Re: [Phys-L] Quantum Biology

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

True, but does the classical model "require" the atom to be a point?  I
question that statement.  A classical model can very well determine that the
atom is not a point, but it can not explain why.  So the atomic radius would
then just be a parameter in a classical model.  Indeed all models have
parameters that can not be explained, but that are needed to make the model
work.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@www.phys-l.org] On Behalf 
> Of Moses Fayngold
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 8:55 AM
> To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
> Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Quantum Biology
>
>  
>
>
>      On Saturday, October 10, 2015 3:31 PM, John Clement 
> <clement@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>    
>
>  > Now many physics courses do suppose a point particle
> > model, but I don't think they say that the atom has to have 
> zero size 
> > classically.  Isn't the size of an atom just a parameter in a given 
> > classical model?
>   In any point-like particle model, a stable classical Hy 
> atom would be point-like. At best (assuming the known finite 
> size of the proton), it would have the size of the order of 1 
> Fermi. No classical model with Coulomb interaction between 
> the nucleus and the electron can explain the actual size (the 
> Bohr radius) of a Hy atom. Paradoxically as it may sound, but 
> in the final run, it is the QM indeterminacy that determines 
> the exact atomic size. 
>
> Moses Fayngold,NJIT
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
>
>   
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l