• • In the case of the "hydrogen atom" (wich is the only atom we can analytically describe with physics), you really need quantummechanics and abandon the idea of classic "orbits" and "trajectories" since there are no real trajectories of electrons bounded in an atom. There are shells and orbitals and suborbitals. But this is not the same as an orbit since an orbit has a trajectory on wich the particle moves, while the electrons in an atom have quantised energies and have a set of quantum numbers and they must be described as probability densities (wich is done with the Schrödinger equation).
    
    I tried to tell you that using classic physics on the electrons in an atom is a bad and incorrect idea, while quantummechanics is the way you should use to describe them. If you believe you can use classic physics for it, sure go ahead but then you will never be able to describe the atom correctly. It's good you don't want to believe just whatever i say. But if you would try to explain for example emission spectra of exitated atoms, then you will notice that your classic description wont be able to explain this.
• 

  12 hours ago

  Nils Baeté

  • Maybe that might be interesting. If you tried to explain something like that with your classic view on the atom. Interesting ... would it work or not ...