The electrostatic Coulomb law has a number of demerits. Based on it, we semi-classically derive the Bohr atomic theory. Therefore, a natural question arises in fundamentality. How much is the Bohr atomic theory reliable? New reference and reading materials are welcome.
The question is not clear. What doubts do you have about the Coulomb law? One of the Maxwell equations, i.e. the Gauss law, is its consequence.
All atomic and molecular physics is based on the Coulomb law. If you are referring to second quantization, than it is another story.
Anyway. the Bohr theory, as well as the Sommerfeld extension, is not valid at all. It is useful only to predict hydrogen atom spectra. but for more complex atoms and molecules it is not reliable. It is well known.
You need to use the Shroedinger equation. To predict second order effects, you need to introduce correction terms, such as spin-orbit coupling, to account for second quantization and relativistic effects.
The issue here is not with the Coulomb potential but with the old
Bohr model compared to that derived from the modern Q. Theory.
The Bohr model is wrong. One simple example - if the electron were orbiting the nucleus in the ground state of hydrogen, it would form a magnetic field and there would be detectable orbital angular momentum, and there is not, as shown by the Stern Gerlach experiment. Most people's interpretation of the s orbital following the Schrödinger equation is also wrong, because they do not understand the significance of the 1 in the relation between the quantum number n and the radial and angular action - it comes from the Uncertainty Principle, which means there is actually h/2 of angular momentum, BUT in my interpretation at least, it oscillates fster than the detection.
The electrostatic effects of an orbital are fully consistent with the Schrödinger equation as shown mathematically through the Hellmann Feynman theorem. Of course information such as angular momentum is lost in that theorem.
Dear Prof. Miller, Thanks a lot to you and your scientific attitude. Your answer is nice, judicious and balanced. We hope to receive similar help and cooperation from you in such R&D activities in future too.
In addition, latest references and best suggested readings on the refined physics are welcome.
Dear P K Karmakar, I am not sure what you wanted referenced but on the assumption it was the Hellmann-Feynman theorem'
Feynman, R. P. 1939. Phys. Rev. 56: 340-43.
As an aside, I am a Dr, not a Prof because I never had a University position.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Pharmacology
- Pharmaceuticals
- Drugs