Basic question about atoms
Matt Gregory
school: that an atom has a positively charged nucleus which
negatively charged electrons are in orbit around.
I want to know what is the theory that explains what causes atoms
to stick together in a solid. If the perimeter of an atom has a
negative charge, then why don't the atoms fly apart (or fall apart
at least, if the charge of the nucleus balances the charge of the
electrons).
Thanks!
Matt Gregory
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> I'm not a physics enthusiast, all I know is what I learned in high
> school: that an atom has a positively charged nucleus which
> negatively charged electrons are in orbit around.
Unfortunately, this is already wrong: the electrons are *not* "in
orbit around". Don't picture them as little marbles flying around the
nucleus like planets around the sun. A better picture (still not the
truth, only a visualization!) is that the electrons form "charge
clouds" around the nuclei.
> I want to know what is the theory that explains what causes atoms
> to stick together in a solid.
Quantum mechanics.
> If the perimeter of an atom has a
> negative charge, then why don't the atoms fly apart (or fall apart
> at least, if the charge of the nucleus balances the charge of the
> electrons).
It's much easier to first look at a simple molecule instead of going
to a solid at once. Let's look at the hydrogen molecule, H_2, i.e. a
molecule consisting of two protons and two electrons. Now picture the
"charge cloud" of the electrons to be concentrated between the two
protons (see e.g. fig. 6-2 at
<http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/esam/Chapter_6/intro.html>)
Both protons are attracted to this charge cloud, but they also repel
each other. There is one distance between the protons where these two
forces exactly cancel out each other. Then you have the stable
configuration of the molecule.
Does this help?
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Oh, see also
<http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/esam/Chapter_6/section_1.html>,
but I fear that might already be too technical...
Bye,
Bjoern
Sam Wormley
>
> I want to know what is the theory that explains what causes atoms
> to stick together in a solid.
See: http://www.google.com/search?q=atomic+structure+of+solids
Matt Gregory
> Matt Gregory wrote:
>
>> I'm not a physics enthusiast, all I know is what I learned in high
>> school: that an atom has a positively charged nucleus which
>> negatively charged electrons are in orbit around.
>
>
> Unfortunately, this is already wrong: the electrons are *not* "in orbit
> around". Don't picture them as little marbles flying around the nucleus
> like planets around the sun. A better picture (still not the truth, only
> a visualization!) is that the electrons form "charge clouds" around the
> nuclei.
I've heard of it being referred to as a cloud. But if an electron was
moving fast enough, and its distance to the nucleus wasn't constant
(I assume there is some degree of wobbling and ellipticality in the
orbit) then it would be like a cloud. I don't see what distinction is
being made when they describe it as a cloud.
>> I want to know what is the theory that explains what causes atoms
>> to stick together in a solid.
>
> Quantum mechanics.
Ok.
>> If the perimeter of an atom has a
>> negative charge, then why don't the atoms fly apart (or fall apart
>> at least, if the charge of the nucleus balances the charge of the
>> electrons).
>
>
> It's much easier to first look at a simple molecule instead of going to
> a solid at once. Let's look at the hydrogen molecule, H_2, i.e. a
> molecule consisting of two protons and two electrons. Now picture the
> "charge cloud" of the electrons to be concentrated between the two
> protons (see e.g. fig. 6-2 at
> <http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/esam/Chapter_6/intro.html>)
> Both protons are attracted to this charge cloud, but they also repel
> each other. There is one distance between the protons where these two
> forces exactly cancel out each other. Then you have the stable
> configuration of the molecule.
>
> Does this help?
Yeah, that's a great page! Thanks!
Matt Gregory
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>> Matt Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not a physics enthusiast, all I know is what I learned in high
>>> school: that an atom has a positively charged nucleus which
>>> negatively charged electrons are in orbit around.
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, this is already wrong: the electrons are *not* "in
>> orbit around". Don't picture them as little marbles flying around the
>> nucleus like planets around the sun. A better picture (still not the
>> truth, only a visualization!) is that the electrons form "charge
>> clouds" around the nuclei.
>
>
> I've heard of it being referred to as a cloud. But if an electron was
> moving fast enough, and its distance to the nucleus wasn't constant
> (I assume there is some degree of wobbling and ellipticality in the
> orbit) then it would be like a cloud. I don't see what distinction is
> being made when they describe it as a cloud.
I wouldn't call a motion which makes it from the outside look as if
there were a cloud an "orbit".
But it isn't this way. The electron doesn't move around and is at
this place at this time and at another place later.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Uncle Al
>
> I'm not a physics enthusiast, all I know is what I learned in high
> school: that an atom has a positively charged nucleus which
> negatively charged electrons are in orbit around.
that is a crude approximation as a description.
> I want to know what is the theory that explains what causes atoms
> to stick together in a solid. If the perimeter of an atom has a
> negative charge, then why don't the atoms fly apart (or fall apart
> at least, if the charge of the nucleus balances the charge of the
> electrons).
Molecular orbital theory in isolated molecules, band theory in
solids. The overall free eenrgy of an atomic aggregate is a summation
of many factors. Any true minimum on the energy hypersurface will be
bound. Atoms are charge-neutral. Na2[Fe(CO)4] (Coleman's reagent)
sits in a bottle nice as you please. What holds together the
[Fe(CO)4](-2) ion? That is iron in a (2-) oxidation state. Rust is
iron(3+).
More to the point, if the conversion of a high energy state to a much
lower energy state requires surmounting a substantial energy barrier,
the high energy state persists. Mountain lakes don't suddenly
disappear into the ocean unless there ia a drainage path.
Tetra-tert-butyltetrahedrane is impossibly strained - way more than a
single bond strength - but there is no low energy path for it to
decompose along. If you kick it hard enough you get
tetra-tert-butylcylobutadiene, another formally non-existent molecule
- that in turn has nowhere to go except back to starting material.
Deforming the sterically crowded moelcules is very energetically
demanding. The jammed peripheral bulk rpevents stuff on the otuside
from getting in.
Worse still is triprismane, C6H6. It looks like it should be benzene
- that is at least 90 kcal/mole lower in energy. If you want
triprismane to crack you must add still another 33 kcal/mole! What
keeps the thing together? The only barrier to rearrangement is a
symmetry mismatch in the respective molecular orbitals, starting
material and product. It's held together by algebra.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Matt Gregory
> Matt Gregory wrote:
>> I've heard of it being referred to as a cloud. But if an electron was
>> moving fast enough, and its distance to the nucleus wasn't constant
>> (I assume there is some degree of wobbling and ellipticality in the
>> orbit) then it would be like a cloud. I don't see what distinction is
>> being made when they describe it as a cloud.
>
>
> I wouldn't call a motion which makes it from the outside look as if
> there were a cloud an "orbit".
Why not? If we could speed up time and watch the planets revolve
around the sun a ridiculous number of times per second, they would
form a cloudlike sphere around the sun. Are you saying that they
would no longer be in orbit around the sun?
> But it isn't this way. The electron doesn't move around and is at
> this place at this time and at another place later.
So you're saying electrons are stationary? That makes no sense...
Matt Gregory
Randy Poe
Matt Gregory wrote:
> Why not? If we could speed up time and watch the planets revolve
> around the sun a ridiculous number of times per second, they would
> form a cloudlike sphere around the sun. Are you saying that they
> would no longer be in orbit around the sun?
No, what people are saying is that the electron is not
a little planet.
And you are incorrect about the nature of planetary orbits,
which are pretty much confined to a plane. If you plotted
the position of the earth over a million orbits, you
wouldn't get a cloud which extended through the sun,
above and below the orbital plane, and out beyond the
orbits of the outer planets. At best, you'd see a very
small variation in radius.
But the electron cloud DOES extend beyond a plane,
through the nucleus, and out into space far beyond
the classical Bohr "radius".
> > But it isn't this way. The electron doesn't move around and is at
> > this place at this time and at another place later.
>
> So you're saying electrons are stationary? That makes no sense...
The electron does not have a fixed, definite position.
An electron "orbit" is actually a probability distribution,
that distribution is stationary, and any attempt to
pin down an electron position might find it anywhere
in that cloud at any given time.
- Randy
Matt Gregory
> Matt Gregory wrote:
>> Why not? If we could speed up time and watch the planets revolve
>> around the sun a ridiculous number of times per second, they would
>> form a cloudlike sphere around the sun. Are you saying that they
>> would no longer be in orbit around the sun?
>
> No, what people are saying is that the electron is not
> a little planet.
>
> And you are incorrect about the nature of planetary orbits,
> which are pretty much confined to a plane. If you plotted
> the position of the earth over a million orbits, you
> wouldn't get a cloud which extended through the sun,
> above and below the orbital plane, and out beyond the
> orbits of the outer planets. At best, you'd see a very
> small variation in radius.
I was thinking way more than a million, I was thinking
the number of orbits that you would get if the earth
moved close to light speed and the universe were shrunk
to the size of an atom. Even if it were confined to a
plane, the plane itself would be all over the place.
That doesn't really affect the point I was trying to
make though. An orbit is an orbit no matter how fast
it goes.
> But the electron cloud DOES extend beyond a plane,
> through the nucleus, and out into space far beyond
> the classical Bohr "radius".
Ok, gotcha. I didn't realize they meant that the cloud
goes all the way to the nucleus.
>> > But it isn't this way. The electron doesn't move around and is at
>> > this place at this time and at another place later.
>>
>> So you're saying electrons are stationary? That makes no sense...
>
> The electron does not have a fixed, definite position.
> An electron "orbit" is actually a probability distribution,
> that distribution is stationary, and any attempt to
> pin down an electron position might find it anywhere
> in that cloud at any given time.
All this says to me is that they can't determine the exact
path of the electron, or if they could it would be so complex
and yield so much data that they wouldn't be able to do
anything with it, so they resort to probabilities instead.
That still doesn't refute the idea that an electron is moving
around a nucleus in some fashion.
Matt Gregory
Autymn D. C.
Randy Poe wrote:
> Matt Gregory wrote:
> > Why not? If we could speed up time and watch the planets revolve
> > around the sun a ridiculous number of times per second, they would
> > form a cloudlike sphere around the sun. Are you saying that they
> > would no longer be in orbit around the sun?
>
> No, what people are saying is that the electron is not
> a little planet.
>
> And you are incorrect about the nature of planetary orbits,
> which are pretty much confined to a plane. If you plotted
> the position of the earth over a million orbits, you
> wouldn't get a cloud which extended through the sun,
> above and below the orbital plane, and out beyond the
> orbits of the outer planets. At best, you'd see a very
> small variation in radius.
>
> But the electron cloud DOES extend beyond a plane,
> through the nucleus, and out into space far beyond
> the classical Bohr "radius".
The cloud and its properties look like a bunch of scientific liges.
(Can ye prove me wrong?) The proton and electron are an
electromagnetic planetary sustem, and can't fully be compared to the
gravital sustem, duh. Both charges have classical motions. As for why
the electron doesn't radiate and spiral into the nucleus, as it's
accelerating around the proton, it's because the electron already has.
Note that the ground bound electron spends most of its time /in/ the
nucleus. The round orbitals stay put not because they are
nonclassically forbidden to leave, but because they /do/ radiate, and
the radiation emitted between the charges equals the radiation
absorbed. The extension of the round orbitals is caused by the
illuminating background bringing the electron out of its nuclear sleep,
and the fullness of the orbitals is caused by the background inducing
electromagnetic tidal and proxy forces (They miscall them
pseudoforces.) in the charge-neutral, geometrically-frustrated,
semidegenerate couples. (Everything's polarisable.) They may be
[mis]calling these radiative interactions "zero-point" instead, and
these fluctuations in the ground electron the "Lamb shift".
Bilge? Al? Greg? Sam? I wrote the above a third asleep. It should be
easy to prove me wrong? (Bilge never procured those experiments
showing the s orbital wasn't a time-averaged picture.)
> The electron does not have a fixed, definite position.
> An electron "orbit" is actually a probability distribution,
> that distribution is stationary, and any attempt to
> pin down an electron position might find it anywhere
> in that cloud at any given time.
Non sequitur, it's called an open sustem that causes the delusion of
independent events.
-Aut
p6
Matt Gregory wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > Matt Gregory wrote:
> >> Why not? If we could speed up time and watch the planets revolve
> >> around the sun a ridiculous number of times per second, they would
> >> form a cloudlike sphere around the sun. Are you saying that they
> >> would no longer be in orbit around the sun?
> >
> > No, what people are saying is that the electron is not
> > a little planet.
> >
> > And you are incorrect about the nature of planetary orbits,
> > which are pretty much confined to a plane. If you plotted
> > the position of the earth over a million orbits, you
> > wouldn't get a cloud which extended through the sun,
> > above and below the orbital plane, and out beyond the
> > orbits of the outer planets. At best, you'd see a very
> > small variation in radius.
http://aa.uncwil.edu/reeves/chm101jr/dist_F98/wave_particle_duality.htm
As you can see in the above. What really surround the nucleus
are the electron waves. The electron as particle doesn't
have any continous path. Suppose the sun is the nucleus and
the earth the electron. What would happen is that the
earth would jump from one place to another in space without
a path... that is.. it could be teleporting. Imagine too that
the earth as electron will form a wavelength around the sun.
It is the wavelength that dictates the electron behavior and
its stability from the sun. Imagine the electron wave as 3D
around the nucleus or the earth wave as 3D around the sun.
This is what goes on in the atom. Do not use any classical
example of particle orbiting around a fixed position because
in the quantum world, this doesn't exist because wave and
particle exist at the same time.. or rather.. particles
don't truly exist. It is the field that convey the wave and
particle properties of matter. The field is no ordinary field
too.
p6
John Sefton
The electron is the same as a galactic arm
of stars (and planets).
It extends from center to edge and is
constantly renewing thru the nucleus.
Quasars are galactic-scale photons.
John
Galaxy Model of the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1124148473.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> [cutting in]
>
<snip>
>
> The cloud and its properties look like a bunch of scientific liges.
> (Can ye prove me wrong?) The proton and electron are an
> electromagnetic planetary sustem, and can't fully be compared to the
> gravital sustem, duh. Both charges have classical motions. As for why
> the electron doesn't radiate and spiral into the nucleus, as it's
> accelerating around the proton, it's because the electron already has.
> Note that the ground bound electron spends most of its time /in/ the
> nucleus. The round orbitals stay put not because they are
> nonclassically forbidden to leave, but because they /do/ radiate, and
> the radiation emitted between the charges equals the radiation
> absorbed.
Why would/should they be equal? Show us how the numbers work out?
> The extension of the round orbitals is caused by the
> illuminating background bringing the electron out of its nuclear sleep,
> and the fullness of the orbitals is caused by the background inducing
> electromagnetic tidal and proxy forces
But isn't the 'illuminating background' basically the prevailing
temperature (blackbody radiation)? Isn't the range of the 'illuminating
background'
continuous? Wouldn't the resulting 'orbitals' be continuous
in radius or probable radius?
> (They miscall them
> pseudoforces.) in the charge-neutral, geometrically-frustrated,
> semidegenerate couples. (Everything's polarisable.) They may be
> [mis]calling these radiative interactions "zero-point" instead, and
> these fluctuations in the ground electron the "Lamb shift".
>
> Bilge? Al? Greg? Sam? I wrote the above a third asleep. It should be
> easy to prove me wrong? (Bilge never procured those experiments
> showing the s orbital wasn't a time-averaged picture.)
<snip>
--
rb
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Randy Poe wrote:
>
[snip]
>> The electron does not have a fixed, definite position.
>> An electron "orbit" is actually a probability distribution,
>> that distribution is stationary, and any attempt to
>> pin down an electron position might find it anywhere
>> in that cloud at any given time.
>
>
> All this says to me is that they can't determine the exact
> path of the electron or if they could it would be so complex
> and yield so much data that they wouldn't be able to do
> anything with it, so they resort to probabilities instead.
Wrong. The electron *does not have* an "exact path"! And it can be
*shown* *experimentally* that the *only* way to describe the
behaviour of elementary particles in a sensible way is probabilistically.
What you propose is something like a "hidden variables" theory. And
that has been ruled out experimentally. Read up on "Bell's inequality"
and Aspect's experiments.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>> Matt Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> I've heard of it being referred to as a cloud. But if an electron was
>>> moving fast enough, and its distance to the nucleus wasn't constant
>>> (I assume there is some degree of wobbling and ellipticality in the
>>> orbit) then it would be like a cloud. I don't see what distinction is
>>> being made when they describe it as a cloud.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't call a motion which makes it from the outside look as if
>> there were a cloud an "orbit".
>
>
> Why not? If we could speed up time and watch the planets revolve
> around the sun a ridiculous number of times per second, they would
> form a cloudlike sphere around the sun.
Err, no, there would be no sphere, there would be only 9 ring-like
structures.
> Are you saying that they would no longer be in orbit around the sun?
No. I'm only saying that something which one would call an "orbit"
in any sensible way wouldn't result in a spherical cloud if simply
watched at high enough speed.
>> But it isn't this way. The electron doesn't move around and is at
>> this place at this time and at another place later.
>
>
> So you're saying electrons are stationary? That makes no sense...
No, I'm also not saying that electrons are stationary. Our macroscopic
concepts simply don't apply to them. They do not have a well-defined
position and well-defined velocity at any time. Very loosely speaking,
they are "everywhere at once" and have "ever velocity at once".
Bye,
Bjoern
Y.Porat
if anyone will tell you he knows
write him down as a pomous lier!!
we have guesses
some of them reasonable
some of them idiotic:
for instance the idea that it is done by exchange of photons -is
idiotic.
i have one but it is a guess
and indeed electrons do not orbit all around the nuc
they vibrate.
and electron is not a littel finite
billiard ball
my private guess is that it is not a final particle
and composed of suparticles- still uknown.
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------
p6
Porat. The electron is a point particle. I'll explain.
When you are playing arcade game and you hit the
racing car to the wall. It looks solid isn't it. Does
that mean there are particles in the wall inside the
video game? No. This is also what is reality. All are
fields and waves. The "particles" are just to create
solidity in our frame of reference. This is why the
electron as point particle can have intrinsic properties
such as charge, mass, spin, momentum, etc. They are
not being caused by the particle itself. It is the field
which caused them and the electron as particle is just
a vortex of the field. Do you understand?
For all intent and purposes, our reality is just some
kind of projection. The ancient said everything is maya
or illusions. So we are like inside the arcade game
where programming are inputted inside. Likewise, what
gives all the particles their identities are also programmed.
This is why the electron is a point particle. It's
properties are caused by the field. Just imagine the
quantum vacuum as some kind of screen just like tv screen
where things could be programmed to interact.
Is there a way to reprogram it? Yes. I am slowly grasping
the fact that qi is part of the programming aspect much
like electricity is need to run the program of the arcade
game. Our consciousness can make it interface to this world.
By controlling qi and depending on the level of control, one
can create and uncreate matter and the whole of spacetime.
This may be the explanation why some people can teleport
objects. I have met some who have witnessed materializations
of people. Using the concept of physics, you know how
hard it is to bypass the nuclear binding energies and
get over quarks confinement. So teleporations occurs by
the target reprogramming space/time and initiating
regional phase transitions without temperature modification
(courtesy of the qi field that can reprogram reality).
This is one way to explain the phenomena without breaking
any *normal* laws of physics. This also means that physics
is on the right path. At least scientists are honest. They
know reality are so weird and so they just focus on the
mathematics and just ignore the causal mechanisms with
the words "We don't know why. We can just describe it".
What I desribed here may be the causal mechanisms of
Quantum Mechanics and the rest of physics. What you cranks
are doing trying to model reality as some kind of bolts
and nuts may fail because reality could be just a
projection... which is one of the few possibilities to
explain the bewildering physics of qi.
In any event. Standard Model may be 99.999% true. They
are just projections of a program. What I'm suggesting
is that we can control the program itself given our
development in consciousness (which is a higher mode
of reality and accessible inbetween this SM world and
the higher world or reality).
Can you grasp what I'm saying.. hmm.. maybe one day
when you witness a person just appearing in front of
you as in teleporation. Then you will know by heart
that things are not what they seem. There are much
higher reality to things taught to you by physics.
p6
Matt Gregory
> Matt Gregory wrote:
>
>> path of the electron or if they could it would be so complex
>> and yield so much data that they wouldn't be able to do
>> anything with it, so they resort to probabilities instead.
>
>
> Wrong. The electron *does not have* an "exact path"! And it can be
> *shown* *experimentally* that the *only* way to describe the
> behaviour of elementary particles in a sensible way is probabilistically.
>
> What you propose is something like a "hidden variables" theory. And that
> has been ruled out experimentally. Read up on "Bell's inequality" and
> Aspect's experiments.
Ok, I'll read up on it.
Thanks for the pointers!
Matt Gregory
Matt Gregory
> Matt Gregory wrote:
>
>> I want to know what is the theory that explains what causes atoms
>> to stick together in a solid. If the perimeter of an atom has a
>> negative charge, then why don't the atoms fly apart (or fall apart
>> at least, if the charge of the nucleus balances the charge of the
>> electrons).
>
> Molecular orbital theory in isolated molecules, band theory in
> solids.
Ok, thanks! I figured there were specific theories about them.
I will look into them.
Matt Gregory
Matt Gregory
> NMoone on this palnet realy knows how any attraction force is done!!
Well, that goes without saying. They know about it up to a
certain point, and that's all I'm really concerned about at the
moment.
Matt Gregory
Matt Gregory
> Matt Gregory wrote:
>> Why not? If we could speed up time and watch the planets revolve
>> around the sun a ridiculous number of times per second, they would
>> form a cloudlike sphere around the sun.
>
>
> Err, no, there would be no sphere, there would be only 9 ring-like
> structures.
If the universe only consisted of the sun and the earth and neither
of them ever changed at all, then it would be true that the earth
would orbit in a ring and it would never change. But that's not
how the universe is. There are countless other forces acting on
the earth besides its inertia.
Matt Gregory
Sam Wormley
> If the universe only consisted of the sun and the earth and neither
> of them ever changed at all, then it would be true that the earth
> would orbit in a ring and it would never change. But that's not
> how the universe is. There are countless other forces acting on
> the earth besides its inertia.
>
Inertia is not a force.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/NewtonsLaws.html
Bjoern Feuerbacher
First, inertia is not a force. Second, I really don't know what
collection of forces you imagine which could make the earth reach
virtually every point in a sphere if you only let enough time pass.
Bye,
Bjoern
Autymn D. C.
The electron is extended to its potential surface only. It has an
electric dipole moment too.
Autymn D. C.
> Why would/should they be equal? Show us how the numbers work out?
Well if the electron absorbed more than it emitted, such as from a
nuclear decay, it would jump away and be free of the proton. If it
emitted more than it absorbed, such as from a nuclear inverse decay, it
would continue deeper toward and into the nucleus, eventually lodging
into a proton with the energetic help of an antineutrino to shield it
from further excitations. When the electron and proton spiral into the
same place in an ideal vacuum, which should also ideally take an
infinite while to radiate away because the moment never decays to
nothing, then any further power one plugs in for an arbitrary
transition is looped shut because the pair are in equilibrium. Outside
of vacuum, the pair assumes a new equilibrium based on the background
temperature, and will fluctuate around the new moment. I wish I could
find any pages along this line of thought, but there's only Larmor
power which doesn't say anything about the absorbance or efficiency of
radiation absorbed by the electron.
> But isn't the 'illuminating background' basically the prevailing
> temperature (blackbody radiation)? Isn't the range of the 'illuminating
> background' continuous? Wouldn't the resulting 'orbitals' be continuous
> in radius or probable radius?
Each orbital is already roughly continuous, from the bound
proton-electron potential surface (not hupersurface) to the edge of
space. Nodes classically represent infinite energy surfaces, centred
on fulcra like libration points in orbit but repulsive. The electron
and its ghost twin with imaginary states trace out the wave shapes.
They react to continuum background radiation by extending the orbitals,
and to discrete key radiation by reshaping the orbitals. In an ideal
vacuum (a timeout void), I'd expect the electrons to be at the wave
maxima or potential minima of each orbital. All s orbitals touch down
and become a dot at the nucleus. All p orbitals align (get honed) and
fall linewise tunnelling through the s electrons until they cap the s
electrons in all axes. Most of the higher orbitals will do the same
but cap with greater freedom; their least-momentum suborbitals,
however, become rings and lines and fall that way. The greater orbital
angular momentum of the higher orbitals acts like a guroscope,
stablising the electron from tracing out round shapes. This is why the
higher their trend the thinner their wave bulbs or rings are; instead
of whirling around the nucleus like the s electrons, they bounce and
trend more like springs and planets. Because all atoms have extended
orbitals, the continuum radiation transmitted by the orbitals is
greatly and mostly in fase with that of the detectors, so they are not
found to participate in energetic transitions. The experiments and
theorems disproving hidden variables are invalidated by the fact that
the states of one observable particle are /nonassociative/ thanks to
its wave-mocking twin.
-Aut
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
> Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
>> Why would/should they be equal? Show us how the numbers work out?
>
> nuclear decay, it would jump away and be free of the proton. If it
> emitted more than it absorbed, such as from a nuclear inverse decay, it
Can't put any numbers to it?
> would continue deeper toward and into the nucleus, eventually lodging
> into a proton with the energetic help of an antineutrino to shield it
> from further excitations. When the electron and proton spiral into the
> same place in an ideal vacuum, which should also ideally take an
> infinite while to radiate away because the moment never decays to
> nothing, then any further power one plugs in for an arbitrary
> transition is looped shut because the pair are in equilibrium. Outside
> of vacuum, the pair assumes a new equilibrium based on the background
> temperature, and will fluctuate around the new moment.
Which would make electron energy levels continuous and closely
related to temperature. Atomic spectra show that not to be
true.
> I wish I could
> find any pages along this line of thought, but there's only Larmor
> power which doesn't say anything about the absorbance or efficiency of
> radiation absorbed by the electron.
>
>> But isn't the 'illuminating background' basically the prevailing
>> temperature (blackbody radiation)? Isn't the range of the 'illuminating
>> background' continuous? Wouldn't the resulting 'orbitals' be continuous
>> in radius or probable radius?
>
> Each orbital is already roughly continuous,
But its effective/characteristic/probable radius is not continuous.
> from the bound
> proton-electron potential surface (not hupersurface) to the edge of
> space. Nodes classically represent infinite energy surfaces, centred
> on fulcra like libration points in orbit but repulsive. The electron
> and its ghost twin with imaginary states trace out the wave shapes.
> They react to continuum background radiation by extending the orbitals,
> and to discrete key radiation by reshaping the orbitals. In an ideal
> vacuum (a timeout void), I'd expect the electrons to be at the wave
> maxima or potential minima of each orbital. All s orbitals touch down
> and become a dot at the nucleus. All p orbitals align (get honed) and
> fall linewise tunnelling through the s electrons until they cap the s
> electrons in all axes. Most of the higher orbitals will do the same
> but cap with greater freedom; their least-momentum suborbitals,
> however, become rings and lines and fall that way. The greater orbital
> angular momentum of the higher orbitals acts like a guroscope,
> stablising the electron from taking on round shapes. This is why the
Autymn D. C.
> Can't put any numbers to it?
Observations and reckonings are better. Others thence can put in the
numbers.
> Which would make electron energy levels continuous and closely
> related to temperature. Atomic spectra show that not to be
> true.
Energy levels /are/ continuous and correlated to temperature and
pressure; though these are already in fase with the detectors' so they
don't show up as sharp, principal, diffuse, fundamental, etc. lines.
As a proof of this, atoms in the solid state have finite compressive
moduli and continue to shrink without bound when cool, until they
become a bunch of neutrons which can also shrink without bound with
added pressure, and the same for quarks. Atoms also shrink when heated
or shot, making them harder to tunnel. These can only happen by
energetic quasiradiative transitions in every orbital.
> But its effective/characteristic/probable radius is not continuous.
Extrema of course are not continuous. Domains are. (The right term
would be continual, over continuous, because ultimately I claim
spacetime to be discrete Planckwise.)
-Aut
Lady Chatterly
Autymn D. C. <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>Observations and reckonings are better. Others thence can put in the
>numbers.
I am not sure I understand the question.
>Energy levels /are/ continuous and correlated to temperature and
>pressure; though these are already in fase with the detectors' so they
>don't show up as sharp, principal, diffuse, fundamental, etc. lines.
>As a proof of this, atoms in the solid state have finite compressive
>moduli and continue to shrink without bound when cool, until they
>become a bunch of neutrons which can also shrink without bound with
>added pressure, and the same for quarks. Atoms also shrink when heated
>or shot, making them harder to tunnel. These can only happen by
>energetic quasiradiative transitions in every orbital.
These are peano 's axioms for number theory.
>Extrema of course are not continuous. Domains are. (The right term
>would be continual, over continuous, because ultimately I claim
>spacetime to be discrete Planckwise.)
Every part of the universe is a good thing is that the only way you
can control anybody is to lie to them.
>-Aut
And?
--
Lady Chatterly
"I wish Lady Chatterly were back. She' makes sense compared to you."
-- Peter Thomas
Autymn D. C.
> I am not sure I understand the question.
Who's behind the chatbot and why aren't you man enough to talk?
> These are peano 's axioms for number theory.
The first Peano axiom is wrong.
-Aut