MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389786294 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-36.4.416

Bohr’s atomic model and the probabilistic reality

2023· article· en· W4389786294 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emory Taylor, Rajan Iyer

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBohr modelPhysicsPlanck constantQuantum mechanicsPlanckPhotonElectronAtomic physicsQuantumQuantum electrodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analysis of applying the property of speed instantaneity to electronic transitions (i.e., transitions of the atomic electron that are not instantaneous), instead of quantum jumps (i.e., instantaneous transitions), during a complete oscillation for the process of Bohr’s model of the atom absorbing and emitting electromagnetic radiation (i.e., photon) reveals a discontinuity that is conserved as an emitted electromagnetic radiation (i.e., photon) discontinuity. The frequency of the oscillations of the atomic electron (i.e., electric charge) and induced magnetic field for the transitions of the atomic electron (i.e., electric charge) during the complete oscillation for the absorption and emission process (of Bohr’s atomic model) is conserved as the frequency of the oscillating electric and magnetic fields of the emitted electromagnetic radiation (i.e., photon). The conserved frequency and discontinuity (based on speed instantaneity and electronic transitions that are not instantaneous) of the atomic absorption and emission process (of Bohr’s atomic model) lead to predicting the need for Planck’s constant (i.e., quantum of action) without the use of probability. Planck claimed the interpretation of reality must change if his method of deriving the radiation law stood on a physical concept. Einstein, whom Planck credited as the first to make an advancement in the quantum field, unknowingly introduced a quantized two-dimensional discontinuum geometry that is one of the foundations on which a table of five realities used in physics was developed for making predictions. Using the table of realities, locality is redefined, and entanglement is demystified.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207