Re: Big Bang -- Maths

James Rogers (
Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:15:30 -0800

At 06:19 PM 11/20/97 GMT0, Tony Hollick wrote:
> If they absorb or emit a photon, they increase or decrease in mass,
> and the orbit adjusts. If they change theior angular velocity, they
> take up different orbits. The model works perfectly. Bohr's basic
> [1913] model works by ad hoc postulates, whereby I offer physical
> mechanisms and hence physical explanations. That makes RM a superior
> theory! More content! What's the problem supposed to be?

I've seen the RM theory. That's all good and well, but like Bohr, your
model suffers some serious defects when faced with all but the simplest
electronic structures. Probabilistic wave functions work much better at
describing observable electronic phenomena than can be accomodated by
deterministic/discrete wave functions, especially as the electronic
structures get more complicated. I don't see any means by which you can
package your electron orbitals to make them look like the electron orbitals
that actually happen. The Schrodinger wave functions are fundamental to
modern chemistry and work very well; *much* better than non-probabilistic

So here's the problem, in short:

You would like us to discard a vast quantity of experimentally verifiable
computational chemistry in exchange for an "improved" theory that generates
a huge body of evidence to the contrary.

-James Rogers