The Balmer series or Balmer lines in atomic physics, is the designation of one of a set of six different spectral emission lines of the hydrogen atom whose energy levels can calculated using an empirical equation discovered by Johann Balmer in 1885.
Later Neils Bohr sought to explain them by using the Rutherford model of the atom as a nucleus surrounded by electrons and the new ideas of quantum mechanics. Bohr assumed that electrons orbit the nucleus at certain discrete, or quantized, radii, each with an associated energy. He also assumed that when electrons "fall" from larger to smaller orbits, they release electromagnetic radiation obeying the Planck-Einstein relationship. Because the energies of the orbits are quantized, so are the wavelengths. Bohr’s model explains both the Balmer series and the Rydberg constant and ushered in a new era of understanding atoms through quantum mechanics.
However Bohr felt that that no explanation of why electrons orbited in discrete, or quantized radii was needed because using that theoretical model based on that assumption was able to make very accurate prediction of energies of Balmer series.
Einstein disagreed because he felt that "If a new theory (such as that associated with Bohr’s model of the hydrogen atom) was not based on a physical image simple enough for a child to understand, it was probably worthless."
In other words he felt that if Bohr’s explanation of the Balmer series was to have any value one should be able to form a physical image of how and why the spectral lines in the Balmer series have the energy they do.
The importance of explaining theoretical concept in physical terms was demonstrated by Einstein when addressing one of the more troubling aspect of Newton’s gravity theory.
Most, including Newton were troubled by the fact that that his gravitational theory meant " that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact…That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."
However Einstein realized that one can understand how gravity "may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum" by extrapolating the physical image of how objects move on a curve surface in a three-dimensional environment to a curved four dimensional space-time manifold. This allowed him to conceptually understand gravity in terms of a physical image based on our three-dimension environment.
In other words the mathematics developed by Newton was only able to quantitatively predict gravitational forces while Einstein gave us the ability to conceptually understand how and why "one body may act upon another at a distance" by physically connecting it to the reality of what we can see and touch.
However up until now no one has been able to define a physical model clear enough to explain the quantum mechanical model Bohr hypnotized was responsible for the spectral emissions associated with the Balmer series in terms of a space-time environment.
One reason for both Einstein’s and modern scientist’s inability to define one can be traced to the fact that they chose to define their energies in terms of four dimensional space-time instead four *spatial* dimensions because most view reality in terms of the physicality of the spatial dimensions instead of a time or space-time dimension.
This is true even though Einstein’s space-time theories give us a detailed physical image how a curvature in a space-time manifold can be responsible for gravity by extrapolating the image of an object moving on a curved two dimensional "surface" in a three dimensional environment to four dimensional space-time. However this image only contains reference to the physicality of the spatial dimensions and not a time or space-time dimension.
This suggests that one may be able to develop a physical image how and why the energy levels in a hydrogen atom are what they are by converting or transposing Einstein’s space-time universe which defines energy in terms of geometry of space-time to one that defines it in terms of the physicality of the spatial dimensions..
Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the constant velocity of light and the equation E=mc^2 to define the dynamic balance between mass and energy because that provided a method of converting the time displacement he associated with energy in a space-time universe to one to a spatial one in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also allows us to defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words by defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of mass/energy and the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining it in terms of the geometry of only four *spatial* dimensions.
This fact is the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
However if true one should be able to form a physical image of why the energy of each of the Blamer lines are what they are by extrapolating the physicality of the spatial dimensions to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
In other words one would should be able to define why the elections associated with the Principal Quantum number (n), the Angular Momentum "ℓ" (l) Magnetic (m) and Spin Quantum Number (+1/2 and -1/2) have the energy they do by extrapolating the laws of a classical environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension while at the same time excluding all other energies.
In the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the laws governing resonance in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical Newtonian environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions
The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold (the substance) the ability to oscillate spatially with respect to it thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for resonance to occur.
These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.
Therefore, these oscillations on a "surface" of three-dimensional space, would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or "structure" in space.
Observations of a three-dimensional environment show the energy associated with resonant system can only take on the incremental or discreet values associated with a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.
Similarly the energy associated with resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions could only take on the incremental or discreet values associated a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.
These resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for the incremental or discreet energy associated with quantum mechanical systems.
However the fact that one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the resonant properties of a wave in three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension means that one should as mentioned earlier be able to define why Principal Quantum number (n), the Angular Momentum "ℓ" (l) Magnetic (m) and Spin Quantum Number(+1/2 and -1/2) have the energy they do by extrapolating the laws of a classical environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension while at the same time excluding all other energies.
In three-dimensional space the frequency or energy of a resonant system is defined by the vibrating medium and the boundaries of its environment.
For example the resonant energy of a standing wave generated when a violin string plucked is determined in part by the length and tension of its strings.
Similarly the energy of the resonant system the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" associated with atom orbitals would be defined by the "length" or circumference of the three-dimensional volume it is occupying and the "tension" on the space it is occupying.
Therefore the physicality of "n" or the principal quantum number would be defined by the fundamental vibrational energy of three-dimensional space that article associated with the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass.
The circumference of its orbital would correspond to length of the individual strings on a violin while the tension on its spatial components would be created by the electrical attraction of the positive charge of the proton.
Therefore the integer representing the first quantum number would correspond to the physical length associated with fundamental vibrational energy of three-dimensional space which in terms is dependent on the tension created by the electrical attraction of the proton and electron.
However, classical mechanics tells us that each environment has a unique fundamental resonant frequency which is not shared by others.
The reason an electron does not fall into the nucleus is because as was shown in the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" all energy is contained in four dimensional resonant systems. Therefore the fundamental frequency or wavelength of four dimensional space would define the minimum energy and therefore the physical size of the first quantum orbital.
This defines physicality of the environment associated with the first quantum number and why it is unique for each subdivision of electron orbitals. Additionally observations tell us that resonance can only occur in an environment that contains an integral or half multiples of the wavelength associated with its resonant frequency and that the energy content of its harmonics are always greater than those of its fundamental resonate energy.
This allows one to derive the physicality of the second "ℓ" or azimuth quantum number in terms of how many harmonics of the fundament frequency a given orbital can support.
In the case of a violin the number of harmonics a given string can support is in part determined by its length. As the length increase so does the number of harmonics because its greater length can support a wider verity of frequencies and wavelengths. However, as mentioned earlier each additional harmonic requires more energy than the one before it. Therefore there is a limit to the number of harmonics that a violin string can support which is determined in part by its length.
Similarly each quantum orbital can only support harmonics of their fundamental frequency that will "fit" with the circumference of the volume it occupies.
For example the first harmonic of the 1s orbital would have energy that would be greater than that of the first because as mentioned earlier the energy associated with a harmonic of a resonant system is always greater than that of its fundamental frequency. Therefore it would not "fit" into the volume of space enclosed by the 1s orbital because of its relatively high energy content. Therefore second quantum number of the first orbital will be is 0.
However it also defines why in terms of classical wave mechanics the number of suborbital associated with the second quantum number increases as one move outward from the nucleus because a larger number of harmonics will be able to "fit" with the circumference of the orbitals as they increase is size.
This also shows that the reason the orbitals are filled in the order 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d, 4s, 4p, 4d, 4f, 5s is because the energy of the 3d or second harmonic of the third orbital is higher in energy than the energy of the fundamental resonant frequency of the 4th orbital. In other words classical wave mechanics tells us the energy of the harmonics of the higher quantum orbitals may be less than that of the energy of the fundamental frequency of preceding one so their harmonics would "fit" into circumference of the lower orbitals
The third or Magnetic (m) quantum number physical defines how the energy associated with each harmonic in each quantum orbital is physically oriented with respect to axis of three-dimensional space.
For example it tells us that the individual energies of 3 "p" orbitals are physically distributed along each of the three axis of three-dimensional space.
The physicality of the fourth quantum or spin number has nothing to do with the resonant properties of space however as was shown in the article "Pauli’s Exclusion Principal: a classical interpretation" Feb. 15, 2012 one can derive its physicality by extrapolating the laws of a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Briefly the article "Defining potential and kinetic energy?" Nov. 26, 2007 showed all forms of energy including the angular momentum of particles can be defined in terms of a displacement in a "surface* of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. In three-dimensional space one can use the right hand rule to define the direction of the angular momentum of charged particles. Similarly the direction of that displacement with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension can be understood in term of the right hand rule. In other words the angular momentum or energy of an electron with a positive spin would be directed "upward" with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension while one with a negative spin would be associated with a "downwardly" directed one.
Using your right-hand:
Point your thumb in the direction of the conventional current
Therefore one can define the physically of the fourth or spin quantum number in terms of the direction a "surface" of three-dimensional space is displaced with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. For example if one defines energy of an electron with a spin of -1/2 in terms of a downward directed displacement one would define a +1/2 spin as an upwardly directed one.
The physical reason why only two electrons can occupy a quantum orbital and why they have slightly different energies can also be derived by extrapolating the laws of a classical three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
There a two ways to fill a bucket. One is by pushing it down and allowing the water to flow over its edge or by using a cup to raise it to the level of the buckets rim.
Similarly there would be two ways fill an atomic orbital according to the concepts presented in the article "Defining potential and kinetic energy?". One would be by creating a downward displacement on the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* to the level associated with the electron in that orbital while the other would be raise it up to that energy level .
However the energy required by each method will not be identical for the same reason that it requires slightly less energy to fill a bucket of water by pushing it down below its surface than using a cup to fill it.
However it also explains why no two quantum particles can have the same quantum number because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement.
Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two quantum particles with similar quantum numbers would greater than that caused by a single one. Therefore, they will repel each other and seek the lower energy state associated with a different quantum number because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be less for them if they had a different number.
This shows how one can explain why spectral emissions specifically those of the Balmer series have the energy they do and the four quantum numbers in terms of emergent property of four *spatial* dimensions or four dimensional space-time by extrapolating the laws of a classical three-dimensional environment to them.
It should be remember that Einstein’s genius allows us to choose whether to define the physicality of the atomic orbitals in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined the geometry of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015
Vol. 3 — 2012
Have you ever wondered why so many seeming rational scientists make irrational or groundless assumptions to explain why our universe is what it is?
For example many proponents of the Big Bang theory assume the universe expanded from a singularity which is by definition a region of space in which mass is concentrated in a volume whose gravitational field is so great that neither energy or mass can escape from it.
However how can something emerge or expand form something that it cannot emerge from.
Many would call someone irrational or maybe even mental deficient he or she tells us the rabbit a magician pulls out of his hat materialized out of thin air when we know or should know that it could not.
Similarly shouldn’t we hold scientists to that same rationality or mental standard when they tell us that the gravitational field of a singularity is so great that nothing can escape from it and then tell us that all of the matter and energy in the universe materialized out of it?
However an even more pertinent question is why do some of the most highly educated people in the scientific community believe and expect others to believe in the irrationality of a universe which began in a singularity.
The answer may be because they rely to much on the quantitative and not enough on the qualitative properties of their theoretical models to explain or justify their mathematics to themselves and others.
For example there are an infinite number of ways one can mathematically describe how four apples in a bag can find themselves on a table. One could mathematical quantify it by saying that the two of the four apples were taken out of the bag and later two more were removed and placed on the table. This gives you both the correct quantitative and qualitative or physical description of how those apples came to be on the table. However an equally valid mathematical quantification would be to assume that five apples were taken out of the bag and then one was put back. However if there only four apples to begin with the mathematical description using five apples even though it make an accurate mathematical prediction of why there are four apples on the table does not describe their environment because it never contained five apples.
A theoretical model of our universe consists of two parts. The first part allows one to accurate predict the quantitative outcome of experiments while the second is to provide a logically consistent explanation based on its qualitative or physical properties.
As mentioned earlier many proponents of the Big Bang Theory assume the universe began when the mass and energy contained in a singularity began to expand and defines the environment in which that expansion take place in terms of the concept presented in the General theory of Relativity.
However if one took the time to analyze the physicality of environment that it defines one would realize that not only does it not predict the existence of a singularity it tells us that they cannot exist.
Granted some cleaver scientists have come up with a mathematical model of what could be responsible for the universe originating from one such as an inflation field but it has no basis in either observations or theory.
As mentioned earlier the existence of a singularity is based primarily on the quantitative mathematical properties of Einstein General Theory of Relativity. However just because one gets a mathematically correct answer to a question does not mean as was shown above that it defines the reality of the environment that it encompasses.
Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity predicted time is dilated or moves slower when exposed to gravitational field than when it is not. Therefore, according to Einstein’s theory a gravitational field, if strong enough it would stop time.
In 1915, Karl Schwarzschild discovered that according to it the gravitational field of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass would stop the movement of time if it collapsed to a singularity. He also defined the critical circumference or boundary in space around a singularity where the strength of a gravitational field will result in time being infinitely dilated or slowing to a stop.
In other words as a star contacts and its circumference decreases, the time dilation on its surface will increase. At a certain point the contraction of that star will produce a gravitational field strong enough to stop the movement of time. Therefore, the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild is a boundary in space where time stops relative to the space outside of that boundary.
This critical circumference is called the event horizon because an event that occurs on the inside of it cannot have any effect on the environment outside of it.
Many physicists believe the existence of a singularity is an inevitable outcome of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.
However, it can be shown using the concepts developed by Einstein; this is not true.
In Kip S. Thorne book "Black Holes and Time Warps", he describes how in the winter of 1938-39 Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder computed the details of a stars collapse into a black hole using the concepts of General Relativity. On page 217 he describes what the collapse of a star would look like, from the viewpoint of an external observer who remains at a fixed circumference instead of riding inward with the collapsing stars matter. They realized the collapse of a star as seen from that reference frame would begin just the way every one would expect. "Like a rock dropped from a rooftop the stars surface falls downward slowly at first then more and more rapidly. However, according to the relativistic formulas developed by Oppenheimer and Snyder as the star nears its critical circumference the shrinkage would slow to a crawl to an external observer because of the time dilatation associated with the relative velocity of the star’s surface. The smaller the circumference of a star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the time dilation predicted by Einstein increases as the speed of the contraction increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference. In other words from the perspective of an external observer Einstein theory tells us that a star cannot contract beyond it event horizon.
However, the time measured by the observer who is riding on the surface of a collapsing star will not be dilated because he or she is moving at the same velocity as its surface.
Therefore, the proponents of singularities say the contraction of a star can continue until it becomes a singularity because time has not stopped on its surface even though it has stopped to an observer who remains at fixed circumference to that star.
But one would have to draw a different conclusion if one viewed time dilation in terms of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.
Einstein showed that time is dilated by a gravitational field. Therefore, the time dilation on the surface of a star will increase relative to an external observer as it collapses because, as mentioned earlier gravitational forces at its surface increase as its circumference decrease.
This means as it nears its critical circumference its shrinkage slows with respect to an external observer who is outside of the gravitation field because its increasing strength causes a slowing of time on its surface. The smaller the star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increase until time becomes frozen for the external observer at the critical circumference.
Therefore, the observations of an external observer would make using conceptual concepts of Einstein’s theory regarding time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a collapsing star would be identical to those predicted by Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder in terms of the velocity of its contraction.
However, Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity based on the equivalence of all inertial reframes which he defined as frames that move freely under their own inertia neither "pushed not pulled by any force and therefore continue to move always onward in the same uniform motion as they began".
This means that one can view the contraction of a star with respect to the inertial reference frame that, according to Einstein exists in the exact center of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.
(Einstein would consider this point an inertial reference frame with respect to the gravitational field of a collapsing star because at that point the gravitational field on one side will be offset by the one on the other side. Therefore, a reference frame that existed at that point would not be pushed or pulled relative to the gravitational field and would move onward with the same motion as that gravitational field.)
The surface of collapsing star from this viewpoint would look according to the field equations developed by Einstein as if the shrinkage slowed to a crawl as the star neared its critical circumference because of the increasing strength of the gravitation field at the star’s surface relative to its center. The smaller it gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increases until time becomes frozen at the critical circumference.
Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference for both an observer who is at the center of the clasping mass and one who is at a fixed distance from its surface the contraction cannot continue from either of their perspectives.
However, Einstein in his general theory showed that a reference frame that was free falling in a gravitational field could also be considered an inertial reference frame.
As mentioned earlier many physicists assume that the mass of a star implodes when it reach the critical circumference. Therefore, the surface of a star and an observer on that surface will be in free fall with respect to the gravitational field of that star when as it passes through its critical circumference.
This indicates that point on the surface of an imploding star, according to Einstein’s theories could also be considered an inertial reference frame because an observer who is on the riding on it will not experience the gravitational forces of the collapsing star.
However, according to the Einstein theory, as a star nears its critical circumference an observer who is on its surface will perceive the differential magnitude of the gravitational field relative to an observer who is in an external reference frame or, as mentioned earlier is at its center to be increasing. Therefore, he or she will perceive time in those reference frames that are not on its surface slowing to a crawl as it approaches the critical circumference. The smaller it gets the more slowly time appears to move with respect to an external reference frame until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.
Therefore, time would be infinitely dilated or stop in all reference that are not on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of someone who was on that surface.
However, the contraction of a stars surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting. But as mentioned earlier Einstein’s theories indicate time on its surface would become infinitely dilated or stop in with respect to reference frames that were not on it when it reaches its critical circumference.
This means, as was just shown according to Einstein’s concepts time stops on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of all observers when viewed in terms of the gravitational forces. Therefore it cannot move beyond the critical circumference because motion cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.
This contradicts the assumption made by many that the implosion would continue for an observer who was riding on its surface.
Therefore, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by a gravitational field of a collapsing star it cannot implode to a singularity as many physicists believe and must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is equal to or greater than the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild because as was show above time must stop for all observers at the event horizon.
This is true even though some have shown mathematically that mass can continue to collapse beyond the event horizon if it is not symmetrically distributed around its center
In other words because parts of it that are moving faster towards the center they could break through the event horizon and drag the rest of it in.
However as was shown above the increasing strength of the gravitational field causes time to slow and stop at the event horizon from the perspective of all observers.
Therefore no matter how asymmetrical the collapse of a mass is none of it can ever pass through the event horizon to form singularity according to the conceptual arguments presented in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.
This means either the conceptual ideas developed by Einstein are incorrect or there must be an alternative solution to the field equations based on the General Theory of Relativity that physicists used to predict the existence of a singularity because as has just been shown the theoretical predications made by them regarding its existence are contradictory to the concepts contained in it.
It should be remember we are not saying that black holes do not exist however we are saying that according to the concepts of Relativity a singularity is NOT an inevitable outcome of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. In other words the mass of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass cannot collapse to a singularity but only to a finite volume equal to its event horizon.
As was mentioned earlier a valid theoretical model must seamlessly integrate both a quantitative and qualitative explanation of environment it encompasses because not doing so leaves it opened to criticism.
In other words we must hold scientist’s accountable for both the mathematical as well as the qualitative properties of their theoretical models to minimize the possibility of them pulling a theoretical "rabbit" out of their hats.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015
Vol. 3 — 2012