It is analytically shown that the orbital electron arrangement is enforced by the necessity of accommodating the space that each orbiting electron's matter wave occupies. The atom's orbital electron structure in terms of quantum numbers (principal, azimuthal, magnetic and spin) results in space for a maximum of: 2 electrons in the n=1 orbit, 8 electrons in the n=2 orbit, 18 electrons in the n=3 orbit, and so on. Those dispositions are correct, but that is not because of quantum numbers nor angular momentum nor a "Pauli exclusion principle". Matter waves were discovered in the early 20th century from their wavelength, which was predicted by DeBroglie to be, Planck's constant divided by the particle's momentum, \(\lambda\)mw = h/m . v . But, the failure to obtain a reasonable theory for the matter wave frequency resulted in loss of interest. That problem is resolved in "A Reconsideration of Matter Waves" 2 in which a reinterpretation of Einstein's derivation of relativistic kinetic energy [which produced his famous E = m . c2] leads to a valid matter wave frequency and a new understanding of particle kinetics and the atom's stable orbits. It is analytically shown that the orbital electron arrangement is enforced by the necessity of accommodating the space that each orbiting electron's matter wave occupies.
It is analytically shown that the orbital electron arrangement is enforced by the necessity of accommodating the space that each orbiting electron's matter wave occupies. The atom's orbital electron structure in terms of quantum numbers (principal, azimuthal, magnetic and spin) results in space for a maximum of: 2 electrons in the n=1 orbit, 8 electrons in the n=2 orbit, 18 electrons in the n=3 orbit, and so on. Those dispositions are correct, but that is not because of quantum numbers nor angular momentum nor a "Pauli exclusion principle". Matter waves were discovered in the early 20th century from their wavelength, which was predicted by DeBroglie to be, Planck's constant divided by the particle's momentum, (\lambda)mw = h/m . v . But, the failure to obtain a reasonable theory for the matter wave frequency resulted in loss of interest. That problem is resolved in "A Reconsideration of Matter Waves" 2 in which a reinterpretation of Einstein's derivation of relativistic kinetic energy [which produced his famous E = m . c2] leads to a valid matter wave frequency and a new understanding of particle kinetics and the atom's stable orbits. It is analytically shown that the orbital electron arrangement is enforced by the necessity of accommodating the space that each orbiting electron's matter wave occupies.
The atom's orbital electron structure in terms of quantum numbers (principal, azimuthal, magnetic and spin) results in space for a maximum of: 2 electrons in the n=1 orbit, 8 electrons in the n=2 orbit, 18 electrons in the n=3 orbit, and so on. Those dispositions are correct, but that is not because of quantum numbers nor angular momentum nor a "Pauli exclusion principle". Matter waves were discovered in the early 20th century from their wavelength, which was predicted by DeBroglie to be, Planck's constant divided by the particle's momentum. But, the failure to obtain a reasonable theory for the matter wave frequency resulted in loss of interest. That problem is resolved in "A Reconsideration of Matter Waves" in which a reinterpretation of Einstein's derivation of relativistic kinetic energy [which produced his famous E = mc^2] leads to a valid matter wave frequency and a new understanding of particle kinetics and the atom's stable orbits. It is analytically shown that the orbital electron arrangement is enforced by the necessity of accommodating the space that each orbiting electron's matter wave occupies.
Matter waves were discovered in the early 20th century from their wavelength, predicted by DeBroglie, Planck’s constant divided by the particle’s momentum, that is, λmw = h/m.v. But, the failure to obtain a reasonable theory for the matter wave frequency resulted somewhat in loss of further interest. It was expected that the frequency of the matter wave should correspond to the particle kinetic energy, that is, fmw = 1/2 . m . v2/h but the resulting velocity of the matter of the particle, v = fmw . λmw , is that the matter wave moves at one half the speed of the particle, obviously absurd as the particle and its wave must move together. If relativistic mass is used (as it should in any case) the problem remains, the same mass appearing in numerator and denominator and canceling. It is no help to hypothesize that the total energy, not just the kinetic energy, yields the matter wave. That attributes a matter wave to a particle at rest. It also gives the resulting velocity as c2/v the wave racing ahead of its particle. A reinterpretation of Einstein’s derivation of relativistic kinetic energy (which produced his famous E = m.c2 ) leads to a valid matter wave frequency and a new understanding of particle kinetics and of the atom’s stable orbits.
The atom's orbital electron structure in terms of quantum numbers (principal, azimuthal, magnetic and spin) results in there being space for a maximum of: 2 electrons in the n=1 orbit, 8 electrons in the n=2 orbit, 18 electrons in the n=3 orbit, and so on. Those dispositions are correct; but that is not because of quantum numbers nor angular momentum nor a "Pauli exclusion principle". That orbital electron arrangement is enforced by the requirement of accommodating the space that each orbiting electron's matter wave occupies.
Matter waves were discovered in the early 20th century from their wavelength, predicted by DeBroglie, Planck's constant divided by the particle's momentum, that is, lmw = h/mv. But, the failure to obtain a reasonable theory for the matter wave frequency resulted somewhat in loss of further interest. It was expected that the frequency of the matter wave should correspond to the particle kinetic energy, that is, fmw = 1/2mv^2/h but the resulting velocity of the matter of the particle, v = fmw x lmw, is that the matter wave moves at one half the speed of the particle, obviously absurd as the particle and its wave must move together. If relativistic mass is used (as it should in any case) the problem remains, the same mass appearing in numerator and denominator and canceling. It is no help to hypothesize that the total energy, not just the kinetic energy, yields the matter wave. That attributes a matter wave to a particle at rest. It also gives the resulting velocity as c^2/v, the wave racing ahead of its particle. A reinterpretation of Einstein's derivation of relativistic kinetic energy (which produced his famous E = mc^2) leads to a valid matter wave frequency and a new understanding of particle kinetics and of the atom's stable orbits.
Einstein’s 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, in which he considered Planck’s idea of quanta of energy to be a universal characteristic of light, marks the beginning of quantum theory. Electrons and other quantum particles behave like particles and like waves, depending on the particular observation. An electron occupies a position in space only when an observation is made. Heisenberg decided that the problem of the actual orbits of the electrons inside the atom should be ignored; they have no meaning. Schrodinger reasoned that if an electron has a wave-like behavior, then it should be possible to describe this behavior in space and time by a wave equation. Soon after it was discovered that high-speed electrons had wavelengths that were much shorter than the wavelengths of light, physicists showed that magnetic fields could act as lenses by causing electron waves to converge to a focus.
Up to this point, our study of quantum mechanics has concerned itself with the behaviour of particles that inhabit a Galilean spacetime. For many purposes, in atomic, molecular and condensed matter physics, this theory is quite adequate. We saw in earlier chapters, however, that our actual spacetime has a structure which is much closer to that of the Minkowski spacetime of special relativity and that more general structures must be considered when gravitational phenomena are signicant. From a purely theoretical point of view, it is therefore important to formulate quantum theory in a way which is consistent with these more general spacetimes. The benets of constructing a relativistic quantum theory actually go far beyond the aesthetic satisfaction of making our geometrical and quantum-mechanical reasoning compatible. For one thing, we shall discover that the relativistic theory provides a deeper understanding of spin and the distinction between fermions and bosons, which in the non-relativistic theory appear simply as facts of life that we must strive to accommodate. Also, of course, there are many situations in which relativistic eects become observable, for which non-relativistic theory provides no explanation. The most obvious are high-energy scattering experiments, in which particles acquire kinetic energies comparable with or greater than their rest energies mc2, and the correct 4-momentum (3.33) must be used. There are, however, more subtle eects, such as the spin-orbit coupling that is essential for interpreting atomic spectra, which are also of relativistic origin.