it is us outside the well > that appear to exist in slow time just as we would see the paradox twin to > exist approaching an event horizon.. the same sort of equivalent > acceleration is occurring inside the lattice where Casimir geometry forms > but it is negative which begs the question where does mass grow larger.. > since the negatively accelerated atom is equivalent to the stationary > observer and we outside the cavity are equivalent to the relativistic twin > maybe the mass is added to the quantum geometry of the lattice that is > actually causing the suppression? > > Fran > > > > *From:* H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2014 2:16 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory > > > > A hydrogen atom H is an atom because the motion of the electron is bound > to the proton. If the electron's motion were not bound by the proton, the > electron and proton would not form an "atom" since the electron's motion > would allow it to escape the "potential well" of the proton. > > In a classical mechanical system the orbital radius of a bound electron > can be arbitrarily large as long as the kinetic energy of the electron can > be arbitrarily small. In a quantum mechanical system if an electron has an > arbitrarily small kinetic energy then the uncertainty in its position > becomes arbitrarily large and that would increase the probability that the > electron could escape the potential well of the proton by "tunneling" > beyond it. Or is it impossible for a bound electron to free itself? > > > > harry > > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > > That is right Harry. Nobody cares about how big it can be. :-) > > Actually, the integer orbitspheres of Mills include all integer values > which is like the quantum theory as I understand. Practical values are > limited by how easy it is to ionize the big atoms at an integer value that > is far less than infinity. > > This subject is one that surprises me in at least one major way. Mills > predicts the atom size as being proportional to the integer directly while > quantum physics suggests that it varies as the square. This is a huge > difference and I can not imagine why the correct rule has not been clearly > established. How could an atom be 10 times larger(int =10) in one > calculation than the next without being obvious? > > Perhaps this discrepancy has been shown and I am not aware. Does anyone > know of an accurate measurement for an excited hydrogen diameter that > supports one of these theories? > > Dave > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 5:40 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory > > > > While people debate how small a hydrogen atom can be, there seems to be no > debate about how big a hydrogen atom can be. > > > > Harry > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > > I guess that is what it boils down to Eric. I would much rather have the > series continue indefinitely as I have been discussing. i.e. > (1/2,1/3,...1/137,1/138...1/infinity) which would blend nicely with the > other integer portion that we all assume is real. If the total series is > found to be valid, then there is no special consideration needed for the > 1/137 term. > > But, we must abide by natural laws and most times they do not care what we > prefer. :( > > Dave > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The theory is a photon like zitterbewegung model describing states that > retain locality in phase space with circular cycles of a trapped photon > representing the usual eigenstates. The Maxwell quanta hbar(c) becomes a > classical angular momentum quanta in phase space with quantum number 137 > attached. > > > > Ah, gotcha. Thank you. Hence also the electron "becoming a photon" as it > approaches the lowest level. > > > > Now we have to decide whether we can live with a series { 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, > ..., 1/136, alpha(N) }. (Or something like that.) > > > > Eric > > > > > > >
