Has Quantum Shell Theory been disproved?

[kejedo]

In PhysTherapy, yesterday,  one of the professionals was stating that the updated Uncertainty Principle has replaced all quantum shell theory. My first selfish thought was: "Good thing I'm not teaching anymore and can not be tempted to use my first name, Pauline, as a memory hook for the Pauli Exclusion Principle." I know, you thought that, too, right?   Oh well, there are still Polynomials for me to claim (bad joke). Then I looked at some of the info online and still see Electron Shell theories proliferating. https://www.answers.com/Q/Was_quantum_shell_theory_disproved. This article contends that the Uncertaintly Principle adds to previous understanding.  Watchtower Connection- "Particle Physics" _ W 4/15/80 ( 29.)(et. al)  Isaiah 40:26. My interest lies in appreciating that from the subatomic to the macroscopic, Jehovah has created all things in an orderly manner.  If you have been keeping up on these developments, what is your take on current quantum understanding?                                                                                                                                                                                                                Y( charmed as a quark and just as strange)S

Edited October 5, 2019 by kejedo

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

Well, my take is that science has had to change its ideas as new evidence unfolds. Bold statements need strong proof to be seen as more than a grab for publicity.

My understanding of particle physics and string theory is very limited. I cannot prove or disprove the theories floated. But scientists are a funny and mixed bag of personalities.

Fortunately, whether one or the other is right, will not change who or what we are.

I take it with a pince of salt. It adds to the spice of life.

 

If I may please bore the reader with a potentially similar statement, although in a very different 'scientific' field ie evolution.

 

Short story: The 'Cambrian Explosion' of fossils is a sticking point for the slow and gradual theory started by Charles Darwin. So the term has been changed to ‘Cambrian diversification'.

Or has it? The claim is made. But (see the long story below), Google only shows this expression 392 times since 2,000...

So the bold claim (above) is made. The support seems lacking...

... so too with this claim... time will tell.

(And when you life forever, you have the time!!!)

 

LONG STORY:

 

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/coyne-bechly-miller-berlinski-scientists-debate-david-gelernters-darwin-apostasy/

 

QUOTE:

An Explosion or a “Diversification”?

For Coyne, it gets worse from there. On the Cambrian explosion, he insists that the trend is toward classing it as a mere “diversification”:

 

If the Cambrian Explosion cannot be contained by a play on words, perhaps it may be constrained by a sleight of hand? The very concept of an explosion, Coyne argues, “is disappearing, with paleontologists increasingly speaking of a ‘Cambrian diversification’.” Are they? Are they really? A search on Google Scholar for academic publications between 2000 and 2019 yields 13,400 matches for the term ‘Cambrian Explosion’ but only 392 matches for ‘Cambrian Diversification.’ The Cambrian Explosion continues to explode: “Evidence is converging,” paleontologists have written recently, “towards picturing the Cambrian explosion as even swifter than what we thought.” This does not look like a disappearing concept at all. Some scholars should leave sleights of hand alone.

END QUOTE

 

Sorry for the long-winded answer[mention=4086]kejedo[/mention], but it's a slow day for me today. The 2019 AM didn't have the momentum I was expecting.

 

Agape

 

PS I'm still looking for the dark matter...

 

Just Older

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Beggar for the Spirit]

4 hours ago, kejedo said:

In PhysTherapy, yesterday,  one of the professionals was stating that the updated Uncertainty Principle has replaced all quantum shell theory. 

Hi Pauline, 

What do you think the physical therapist was referring to when he/she spoke of the, "updated Uncertainty Principle"?

Has there been a recently new update to the Uncertainty Principle? If so, I had not heard of this, but I would like to know about it.

Or was this person referring to some update from decades ago?

Just curious, thanks. 

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Beggar for the Spirit

[carlos]

What I understand, with my limited comprehension of quantum mechanics, is that the quantum shell theory works fine with simple atoms such as hydrogen but it doesn't work with very heavy elements with much more complex nuclei. So rather than being replaced, it has been expanded and complemented.

 

It's a bit like Newton's explanation of gravity. It works fine to explain the behavior of big bodies but it doesn't work for atoms or subatomic particles. Nobody would say that quantum mechanics has replaced Newton's gravity formula. Rather it's a complement to cover a wider range of matter. Apparently the current advances in the understanding of the uncertainty principle explain better the behavior of atoms with a higher atomic mass but quantum shell theory is still taught when introducing students into atomic stuff.

[kejedo]

10 hours ago, Beggar for the Spirit said:

Hi Pauline, 

What do you think the physical therapist was referring to when he/she spoke of the, "updated Uncertainty Principle"?

Has there been a recently new update to the Uncertainty Principle? If so, I had not heard of this, but I would like to know about it.

Or was this person referring to some update from decades ago?

Just curious, thanks. 

 

Not a new update, of that I am uncertain. I believe he said it replaced the shell theory, but not when. He's the older of the two Therapists, late 50s. The other one is thirty something and replied that he learned all that for nothing. There are a couple of (college, nursing, PT) student assistants who have or are taking Chemistry (post High School). None of them chimed in about learning the shells. I think Carlos is right. All that 1s2,  stuff is still taught as an introduction. If the Uncertainty Principle,  does, in fact, predict the probability of the electron being in a certain position or depth, I would be interested in the formulae. Also, probably, just curious.  Y(never deliberately violated Aufbau's principle or Hund's rule)S