On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < [email protected]> wrote:
Yep, this is exactly the problem, you have two incomplete models that same > the same thing. It's a mystery ... > Allow me to point to some additional, beautiful images of excited Rydberg states that one will presumably need to set aside in order to make room for Mills's orbitspheres in one's life: http://photon.physnet.uni-hamburg.de/typo3temp/pics/1d908a9be3.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nk4zG5qt_nY/TtAqBojr3vI/AAAAAAAAABg/Vd5nKr7MGNw/s1600/WFs.png http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-urfIZEw5Ykw/T2Xvi98EJ8I/AAAAAAAABFc/VWk3UQ67S2o/s1600/17a%2527.persp2.bmp http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n2/images_article/ncomms2466-f4.jpg One is tempted to conclude that the makers of these images are propagating false teachings. In a world of orbitspheres, there are, presumably, no electrons passing through the nucleus, resulting in an increased probability of internal conversion. We will need to set aside our current understanding of internal conversion and adopt one based upon infinitesimally thin electron currents that are miles away from the nucleus, from its own perspective. Perhaps the two descriptions are dual, in the way that George Orwell explained that one can develop the ability to keep in mind two contradictory thoughts: - War is peace. - Freedom is slavery. - Ignorance is strength. Through an act of doublethink, it might be possible to reconcile orbitspheres and electron orbits, as they are currently understood. Eric
