Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efforts to suggest a classical model for the hydrogen atom are discouraged by a conclusion, based on the principles of electrodynamics, that an accelerating charged particle necessarily radiates. In this paper, we continue our re-examination of this conclusion. We examine the standard electric field formula and difficulties associated with it, for an accelerating source. Conventionally, the Larmor formula is obtained from the Poynting vector. We obtain this Larmor formula by finding rate of change of potential energy in the given volume. We feel that, in this task, the logic is weak and our assumptions are difficult to justify. We have to conclude that the statement, radiation makes classical circular orbits unstable is difficult to justify theoretically. Then circular orbits with all radii, with matching velocities, should be allowed classically. We try to give some justification for Bohr postulates, then only certain radii will be allowed resulting in discrete energy states. We conclude that, for radiation study, it is advisable to calculate change in total energy of the system instead of following a theorem-based approach. We require complete and well defined systems to evolve a classical picture, which makes it desirable to study a simple two-particle system of hydrogen atom.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".