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 <[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');>> > To: vortex-l <[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');>> > 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 <[email protected] > <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');>> 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 > > >
