Can anyone Debunk this for me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Physicsguru
  • Start date Start date
Physicsguru
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
A few days ago I came across this "theory" of an electron, and I want someone to debunk it.

http://rynex29.tripod.com/Newton.htm

I have seen this "orbitsphere" thing before, just thought I would ask if anyone else here has.

Thanks

Guru
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Physicsguru said:
A few days ago I came across this "theory" of an electron, and I want someone to debunk it.

http://rynex29.tripod.com/Newton.htm

I have seen this "orbitsphere" thing before, just thought I would ask if anyone else here has.

Thanks

Guru

What is there to bebunk? The "model" is not falsifiable, meaning it isn't science. It makes NO testable predictions, nor does it even attempt to make any attempt to agree with existeing experimental evidence (you know what "experimental evidence", don't you?)

My question is, why are you giving stuff like this free advertisement on here? Are you short on finding legitimate physics works to read?

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZapperZ said:
What is there to bebunk? The "model" is not falsifiable, meaning it isn't science. It makes NO testable predictions, nor does it even attempt to make any attempt to agree with existeing experimental evidence (you know what "experimental evidence", don't you?)

My question is, why are you giving stuff like this free advertisement on here? Are you short on finding legitimate physics works to read?

Zz.

I guess I was just wondering if anyone else here had run into this 'orbitsphere' thing before. As for legitimate stuff, i usually read IOP articles.

Regards,

Guru

PS: Here's the one I'm reading now, and oddly i think I've read it before.

http://ej.iop.org/links/q66/Zgawub3T9seUKndYNveb0A/ejp5_2_007.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physicsguru said:
PS: Here's the one I'm reading now, and oddly i think I've read it before.

http://ej.iop.org/links/q66/Zgawub3T9seUKndYNveb0A/ejp5_2_007.pdf

Why would you read something like this when you don't know, and don't even care to know, what the BCS Theory is?

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top