You are here to learn, you simply haven't done your basic homework on the subject.
History shows clearly that the advances of science have always been frustrated by the tyrannical influences of certain preconceived notions which were turned into unassailable dogmas. For that reason alone, every serious scientist should periodically make a profound reexamination of his basic principles.
—Louis de Broglie
New Perspectives in Physics
Orbiting electrons are undergoing centripetal acceleration, and should therefore give off electromagnetic radiation, the loss of energy also causing them to spiral toward the nucleus, colliding with it in a fraction of a second.To make matters for the restriction of physical reality from traveling beyond the speed of light, there is another phenomenon that electrons can supposedly do is namely tunnel through time to go instantaneously from one place inside the atom to another. That is, the electron can go from one place to another without traversing the space in between. This is one of quantum theory’s concepts accepted almost universally by the scientific establishment. The electron’s speed, if it was a thousand times the speed of light, would still be too slow, because it still is traversing the intervening space. Niels Bohr maintained this concept which has become known as a “quantum” – going from point A to point B without traversing the intervening space. He argued that this was reality and scientists must accept it. He did not realize when he adopted this concept that he was harking back to medieval supernatural theological philosophy. This was a question raised by Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus.
Niels Bohr was bringing science back to medieval theology and showed that an electron could defy the rules that apply to all physical entities. Let us look further into this concept. Max Planck explained that light coming out of the atom came out as discrete packets of energy called quanta. Seeing that there were several levels of these quanta, he devised a formula which fit these different levels. Niels Bohr, then understanding this, wrote formulas that allowed for these unique levels of energy but only on the supposition that when a photon struck an electron, the electron had to jump instantaneously from a lower orbit or place in the atom to another. If it moved through the intervening space, the energy would be smeared and not at only one unique level. He assumed that unique quantum behavior in the atom was required to explain this.
But can light exhibit quantum behavior outside the atom in the observable world as well as in the atom? And can it do so with physical bodies? If there is evidence that, in the observable physical universe, where bodies are moving with respect to one another through space, show light coming from these bodies that also exhibit clear quantum levels, then the basis upon which Bohr and the entire quantum establishment bases their case is false.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1937730#msg1937730 (Karlsson effect I)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1937747#msg1937747 (Karlsson effect II)
The Karlsson Effect: the redshift is systematically quantised in discrete values along preferred peaks.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1942735#msg1942735 (Karlsson effect III)
David Wick points to the way in which Niels Bohr derived the concept that electrons jump from one point to another without traveling the intervening space:
“Bohr’s scientific method at the time was opportunistic: he simply lifted relevant formulas from where they were available. For the dynamics of the electron’s orbit [around the atom’s nucleus], he used Newtonian mechanics. For the description of light emitted [and discrete bundles of energy], he assumed Maxwellian theory. But neither theory provided any justification for restricting [electron] orbits to discrete series, or any motivation for an electron to ‘jump’ from one orbit to another. Bohr’s model was a chimera: a quantum head grafted onto a classical body, with a tissue of ad hoc assumptions holding them together.
Read this one carefully...
Once we have become aware of this state of affairs, the epistemological question: “Do the electrons really exist in these orbits within the atom?” is to be answered with a decisive No, unless we prefer to say that the putting of the question itself has absolutely no meaning. Indeed there does not seem to be much sense in inquiring about the real existence of something, if one is convinced that the effect through which the thing would manifest itself, in case it existed, is certainly not observed. Despite the immeasurable progress which we owe to Bohr's theory, I consider it very regrettable that the long and successful handling of its models has blunted our theoretical delicacy of feeling with reference to such questions. We must not hesitate to sharpen it again, lest we may be in too great haste to content ourselves with the new theories which are now supplanting Bohr's theory, and believe that we have reached the goal which indeed is still far away.
E. Schroedinger
"Aside from the educators, who still present pure Bohr theory to all but their most advanced classes, just as if the clock had stopped about 1920, anyone who comments on the application of the Bohr theory to spectra other than those of hydrogen and singly- ionized helium uses the term “failure” rather than Born's “signal success,” and it is well recognized that it is this failure that has determined the fate of the original Bohr theory.
It has been pointed out that Bohr's original postulates were of a highly questionable nature. There is serious doubt whether postulates of this kind, postulates which in effect set up a separate universe subject to totally different physical laws, should ever be recognized as legitimate scientific practice. Certainly they are of such a dangerous character that if they are allowed at all they should only be permitted as a last resort after the most strenuous efforts to meet the situation by the usual sound and proven methods of science have failed.
Even if no other fault could be found with the procedure that was followed, the two years of study of the problem that intervened between Rutherford's hypothesis of 1911 and Bohr's postulates of 1913 were completely inadequate to justify taking such a leap in the dark as that represented by Bohr's theory.
Because if an object is in a stable circular orbit around another object, then its energy is zero.Is this supposed to be a joke?
Planetary model of the atom
m
ev
2/r = e
2/4πε
or
2o (a)
E
tot = e
2/8πε
or
o (b)
The equilibrium equation (a) DOES NOT ENSURE the stability of the atom over an interval of time, since an electrical particle which is accelerating HAS TO EMIT ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY, and the closed orbit is an accelerating path for the electron.
Therefore, the electron SHOULD LOSE ITS KINETIC ENERGY by emitting the electromagnetic energy.
Thus, the RADIUS of the orbit would decrease, the orbit itself would lose its equilibrium condition.
YET, ATOMIC SYSTEMS ARE STABLE OVER TIME.
This is the basic contradiction of quantum mechanics.
Please read.
"Classical physics tells us that if we think of an atom as a miniature solar system with electronic planets orbiting a nuclear sun, then it should not exist. The circling electrons SHOULD RADIATE AWAY their energy like microscopic radio antennas and spiral into the nucleus. To resolve this problem, physicists had to introduce a set of mathematical rules, called quantum mechanics, to describe what happens. Quantum theory endows matter and energy with both wave and particle-like characteristics. It also restrains electrons to particular orbits, or energy levels, so they cannot radiate energy unless they jump from one orbit to another.
Measuring the spectral lines of atoms verifies that quantum theory is correct. Atoms appear to emit or absorb packets of light, or photons, with a wavelength that exactly coincides with the difference between its energy levels as predicted by quantum theory. As a result, the majority of physicists are content simply to use quantum rules that describe so accurately what happens in their experiments.
Nevertheless, when we repeat the question: "But why doesn't the electron radiate away its energy?", the answer is: "Well, in quantum theory it JUST DOESN'T". It is at this point that not only the layman but also some physicists begin to feel that someone is not playing fair. Indeed, much of modern physics is based on theories couched in a form that works but they do not answer the fundamental questions of what gravity is, why the Universe is the way it is, or how it got started anyway."