Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory

:{{la|Quantum Ring Theory}} – (View AfD)(View log)

Original research, essay - basically same as "Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion" NeilN 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

{{not a vote}}

• Weak Keep: Needs a lot of work. Getting rid of the OR and adding more sources mainly. Other than that, there area few print sources to back it up, and it seems notable in the realm of physics. - Rjd0060 04:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

ANSWER BY W.GUGLINSKI:

:NeilN said:

:Original research, essay - basically same as "Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion"

However basically NeilN is wrong, because:

1- In the case of Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion, the article shows a FACT: that there is a wrong belief among those ones that think cold fusion occurrence be theoretically impossible. The belief is wrong because the electron's zitterbewegung makes the cold fusion occurrence be possible theoretically. So, the article shows a FACT

2- In the case of Quantum Ring Theory, the article supplies Wikipedia with an information about a new theory that is reading by people worldwide.

• There are teachers of Physics encouraging the students to read Quantum Ring Theory, as we see in the link:

• Need help: quantum ring theory
• Was told to read up on it by my professor , but then wikipedia no entry . anyone got any useful link ?

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:AbHrgF4t9SwJ:forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D104358+%22quantum+ring+theory%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=34&gl=br

• The book is beeing read by students, physicists, reviewers, in the whole world, and this is a FACT.

Look:

Amazon.com: Quantum Ring Theory: Books: Wladimir Guglinski- [ Traduzir esta página ]Amazon.com: Quantum Ring Theory: Books: Wladimir Guglinski by Wladimir Guglinski.

www.amazon.com/Quantum-Ring-Theory-Wladimir-Guglinski/dp/0972134948 - 166k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Barnes & Noble.com

Books: Quantum Ring Theory, by Wladimir ...- Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory: Foundations for Cold Fusion, Guglinski, Wladimir Guglinski, Paperback, Book, ISBN: 0972134948, Barnes & Noble.com.

search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780972134941 - 35k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Wladimir Guglinski Quantum Ring Theory gifts in india at rediff books

- [ Traduzir esta página ]Wladimir Guglinski Quantum Ring Theory at rediff books.

books.rediff.com/bookshop/buyersearch.jsp?lookfor=Wladimir%20Guglinski&search=1 - 13k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Buy.com

Quantum Ring Theory : Wladimir Guglinski : ISBN ...- [ Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory : Wladimir Guglinski : {{ISBN|9780972134941}} : Book.

www.buy.com/prod/quantum-ring-theory/q/loc/106/203008754.html - 86k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Get Published

Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory: Foundations for Cold Fusion - In Quantum Ring Theory Wladimir Guglinski presents a radical new theory concerning the fundamental nature ...

www.published.com/search/results.aspx?search=Jon - 40k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

BiggerBooks.com

Discount Bookstore. Bestsellers, New Books, Used ...- [ Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory. Author(s): GUGLINSKI WLADIMIR. ISBN: 0972134948. ISBN13: 9780972134941. Cover: Paperback. Copyright: 08/30/2006 ...

www.biggerbooks.com/book/0972134948 - 49k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

››› buch.de - bücher - versandkostenfrei - Quantum Ring Theory ...Quantum Ring Theory - Wladimir Guglinski Titel voraussichtlich versandfertig innerhalb 3 Wochen. EUR 26,99.

www.buch.de/buch/14091/686_quantum_ring_theory.html - 25k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Amazon.fr

Quantum Ring Theory: Livres en anglais: Wladimir GuglinskiAmazon.fr : Quantum Ring Theory: Livres en anglais: Wladimir Guglinski by Wladimir Guglinski.

www.amazon.fr/Quantum-Ring-Theory-Wladimir-Guglinski/dp/toc/0972134948 - 56k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Quantum Ring Theory:GUGLINSKI WLADIMIR :0972134948:eCampus.com- [ Traduzir esta página ]Buy Quantum Ring Theory by GUGLINSKI WLADIMIR for $25.86 at eCampus.com[ISBN:0972134948]. Save 50 - 90% on new and used books.

www.ecampus.com/book/0972134948 - 46k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

BookFinder.com

Book directory [e3bb2310]- [ Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory by Wladimir Guglinski (0972134948 9780972134941 0-9721349-4-8) · Meeting the Enemy, Becoming a Friend ...

www.bookfinder.com/dir/e3bb2310/ - 14k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

• So, it seems that the users of Wikipedia are trying to suppress the FACT that the book is known by people of many country.

• Are the users of Wikipedia against the FACTS ??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by W.GUGLINSKI (talk • contribs) 05:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm against blitzkriegs of scientific-sounding blatherskite to confuse people into thinking stuff is notable. JuJube 07:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• confuse people??? Said by Eugene Mallove: "Guglinski has interesting and intriguing ideas" That's why as editor of Infinite Energy he decided to publish my paper What is Missing in Les Case's Catalytic Fusion (Infinite Energy Vol. 8 , No. 46 , 2002).

Besides, the own Mallove who encouraged me to put my all papers in a book form. So, I suppose it was not confuse to him, that knew Physics very well.

Perhaps it is confuse to people that do not understand Physics, however their opinion cannot be taken seriously. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG DELETE. Delete. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3Aguglinski No cites for Guglinski] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=quantum-ring-theory very few cites for quantum ring theory] on Google scholar, so whether or not this counts as original research (I lean towards not) it seems to be non-notable. And the spammy approach by Guglinski himself to this AfD isn't helping. —David Eppstein 06:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• David Eppstein: You're wrong, because http://scholar.google.com.br/scholar?q=guglinski&hl=pt-BR&lr=&lr= cites Guglinski. W.GUGLINSKI 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Therefore we can change your vote, as follows:
• One citation does not confer notability, especially as it is a book written by the theory's creator. We need third-party references and citations. Hut 8.5 11:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• David, the book QRT has been published in 2006. In order to appear new quotations on the book, the physicists need to read it, to study the proposals, and later to write about them in papers and new books. Such a process takes time. The changings in sience takes several years, mainly because my ideas propose very deep changings in the foundations of Physics. Besides, I wrote only one book. If I had written more books, there would be more quotations W.GUGLINSKI 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strengthening my !vote, and removing the "lean towards not" line from my previous comment, as Guglinski's comments including the one above admitting that the work is uncited) have convinced me that his work is original research that must be removed from Wikipedia. I would also like to register a protest about his extremely annoying behavior on this AfD: I refer to the many overlong and badly formatted comments and more particularly to his attempts to get people to change their !vote, formatted as if looking like !votes from the targets of his vote-change requests. I trust the closing admin to collate the opinions appropriately regardless of this obfuscation, but it is making it difficult to hold a true debate on the merits of this article, because nobody is given a chance to discuss the issue with anyone but Guglinski himself. —David Eppstein 02:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article isn't even about a quantum theory. It starts off with some statments that Schroedinger and Heisenberg made, and then goes on about how the author of the article had trouble getting his books published. Fails WP:OR. Bobby1011 08:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Bobby,

The development of Physics along the 20th Century had two different currents: Schrödinger and Heisenberg had different opionions about how to develop Quantum Mechanics. So, I supposed to be important to explain to people here in the begginning of the Wikipage on Quantum Ring Theory what is the way adopted in QRT, because it is different of the way addopted currently in the development of Quantum Mechanics, since the Heisenberg's viewpoint prevailed (it's known as Interpretation of Copenhagen).

After that introduction, I told how the QRT was born, and why it was born (one of the reasons because I consider Schrödinger way could not be neglected by the theorists (QM could be developed by considering the two ways together). Perhaps it is difficult to you to understand some things, because you are not an expert in Physics. But those ones that know Physics very well are able to understand why I used this sort of description.

I hope you understand my point now W.GUGLINSKI 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So, I ask you if you change your vote:

• Bobby1011 Yes, I change my vote
• Bobby1011 No, I dont change my vote

:I'm not an expert on physics? How would you know? And should I suppose that you're claiming that you are an expert on physics? I'm a chemist by training and we do actually study a significant amount of quantum theory during the course of our studies, though I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the topic. The article and its proposed theory's deviations for the standard model have nothing to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation does not concern itself with the "hard" theory directly, but is rather concerned with interpreting implications about the role of the observer from quantum mechanics. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 08:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is even written in first person FFS. Someguy1221 09:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Someguy1221: The article is now in the third person. W.GUGLINSKI 10:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Therefore now we can change your vote, as follows:
• Someguy1221 Yes, I change my vote
• Someguy1221 No, I dont change my vote

• Delete Hopeless and unsalvagable.Alberon 10:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• SUBJECTIVE: It is only an personal opinion, not based on any objective criterion. Therefore cannot be considered seriously W.GUGLINSKI 13:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is based on objective criteria. The article is unsourced (except to itself), and the article is biased reading much like and advert for the theory in question. I seriously doubt these problems can be overcome so I cannot see much chance of this article being kept.

• Delete When will people learn that this is an encyclopedia, not a site to tell your life story? Mr_pand 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr pand (talk • contribs) {{{2|}}}
• 'IT'S NOT LIFE STORY - It's the history of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY: how it born, why, what were the troubles, etc. It is very different than a life personal story. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 13:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• At the time I made that comment, the article was written in the first person, and was basically about difficulties in getting the book published. It read very much like a life story. Now, that is not so much the case, although it still doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article, but more like an essay. Also, we need third-party citations. Mr_pand 13:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• third-party citations: Already alleged by David Eppstein. Mr-Pand, please dont repeat arguments already posted by other members. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration 200.149.61.187 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Please allow an admin to judge which views to take into consideration. Mr_pand 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I allow it, but I suppose that the admin will agree that the users cannot repeat several times an argument earlier already quoted by another user. W.GUGLINSKI 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:No, if a user feels another user's reasons for keeping/deleting are valid they are free to restate the reasons. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No results for "Quantum Ring Theory" in most of the usual places including Web of Science, Inspect, Institute of Physics Journals, ISI Proceedings and ScienceDirect. Some results in other databases, but adding "Guglinski" to the search narrows that down to nothing. Article is surely original research? --Kateshortforbob 13:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• USUAL PLACES ??? If you try to find Eugene Mallove in those usual places as Science, Inspect, Institute of Physics Journals, ISI Proceedings and ScienceDirect, etc., you will find NOTHING. However Mallove is the best known name among the cold fusion researchers. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete very few Google or Google Scholar hits, author doesn't have an article, so little notability. Violation of WP:SOAP and WP:COI as well. Hut 8.5 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• REPETITION: already said by David Eppstein . Please dont repeat something already said in here. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

::*The fact that someone else shares my opinion does not mean that my opinion is invalid. It is not up to you to decide which comments should be taken into consideration. Please consider David Eppstein's comments above - your aggressive approach to this AfD is not helping your case. Hut 8.5 07:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsensical personal essay. JJL 18:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• NONSENSICAL ???? Only for those ones that dont know Physics. However we cannot take seriously their opinion.

Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 14:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:SOAP and WP:NOR. Hal peridol 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• REPETITION: already said by David Eppstein . Please dont repeat something already said in here. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- this is a joke, right? Turgidson 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• SUBJECTIVE: It's a personal opinion of someone that does not know Physics. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 14:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

:Comment: Hey, how do you know I don't know Physics? Please review WP:AGF. And yes, I maintain what I said. Please review WP:OR and WP:HOAX. Turgidson 03:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- the English may be a bit off, but I do agree with the original writer, they discussing facts in terms of what has been published. Therefore, it meets the basic criteria of a entry. Just because some members of the physics community disagree with some of the ideas is NOT reason enough to delete the entry.Flashgordon123 20:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• OK:

:Flash,

:Would you like to improve my bad English ? I would be glad if you do it. Also, feel yourself free to make corrections in the grammar and syntax of Don Borghi's experiment and Cold fusion theories Thanks very much W.GUGLINSKI 14:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. No evidence that this is an accepted (or even seriously discussed) scientific theory - anyone can publish a book and claim that it contains "scientific papers", but unless they've been peer-reviewed (and the author himself proudly states in the article that his work has been rejected by reviewers, which ought to start alarm bells ringing) then it means nothing. Cosmo0 13:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Cosmo0: Read Don Borghi's experiment and Cold fusion theories, and after reading, put again your comment in here W.GUGLINSKI 14:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It may not be widely accepted and the English is a bit off but it represents a possibility. It should be heavily rewritten to show that it is not all accepted fact. Harland1 15:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. In response to Guglinski's mass replies, I'm going to make one more attempt at this. You clearly do not get this one bit. Wikipedia is meant to be a collection of verifiable information on notable topics (please follow the blue links if you want more clarification on that). We are not a publisher of original thought. Information on wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable sources that are independent of the content itself (this implies the sources must not have been written by you). Wikipedia is not an arbiter of fact. Wikipedia does not include information because it might satisfy the guidelines/policies one day. Someguy1221 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Someguy: "Wikipedia is meant to be a collection of verifiable information"

:Hi, Someguy,

:Everything can be verifiable in the book Quantum Ring Theory

:But if you wish, or somebody of the Wiki admin, you can talk with Naveen Dankal ( dankal.naveen@gmail.com ). He is the Indian theorists that posted in the Barnes & Nobel that review on the book QRT.

:As my English is very poor, now he is improving the text of my book MODERN PHYSICS TO WHOEVER DOESNT KNOW PHYSICS, written to layman to understand the foundations proposed in QRT.

:Unfortunatelly Eugene Mallove is dead, because he could give additional informations.

::::The review by Naveen Dankal:

:::::WHOA!!...we have a breakthrough here!!! Hi I just came across this book 'Quantum Ring Theory' by Wladimir Guglinkski and found it quite exhilarating and thrilling. The thrill is in the way Quantum Theory is being treated in this book which is totally a new approach to physics. The proposed structure of the Neutron in terms of n=p+e, the ZOOM Effect, Helical trajectory, a completely new interpretation of DUALITY are some of the most original works of the author. I don't think I have seen any of the Modern Physicists as original as Wladimir. I must say that any serious physicist must go through this book and I would be glad if some of the universities come out with funds to perform certain experiments to establish Guglinski's Quantum Ring Theory. WLADIMIR.......HATS OFF MAN!!!!!!

:Concerning the question of fundamental requirement for cold fusion, mentioned in Don Borghi's experiment and Cold fusion theories, the question that the cold fusion theorists are unable to respond was arisen by the nuclear chemist Mitch, in his Chemistry Forum. So, you could talk with him, in http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0

::Earlier to know Quantum Ring Theory, Mitch was sure that cold fusion is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE. Now, after getting knowledge that cold fusion can be explained from the zitterbewegung as shown in Cold fusion theories, it seems that Mitch changed his mind. W.GUGLINSKI 05:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The book itself is no use, obviously, as you wrote it. What we're asking for is independent sources on the web that support your argument. As it stands the article, like the newer one you've put up Don Borghi's experiment reads more like a piece of WP:OR as mentioned above. Even if those articles are kept in the end, they're going to have to be rewritten to remove the bias and present both sides of the argument.Alberon 09:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

{| style="border: 1px solid grey; background-color: transparent; width: 100%;" class="collapsible collapsed"

|-

!align="right"|This box contains two overly long threads by Guglinski, collapsed to make the structure of the discussion clearer.

|-

|.....................Hi,Alberon........................................................................................................................................................................

:::::First of all, thanks for improving the article Cold fusion theories. It is more ellegant now.

Concerning the independent sources, let me tell you what happens with Quantum Ring Theory.

When a new theory of Physics defies the prevailing dogmas of current theories, what is the reaction of the physicists?

::Well, they at once try to check the theory. And the first step is looking for fatal errors. These errors can be an internal incoherence of the theory, or incompatibility with some principles of Physics, or predictions in contrast with experimental results.

In the begginning of 2006, I started many discussions with some theorists in Foruns of Physics.

In general, when I a talk by the internet I told to a theorists some proposals of QRT, the reaction was the following: hee claimed that the theory is wrong, and that would be easy to prove it.

But I have noted an interesting thing. Earlier to know the proposals of QRT, the physicist cries out, claiming that it is easy to debunk the theory, because it is wrong, etc.

But when he reads the theory, he keeps silence. He gives up of debunking the theory, he does not accomplishes his promise of showing the errors of the theory. He just stops the discussion.

Let me give you an example.

::Five months ago I had a discussion with some physicists in a forum with some physicists of the Brazilian university UERJ. After telling them some proposals of QRT, they claimed that I am crazy, and the theory is wrong, etc. Many of them claimed that they would debunk easily the theory.

::Then I proposed to send a copy of my book to the library of that university, with the following aim: they would read the book, and then we would start a discussion. By this way they will be able to debunk definitively the QRT, and the controversy will be over. And I will recognize that my theory is wrong.

::OK. I sent the book. However a teacher of the University took the book to himself, and do not allow the students and pos-graduated physicists to read the book.

::So, the debate would not occur, because I even did not know who was the teacher that caught the book.

::Then I had an idea. I put two papers of mine available in the internet. They are ANOMALOUS MASS OF THE NEUTRON, and the other one is NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON. That was the first time when I put two papers available in the internet (just with the aim of making viable a discussion on some proposals of QRT). So, by placing the two papers in the internet, the other physicists of the university UERJ would be able to read those two papers, and to point out the errors of them.

:::::That was a good chance they prove definitivelly that Quantum Ring Theory is wrong. And so I would recognize that the theory is wrong.

::Surprisingly, when I put the two papers in the internet, immediatelly all the physcists that cried out against QRT closed their mouth. I never hear a word of any of them anymore.

::If the proposals of the theory should be wrong, as they claimed earlier to read any paper of QRT, of course that they would point out the errors, and to destroy the theory. However, no one of them said a word after to read the papers in the internet.

So, it would be difficult to find independent sources on the web, by two reasons:

:1- The physicists that opposers to QRT, after reading it they keep silence. They dont claim that the theory is wrong, however they dont recognize that the theory has intesting ideas, that merit to be tested in the universities. In general these physicists even cannot elogiate the theory, because they are afraid to be threatened by their colleges.

:2- The physicists that dont need to be afraid of retaliations (because they do not belong to academics community), when they read the book they find the ideas very interesting and intriguing, and they state that any serious physicist must read the book.

If you wish, I can tell you the email of the physicist that is the moderator of the forum FISICA, where the discussion had taken place. His name is Eduardo Tahara.

You can get an idea why the book makes the opposers to close their mouth by looking what is shown in the paper NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON:

:::::.........................................................................................................................................................

:::1) When we analyze the mass of pions according to the current Standard Model, we arrive to contradictory conclusions about the mass M(d) of the quark down and the mass M(u) of the quark up.

:::::In the paper New Model of Neutron it is shown that we arrive to the following two contradictory conclusions:

:::::::CONCLUSION 1: M(d) > M(u)

:::::::CONCLUSION 2: M(u) > M(d)

:::: So, from the Standard Model of current Particle Physics we reach to undesirable and unsatisfactory results.

:::::.........................................................................................................................................................

When a theorist reads the paper, he cannot avoid to face two facts exposed in the paper:

::::1- That from the Standard Model of current Particle Physics we reach to undesirable and unsatisfactory results

::::2- That from the proposals of Quantum Ring Theory we eliminate the contradictory conclusions:

:::::::M(d) > M(u)

:::::::M(u) > M(d)

Any theorist can realize that these two conclusions are eliminated from the spin-fusion hypothesis of Quantum Ring Theory, when he reads the paper NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON. But instead of to confess it, he keeps silence. There is not honesty from the most physicists that read QRT.

That’s why there is so few independent sources supporting my argument. W.GUGLINSKI 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

......................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................PERMISSION TO INCORPORATE A TEXT TO THE ARTICLE................................................

::::::::::I would like to ask permission to incorporate a text on

::::::::::: the successes of Bohr model in the end of

::::::::::the article Quantum Ring Theory. The text is bellow

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

In Bohr’s model of hydrogen atom a corpuscular electron turns about a proton. There are several orbits, which radii are R= n², where n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... The first orbit near to proton is called “fundamental”, and it is designated by n=1. The other ones are n=2, n=3, etc.

The electron can jump from one orbit to another.

When the electron jumps between two orbits, the hydrogen atom emits a photon ( see the first figure in Bohr model ).

Imagine that the electron jumps from the orbit n=2 to the orbit n=4. When the electron performs this jumping, the hydrogen atom emits a photon which wavelenght was calculated by Bohr in the following way:

• a) he considered that in the orbit n=2 the electron (in the instant when it jumps) is under the action of two forces, F_E and F_C, that are in equilibrium.

• b) F_E is the electric force of attraction between the proton and the electron, and F_C is the centripetal force due to electron’s circular motion.

• c) And in the orbit n=4 the electron is also under the action of two forces F’_E and F’_C that are in equilibrium.

Other photons can be emitted, for instance when the electron jumps from n=1 to n=2, or from n=1 to n=3, etc. But the calculus always considers that the electron is in equilibrium between two forces, the electrical and the centripetal, when the atom emits a photon.

:::::::::::Therefore, in the Bohr’s model the centripetal force has

:::::::::::some misterious connection with the emission of photons

When the atoms of a gas are excited (for example by an electric discharge), they emit light. After passing through a prism, and projected in a screen, the light appears in the form of lines. The physicist Balmer had discovered that these lines follow a defined standard, and for the hydrogen atom he found the mathematical formula of the standard. However nobody knew why those lines appeared, nor why they had that distribution according to Balmer formula.

Niels Bohr who deciphered the mystery. Inhaled in the work of Planck, Bohr had the idea of applying his postulate in the hydrogen atom.

In the Bohr’s hydrogen atom model an electron gyrates about a proton, in a circular trajectory, named fundametnal status. By exciting the atom, the electron jumps to another orbit, and in this jump it emits energy (photon).

To understand the mysteries of the atom of Bohr, earlier we go to explain the concepts of centrifugal force and angular momentum.

If you are driving a car in a road with 100km/h, and see ahead a plate of dangerous curve, followed by a second a plate of maximum speed 60km/h, and you do not reduce your speed, what does happen?

The result is predictable. When making the curve, you feel that the car wants to leave the road. And perhaps you have even already passed by a situation like that, and your car really left the road.

What is it that impels the car to go off the road, when making the curve?

The force that impels an object out, when it covers a curvilinear trajectory, is vulgarly named centrifugal force. Actually this force does not exist, and it is only apparent (if had a centrifugal force acting on the Moon, this force would be cancelled by the Earth’s gravitational force, and the Moon would have to move through a rectilinear uniform movement). But for didactics effect, the concept of force centrifugal is used, because frequently it facilitates the explanation.

If you already moored a rock in the tip of a string, and keept the rock gyrating while held the other tip of the string, you already have felt the centrifugal force of the rock too, trying to make the string to scape from your hand. And you had observed that, so faster the the rock gyrates, stronger becomes the force of the string trying to leave your hand. If you turn it very fast, you dont get to hold the string, and it will scape from your hand.

Well, after understanding the centrifugal force concept, now let us see the concept of angular momentum.

Suppose that you moored a rock with mass “m” in the extremity of a spring, and is turning this rock with speed V. The angular momentum of the rock is m.V.R.

If you increase the speed V, what will happen?

The centrifugal force of the rock goes to strain the spring, and the radius of the trajectory goes to increase.

As you can increase the speed gradually, the radius can go growing slowly. That is, the radius of the trajectory can have any value. And therefore the angular momentum can have any value.

In the atom of Bohr this is forbidden. The electron can gyrate only in orbits which radius are the following: 1, 2, 4, 9, 25. So, in his theory the angular momentum of the electron is quantized, having always values that are entire multiples of the Planck’s constant h. That is, the angular momentum can have values h, 2h, 3h, 4h... only.

This quantization of the angular momentum was seen with perplexity by the physicists of that age. After all, by what reason the electron was forbidden to turn in any orbit with any radius, and with any angular momentum?

Another problem with the Bohr’s model is that according to Maxwell’s theory an electron moving in circular trajectory would have to emit radiation, to lose energy because of this, and finally this electron would have to fall down into the nucleus. To prevent this inconvenience, Bohr proposed a postulate according to which the electron can turn about the nucleus without emitting energy.

Basically, the Bohr’s model was classic in the Newtonian conception, but Bohr applied quantum concepts on it. It was therefore a hybrid, classic-quantum model.

The blow of mercy on the Bohr’s atom came with the perfectioning of the spectroscopic measurements, when was verified that the hydrogen atom emits some very thin lines, which from his model could not be explained. Moreover, his model did not succeed to explain the helium atom.

In view of the unsurmountable difficulties that the model faced, the physicists had started to look for new solutions, and finally it appeared the Schrödinger’s theory, that conceptually was totally distinct of the theory of Bohr, and was efficient in explaining the atomic phenomena where the Bohr’s model failed. And as could not leave of being, the physicists had arrived at the conclusion that the model of Bohr was incorrect.

In the theory of Schrödinger the classic concepts of the Bohr’s model had been discarded, giving place to the new concepts that had been established in the Quantum Mechanics, namely:

• 1 - The electron left of being corpuscular, passing to be considered a probability cloud.
• 2 - The concept of trajectory of the electron was abolished
• 3 - The electron does not peruse the space that separates two levels of energy
• 4 - The mechanism of emission of photons is different in the two models (we will speak about ahead)

Although the failure of the Bohr’s model, however a great mystery persisted, as it is explained as follows.

The values that if one gets from the Balmer’s formula relate to the energies (photons) emitted by the hydrogen atom. To get those values with his model, Bohr considered that, in the instant when the atom emits a photon, the electron is in equilibrium due two forces: the force Fa of attraction with the proton, and the centrifugal force Fc due to speed of rotation to about the proton.

Therefore, in his model, in the instant of the emission of photons the electron is under the action of centrifugal the centrifugal force, that is, in the mechanism of emission of photons from the model of Bohr there is the performance of a centrifugal force on the electron.

:In other words:

::the emission mechanism depends inexorablely on the action of a centrifugal force.

Well, the model of Bohr obtained fantastic results. For example, by using his model, one calculates¹ the Rydberg constant. Compare the value gotten from:

::the experiments: R_H = 10.967.757

::the theoretical calculation: R_H = 10.968.100

::::::Impressive, isn’t?

::::::Coincidence ?

Only if we believe that it is coincidence with the same faith with which a religious one believes miracles. Moreover, the Bohr model supplied other spectacular results. From the laws of the probability, it is impossible that it can be mere coincidence. And therefore there is something of truth in his model.

::That’s why Schrödinger said:

::::“It is difficult to believe that this result is merely an accidental mathematical consequence of the quantum conditions, and has no deeper physical meaning”².

::He believed that Bohr’s successes would be consequence of unknown mechanisms, and he tried to find them.

The conclusion is that centrifugal force really plays some function in the instant when a photon is emitted by an atom.

But just here the great mystery is. The mechanism of emission of photons from the Schrödinger’s theory does not admit that one assumes that the centrifugal force plays some role in the emission of photons. The mechanism of emission of photons according to Quantum Mechanics is by resonance, a total incompatible process with the hypothesis of centrifugal force on the electron in the instant of the emission. In short, the theory of Schrödinger does not admit centrifugal force, and therefore the Bohr’s model must be completely wrong, so that the model of the Quantum Mechanics may be correct.

But we already saw that mathematically, from the laws of probability, it is impossible that the model of Bohr can be completely wrong. The centrifugal force must have some linking with the mechanism of emission of the atom, and in this in case it is lacking something in the Quantum Mechanics.

In another words:

• a) Whereas the model of Bohr cannot be completely wrong, as they certify the laws of the probability…

• b)… on the other hand the model of the Quantum Mechanics cannot be completely certain, because it states that the Bohr model is completely wrong.

Therefore there is here a great mystery that defies the Quantum Mechanics.

That’s why the theorists decided to state that the spectacular successes of Bohr’s theory are accidental. In a paper³ in which proposes the helical trajectory of the electron for unifying the relativity with the quantum theory, the physicist Natarajan writes, commenting the success of Bohr theory in explaining the espectra bands:

:“But this significant sucess along with the other spectacular successes of Bohr’s theory of the hydrogen atom is now considered by physicists as ‘accidental’ after the development of Quantum Mechanics”.

But as said Schrödinger it’s hard to believe that Bohr’s successes are accidental. Actually it is impossible, from the laws of probability. It’s probable that Schrödinger started to suppose that Bohr’s successes could have connection with the electron’s zitterbewegung. Schrödinger and Heisenberg had a different view on the question of how Quantum Mechanics would have to be developed. Schrödinger would like to follow the way by considering the zitterbewegung as an electron’s helical trajectory. While Heisenberg proposed to develop Quantum Mechanics by considering that the concept of trajectory could not be kept in the theory. Such Heisenberg’s view is today known as the Interpretation of Copenhagen, and it prevailed in the development of the theory.

Believing that Bohr’s successes are accidental, the theorists believe in the inadmissible, because it’s comfortable, but actually they deceive themselves. Unlike, as Schrödinger did not accept to deceive himself, he abandoned the dispute with Heisenberg, when realized that the Theoretical Physics had followed that way preconized by the interpretation of Copenhagen.

In short, it’s hard to believe that Bohr model has not a botton of truth.

As said in the Wikipedia article Quantum Ring Theory ⁴, this new theory was developed according to the Schrödinger’s view on the zitterbewegung, interpreted as the electron’s helical trajectory

The mistery of Bohr’s successes is explained through a solution proposed in QRT, where it is proposed a new hydrogen model, with the following fundamental new proposals:

:*a) In the new hydrogen atom, the electron moves through a helical trajectory about the proton

:*b) The space of the electrosphere about the proton has dilation, due to the repulsive gravity (the same repulsive gravity that causes the expansion of the Universe, as predicted in Einstein’s theory when he proposed the cosmological constant).

:*c) This new hydrogen atom conciliates the Bohr’s hydrogen model with the Schrödinger’s equation

:*d) Actually the Schrödinger’s equation is the mathematical solution for the hydrogen atom proposed in Quantum Ring Theory

Quantum Ring Theory shows that:

:*1- Bohr’s model is wrong. However there is a botton of truth in his model, because in spite of the emission of photons have no connection with the centripetal force, however the centripetal force on the electron exists in the instant when an atom is emitted, and the value of such force is the same of the force that the proton attracts the electron, as predicted in Bohr’s model.

:*2- The atom model of Quantum Mechanics is correct. However it is partially wrong, because a centripetal force exists on the electron in the instant of a photon’s emission, as predicted by Bohr’s theory (Bohr made a mistake because this centripetal force has not connection with the emission of the photon, which happens by a resonance phenomenon, as correctly predicted in Quantum Mechanics.

1- R. Eisberg, R. Resnick, Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and Particles, John Wiley & Sons, 1974

2- E. Schrödinger , On a Remarkable Property of the Quantum-Orbits of a Single Electron, 1922

3- T. S. Natarajan, Unified Conceptual Foundation for Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, Physics Essays, V. 9, No. 2, 1996, pg 302

4- W. Guglinski, Quantum Ring Theory – Foundations for Cold Fusion, Bäuu Press, 2006

|}

• Comment I work at a university and that is not how most scientists operate. If a theory that radically changes the view of the universe appears true they run with it. This would make the careers of anyone who verified the theory. Peer Review actually works very well and there isn't some grand conspiracy to ignore your theory. Just look at the 20th Century where virtually every model of the universe was systematically overturned as new observations came in. Your theory is non-notable and does not deserve a page (or pages) on Wikipedia. Alberon 09:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.