hah, that's the price to pay for using remailers o.O. of course I meant mercury.
I've once read a physics book when I was... dunno... fourteen or so.
uhm...dont get offended but you should take out your physics books from the shelf
too long time has elapsed
you might be right here... so where do you get your knowledge about quantum mechanics from? You seem to know very much about it. *hust*
The model by itself does not provide any explanation for the energy levels
It does.
The quantization of the energy levels is an empirical input gained by the experience while the quantization of angular moment is a direct consequence of the quantization of the energy levels
I don't want to criticise you here, but when you're talking about scientific stuff you should try to not mix up stuff so much. While it might sound impressive for people who do not know much about it, I don't like to discuss with someone who can't express a clear idea.
It's true that the quantization is proven empirically. But it is not true that quantization of angular momentum is a direct consequence of the quantization of energy levels. In fact it has nothing to do with each other. In the Bohr model, though, you can derive either one from the other. Still, this does not make it a consequence.
The Schondringer's equation
Never heard of that.
Again.
The Schondringer's equation provided an explanation for the discrete energy levels but it has nothing to do with its probabilistic interpretation which Schondringer himself alwayes rejected
Assuming you mean Schrödinger, it might be true that he rejected the probabilistic interpretation. Nevertheless, the state the equation acts on is the probability amplitude. If you say "it has nothing to do" - where do you get that from? I am curious.
Sorry for hijacking this thread. To add something to the discussion: one thing I always found fascinating is the following wheel:
Of course it doesn't work but I find it quite impressive, because its counter-intuitive that it doesn't work.
