Looks like we do have different experiences on how high- (Nature , Science) and mediumlevel papers (like " Angewandte..") would react to contributions from nonentities: due to my perception, trying for this is futile, as those days of Einstein are gone.*
)However, more to the subject in question:
To translate the abstract, mathematical results of quantummechanics ( let alone quantum electrodynamics, as in this case) into something "imaginable" ( in a human, psychological sense ) is difficult at it's best, and often prone to simplifications going too far, and even leading to misconceptions thereby.
In my opinion, this is one of those cases.
At times, physicists state that atoms in experiments often
behave (!) like there were those "shells , radii, spins.."
for real (though they know that there aren't), and that values gained from such an assumption often meet reality quite closely - but are much easier to calculate for.
This consistency of results and (false, but still working) assumptions at times gets confused with the allowance to state that in fact there were those "Bohr radii ..." in reality.
(Take a look at this Wiki
article related to our topic, and you know what I mean)
Now, as you can learn from above cited Wiki article, the substance of what Professor Poliakoff was so excited about has been known for a very long time, and is old news hence. Even
Dirac knew that the "speed" of quantum objects (and the relativistic influence resulting thereof) has to be considered for more precise results. Unfortunately, the equations resulting from such an approach for high object systems (like late heavy metals are) were way beyond anything people could calculate for in those days - which lead to the "simplified" equations used in traditional quantum mechanics.
If , however, you still wanted to include relativistic effects, you'd have to introduce a relativistic Hamilton operator (Dirac made some proposals for those) into your equations.
To calculate the mess resulting thereof required high calculation capacities , hence computers.
... and that's what the paper in "Angewandte..." in question is all about: they've done it, successfully, and not only for one single atom, but for a huge multitude of those ( as multi - metallic bonds and thatlike had to be calculated for ) , and they deserve credit for it.
Nevertheless, still electrons don't move about in orbits - and of course the authors knew, and of course neither did they use this modell for their calculations, nor did they follow this line of reasoning in their paper expressively (as I know by now, a few days later).
Giving however exactly this impression "to the unwashed masses" by secondary commentators of some otherwise undisputed credibility, that's what annoys me.
regards
Ingo
*)
at best, publishing these days**
) is a struggle for survival, and when it comes to politics, at worst a war.
Even with strictly scientific results, you can't just come along and have something published: there's just too much money and influence involved ("publish or perish") with every page in those journals , and everybody is fighting for his little place in the sun.
It's getting worse when your results contradict official political correctness: for example, take a look at
the results of Prof. Niles Harrit ( and
where he had to publish it: this should have been on the front page of Science and Nature instead, let alone in the news every other day since..)
**
)well, truth be told, it hadn't been that much easier in the old days either. Take a look at the work of
Carl Wilhelm Scheele who did discover so much, but was unable to get it published (and hence wasn't credited for it over a long period of time)
ChemBuddy | 
Chem Reddit | 
Topic: Interesting video on Mercury melting point (Read 5124 times)