Tell me if this isn't an exaltation of relativity reaching new heights:

I will not post any link, so google it by yourself.

Excerpts from some sites:

1) Einstein's theory tells us that at these speeds the mass of the electrons
increases, which in turn means the energy needed to kick them up to
another orbital is reduced. So lower-energy blue photons are absorbed, and
don't get reflected by the gold. And if blue is removed, we see yellow.

2) Most metals are shiny because the electrons in the atoms jump from
different energy levels, or "orbitals." Some photons that hit the metal get
absorbed and re-emitted, though at a longer wavelength. Most visible light,
though, just gets reflected.

Gold is a heavy atom, so the inner electrons are moving fast enough that the
relativistic mass increase is significant, as well as the length contraction. As
a result, the electrons are spinning around the nucleus in shorter paths, with
more momentum. Electrons in the inner orbitals carry energy that is closer
to the energy of outer electrons, and the wavelengths that get absorbed and
reflected are longer.

Longer wavelengths of light mean that some of the visible light that would
usually just be reflected gets absorbed, and that light is in the blue end of
the spectrum. White light is a mix of all the colors of the rainbow, but in
gold's case, when light gets absorbed and re-emitted the wavelengths are
usually longer. That means the mix of light waves we see tends to have less
blue and violet in it. This makes gold appear yellowish in color since yellow,
orange and red light is a longer wavelength than blue.

3) The relativistic effect on gold's electrons is also one reason that the metal
doesn't corrode or react with anything else easily.

Gold has only one electron in its outer shell, but it still is not as reactive as
calcium or lithium. Instead, the electrons in gold, being "heavier" than they
should be, are all held closer to the atomic nucleus. This means that the
outermost electron isn't likely to be in a place where it can react with
anything at all — it's just as likely to be among its fellow electrons that are
close to the nucleus.

4) The unique properties of gold can be largely explained by Albert Einstein's
theory of relativity.
..........
From their observations the researchers conclude that the properties of gold
are fundamentally determined by "relativistic effects". These effects come
into play in physics when a phenomenon can no longer be described as
"classical". In chemistry this applies to the properties of certain elements.

The relativistic effects derive from Albert Einstein's theory of relativity with
the well-known formula E = mc² by which Einstein established a connection
between energy, mass and speed of light. "Of the stable elements, the
predicted relativistic effects are most noticeable with gold," says Prof.
Straub. A well-known example is the striking difference in colour between
yellow gold metal and colorless silver metal.

5) In discussions of special relativity, you occasionally encounter a claim
like, “The effects of special relativity only matter to particle physicists and
others working with extreme energies and velocities. Relativity has no
consequences in everyday life.” ..............
But there's an effect of special relativity which was observed, if not
understood, by the ancients: the yellow gleam of gold.

************

There are many more sources. Just mix chemistry and relativity.

It seems that some part of chemistry community has stuck with the planetary model of Bohr,
Sommerfeld and Born (later a converted to Schrodinger).

I wonder why chemistry advanced so much by using QM (i.e. since Pauling) while some RETARDED
still think like if we were in 1920, 100 years ago.

Richard Hertz wrote:
> It seems that some part of chemistry community has stuck with the planetary model of Bohr,
> Sommerfeld and Born (later a converted to Schrodinger).
>
> I wonder why chemistry advanced so much by using QM (i.e. since Pauling) while some RETARDED
> still think like if we were in 1920, 100 years ago.

You don't know much about chemistry, do you?

On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 2:01:15 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:

<snip>

> You don't know much about chemistry, do you?

Then, I have to understand that you agree with a modern concept of atoms, molecules
and crystals in chemistry has the following mix:

- Born's version of Schrodinger's equation for valence electrons (just don't know where they are)
- Bohr & Sommerfeld's equations for inner electrons, which have elliptic orbits with SR embedded.

Is that true? Electron's clouds for some external electrons (valence) and elliptic orbits for the rest?

That's heavy!

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 2:01:15 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You don't know much about chemistry, do you?
>
> Then, I have to understand that you agree with a modern concept of atoms, molecules
> and crystals in chemistry has the following mix:
>
> - Born's version of Schrodinger's equation for valence electrons (just
> don't know where they are)
> - Bohr & Sommerfeld's equations for inner electrons, which have elliptic
> orbits with SR embedded.
>
> Is that true? Electron's clouds for some external electrons (valence) and
> elliptic orbits for the rest?
>
> That's heavy!
>
>

Have you opened a freshman chemistry textbook written after 1940?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 3:24:36 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Have you opened a freshman chemistry textbook written after 1940?

I have at hand this one:

BASIC CONCEPTS OF CHEMISTRY

LEO J. MALONE AND THEODORE O. DOLTER
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Is it good enough for you?

In its 726 pages, Einstein is mentioned twice regarding E=mc2, and Einstenium is mentioned three times.
Zero mentions about relativity, relativistic or any variation.

Which is your point, Bodkin?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 3:24:36 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Have you opened a freshman chemistry textbook written after 1940?
>
> I have at hand this one:
>
> BASIC CONCEPTS OF CHEMISTRY
>
> LEO J. MALONE AND THEODORE O. DOLTER
> Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc
>
> Is it good enough for you?
>
>
> In its 726 pages, Einstein is mentioned twice regarding E=mc2, and
> Einstenium is mentioned three times.
> Zero mentions about relativity, relativistic or any variation.
>
> Which is your point, Bodkin?
>
>
>
>
>

Well, for one thing, it’s a chemistry book aimed specifically for
engineers, rather than one for scientists, and so it deals with things a
little lightly compared to a more thorough book like Brown, Lemay, Bursten.
It’s a little more like Timberlake’s book which is aimed for allied health
people. Not surprised you went lightweight.

Secondly, the claim I reacted to was your idiotic implication that
chemistry is taught using planetary orbit models of the atom, a la Bohr.
Sure, those are mentioned in any book, but in any DECENT book, they are
quickly moved past and more serious quantum mechanics is invoked. You’re
not going to find sigma- and pi- hybrid orbitals in any planetary orbit
models of the atom or molecules with atoms modeled that way, but you ARE
going to find them in a decent freshman general chemistry text.

And it is not surprising that relativity is not much mentioned in a
chemistry text, but electron spin most certainly is, and even a freshman
student knows that electron spin is accounted for in *relativistic* quantum
mechanics, not non-relativistic quantum mechanics. If you never learned
that in your brief brush with chemistry in EE training, then shame on you.

Capstoning, what seems to be clear is that you are just as poorly versed,
if not MORE poorly, in quantum mechanics as you are in relativity. You do
not understand quantum mechanics. You are not in a position to buy into it
or not buy into it, since the only position you have is one of ignorance.
And the only reason you haven’t ranted on endlessly about quantum mechanics
like you do about relativity is that you have a particular fixation on the
popular adulation of Einstein, who isn’t particularly central in the lore
about quantum mechanics.

And still you waste your time on this newsgroup, talking about things you
know little about, just trying to be provocative and amusing yourself (“I’m
so funny, aren’t I?”) and thinking that this is somehow of value.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Well, for one thing, it’s a chemistry book aimed specifically for
> engineers, rather than one for scientists, and so it deals with things a
> little lightly compared to a more thorough book like Brown, Lemay, Bursten.
> It’s a little more like Timberlake’s book which is aimed for allied health
> people. Not surprised you went lightweight.

Very good, Supreme Thinker! Now I have to add another title: Supreme Google Fast Searcher!

You know what, Bodkin? I can read you as I can read the intentions of a child. You won't like this, but it's true.
Anyways, good job by composing your opening part in your reply. Now you patronize on chemistry!

............

> Capstoning, what seems to be clear is that you are just as poorly versed,
> if not MORE poorly, in quantum mechanics as you are in relativity. You do
> not understand quantum mechanics. You are not in a position to buy into it
> or not buy into it, since the only position you have is one of ignorance.
> And the only reason you haven’t ranted on endlessly about quantum mechanics
> like you do about relativity is that you have a particular fixation on the
> popular adulation of Einstein, who isn’t particularly central in the lore
> about quantum mechanics.

Bodkin, I'm very well versed on the pathetic attempts (1913 - 1930) to model QM, until
it was abandoned unfinished by the three major actors (Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Dirac)
after 1930, whose frustrations with failures made them to never go back at it again.
Still, QM helped chemists to enhance their understanding of molecules, crystals and open
the door for the much more complex organic chemistry in the following decades (Linus Pauling
is a superb example).

But it didn't serve for any relevant advance in solid state physics, except for Pauli exclusion
principle, the Russian theoretical developments with "holes" (Dirac's sea), minority carriers
by mid '30s, and the theoretical and technological advances of Germans with fast germanium
diodes in WWII used in radars (years ahead of any other country), of which Shockley and Bardeen
profited 10 years after, once finished WWII and within the powerful means available at Bell Labs.

I don't find any reason to mock about QM, QFT and QED (except some excess like virtual photons
and re-normalization), but I could try with Gell-Man, QCD, quarks, peons, etc. Or worse, with DQCD.

No, I prefer Einstein and relativity, specially with its use in modern cosmology, which include Planck.

> And still you waste your time on this newsgroup, talking about things you
> know little about, just trying to be provocative and amusing yourself (“I’m
> so funny, aren’t I?”) and thinking that this is somehow of value.

No, I don't function in that way. I am a cynical son of a bitch, distrustful of sincerity or integrity of
most people, specially with the fucker and his followers.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Well, for one thing, it’s a chemistry book aimed specifically for
>> engineers, rather than one for scientists, and so it deals with things a
>> little lightly compared to a more thorough book like Brown, Lemay, Bursten.
>> It’s a little more like Timberlake’s book which is aimed for allied health
>> people. Not surprised you went lightweight.
>
> Very good, Supreme Thinker! Now I have to add another title: Supreme Google Fast Searcher!

Why use Google when I have a bookshelf? Yes, I have a few chemistry books.

>
> You know what, Bodkin? I can read you as I can read the intentions of a
> child. You won't like this, but it's true.
> Anyways, good job by composing your opening part in your reply. Now you
> patronize on chemistry!
>
> ...........
>
>> Capstoning, what seems to be clear is that you are just as poorly versed,
>> if not MORE poorly, in quantum mechanics as you are in relativity. You do
>> not understand quantum mechanics. You are not in a position to buy into it
>> or not buy into it, since the only position you have is one of ignorance.
>> And the only reason you haven’t ranted on endlessly about quantum mechanics
>> like you do about relativity is that you have a particular fixation on the
>> popular adulation of Einstein, who isn’t particularly central in the lore
>> about quantum mechanics.
>
> Bodkin, I'm very well versed on the pathetic attempts (1913 - 1930) to model QM, until
> it was abandoned unfinished by the three major actors (Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Dirac)
> after 1930, whose frustrations with failures made them to never go back at it again.

And you believe QM died there?

> Still, QM helped chemists to enhance their understanding of molecules, crystals and open
> the door for the much more complex organic chemistry in the following
> decades (Linus Pauling
> is a superb example).
>
> But it didn't serve for any relevant advance in solid state physics,
> except for Pauli exclusion
> principle, the Russian theoretical developments with "holes" (Dirac's
> sea), minority carriers
> by mid '30s, and the theoretical and technological advances of Germans with fast germanium
> diodes in WWII used in radars (years ahead of any other country), of
> which Shockley and Bardeen
> profited 10 years after, once finished WWII and within the powerful means
> available at Bell Labs.

Again, you are stuck on inventions, not science. When you can talk about
physics and not engineering, then some of what you say won’t be so
blindered.

>
> I don't find any reason to mock about QM, QFT and QED (except some excess
> like virtual photons
> and re-normalization), but I could try with Gell-Man, QCD, quarks, peons,
> etc. Or worse, with DQCD.

It’s hard to mock what you know nothing about. Doesn’t stop you from trying
though.

>
> No, I prefer Einstein and relativity, specially with its use in modern
> cosmology, which include Planck.
>
>
>> And still you waste your time on this newsgroup, talking about things you
>> know little about, just trying to be provocative and amusing yourself (“I’m
>> so funny, aren’t I?”) and thinking that this is somehow of value.
>
> No, I don't function in that way. I am a cynical son of a bitch,
> distrustful of sincerity or integrity of
> most people, specially with the fucker and his followers.

Distrustful of the integrity of most people? That sounds like a personal
problem you could seek help for.

>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 7:01:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Again, you are stuck on inventions, not science. When you can talk about
> physics and not engineering, then some of what you say won’t be so blindered.

> It’s hard to mock what you know nothing about. Doesn’t stop you from trying though.

> Distrustful of the integrity of most people? That sounds like a personal problem you could seek help for.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Bodkin, Einstein was an inventor, but a rogue one. He invented fairy tails with the help of his "friends". Re-read the OP here.
And you know as much about physics, chemistry and mathematics as I know about the life of midgets in the Middle Ages.

Let me see: quarks and fractional "e" charges, plus gluon. Now say it with a straight face. You can't, can you?

If I ever seek help with my personal problems, I'm sure I would be advised to come here as a therapy.

I only have one doubt, for now: How many books did you buy in the last three years? My memory recall that
you had bought about 100 books on physics since 2014, when you appeared here. But chemistry? And TWO
books, the first one weighting more than 5 Kg?

You are a serious piece of work, Bodkin. But I know your agenda and why do you impersonate an idiot.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 7:01:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Again, you are stuck on inventions, not science. When you can talk about
>> physics and not engineering, then some of what you say won’t be so blindered.
>
> > It’s hard to mock what you know nothing about. Doesn’t stop you from trying though.
>
>> Distrustful of the integrity of most people? That sounds like a personal
>> problem you could seek help for.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Bodkin, Einstein was an inventor, but a rogue one. He invented fairy
> tails with the help of his "friends". Re-read the OP here.
> And you know as much about physics, chemistry and mathematics as I know
> about the life of midgets in the Middle Ages.
>
> Let me see: quarks and fractional "e" charges, plus gluon. Now say it
> with a straight face. You can't, can you?

I can. Why do you find it ridiculous? Just answer that.

>
> If I ever seek help with my personal problems, I'm sure I would be
> advised to come here as a therapy.
>
> I only have one doubt, for now: How many books did you buy in the last
> three years? My memory recall that
> you had bought about 100 books on physics since 2014, when you appeared here.

No, I started buying physics books long before I started posting here. That
should be obvious. Would I start posting here from the day I just started
reading physics? Who posts about a subject they’ve read nothing about? Oh,
that’s right…. People like you.

> But chemistry? And TWO
> books, the first one weighting more than 5 Kg?

I have 5 gen chem textbooks, 2 organic chem books, 1 GOB chem book, 1 PChem
book, 1 biochem book, 1 lower level intro textbook. Why do you find this
implausible?

>
> You are a serious piece of work, Bodkin. But I know your agenda and why
> do you impersonate an idiot.
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables