Rutherford's Experiment - QM Model VS Smart Model
S. Enterprize Company
Results of Rutherford's Experiment
QM claimed that the reason alpha particles could pas through a film of gold
was due to the large distance between atoms that the electrons in the outer
shells caused themn to stay together in their orbitals.
The Smart Model claims that QM is incorrect. The atoms are closely packed
together and interact with helix spiral spinning fields. And these fields can
cause a whirlpool effect like small sub-atomic sized blackholes in the atom
itself which allows alpha particles to pass through the gold film. And as you
can can see with recent discoveries of vortex fields these whirlpools DO EXIST.
See link below for more details.
http://www.lkb.ens.fr/recherche/atfroids/anglais/vortex_an.html
So again the Smart Model is shown to be more correct instead of the QM model
that most everyone follows in science and physics.
S. Enterprize Co. (Membership)
http://www.s-enterprize.com/
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
Tjipto Juwono
> was due to the large distance between atoms that the electrons in the outer
> shells caused themn to stay together in their orbitals.
Alpha particles do not interact with atoms as a whole, they interact with
nuclei. The interactions between alpha particles with electrons are
negligible. This experiment proved that an atom consist largely of empty
space. The nuclei is packed in a very small space inside the atom. The
experiment has nothing to do with the distance between atoms! You can read
this in any first year physics undergrad. book.
S. Enterprize Company
That's right they say that ( That's what I was trying to say, I have
typo's in the post) , and this is incorrect. Alpha particles don't pass in
between the electron orbitals and the positive nucleus because of a very large
space between the nucleus and the electron orbitals. This is incorrect.
I can't believe you still believe this even after you see with your own
eyes the vortex whirlpool fields directly inside the atoms. I noticed you
didn't quote this link, hoping we would forget about it.
S. Enterprize Company
>>gold
>>> was due to the large distance between atoms that the electrons in the
>outer
>>> shells caused themn to stay together in their orbitals.
>>
>>Alpha particles do not interact with atoms as a whole, they interact with
>>nuclei. The interactions between alpha particles with electrons are
>>negligible. This experiment proved that an atom consist largely of empty
>>space. The nuclei is packed in a very small space inside the atom. The
>>experiment has nothing to do with the distance between atoms! You can read
>>this in any first year physics undergrad. book.
>>
>>
>
> That's right they say that ( That's what I was trying to say, I have
>typo's in the post) , and this is incorrect. Alpha particles don't pass in
>between the electron orbitals and the positive nucleus because of a very
>large
>space between the nucleus and the electron orbitals. This is incorrect.
> I can't believe you still believe this even after you see with your own
>eyes the vortex whirlpool fields directly inside the atoms. I noticed you
>didn't quote this link, hoping we would forget about it.
>
>
>
And another thing...
If the electron orbital shells are so packed with electrons, for the element
gold, how does the alpha particles just pass between that TO GET TO the "so
called" large area in between the positive nucleus and this orbital field? The
Answer is, this was the WRONG analysis back then, and it still is WRONG now,
and they made people learn this for so many years, they believe anything they
say for a passing grade in college.
The Smart Model is the model of the future and brings man out of the caveman
days of the atomic model.
Tjipto Juwono
http://www.lkb.ens.fr/recherche/atfroids/anglais/vortex_an.html
This experiment (Rotating condensates and quantum vortices
Experiments with 87Rb) is NOT an experiment about vortex inside atoms.
This is an experiment on vortices in Bose-Einstein Condensate.
Bose-Einstein condensate is a large collection of atoms (e.g helium
atoms). Below a certain critical temperature, a large
number of atoms will
go to ground state (this will only be possible for boson objects). As a
result, we are now having a condensate: a large
number of objects which behave as an object because we cannot
differentiate one object from another. The information of the position of
each indivisual object has been lost.
The vortex team was observing vortices in such condensate. Up to date, to
my knowledge, there has been no experiment observing directly anything
that happen inside an atom (so that we can see it with our own eyes).
Rutherford experiments is one example of scattering experiments which
studies the structure of atoms or particles by analysing differential
cross section data. By the way, Rutherford experiment was done before
quantum mechanics era.
Tjipto Juwono
>
> If the electron orbital shells are so packed with electrons, for the element
> gold, how does the alpha particles just pass between that TO GET TO the "so
> called" large area in between the positive nucleus and this orbital field? The
> Answer is, this was the WRONG analysis back then, and it still is WRONG now,
> and they made people learn this for so many years, they believe anything they
> say for a passing grade in college.
> The Smart Model is the model of the future and brings man out of the caveman
> days of the atomic model.
>
the nuclei. The WHOLE atom is 99.9999999 % empty space. The concept of
"electron size" is classical concept, and has no meaning in quantum
mechanics. But if we consider the "effective radius" of an electron we
find an incredibly small number, negligible compared to the size of an
atom. In fact, in quantum electrodynamics, we treat electron as a point
particle with no size at all.
Mark Palenik
"S. Enterprize Company" <smar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030613123822...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> >> QM claimed that the reason alpha particles could pas through a film
of
> >gold
> >> was due to the large distance between atoms that the electrons in the
outer
> >> shells caused themn to stay together in their orbitals.
> >
> >Alpha particles do not interact with atoms as a whole, they interact with
> >nuclei. The interactions between alpha particles with electrons are
> >negligible. This experiment proved that an atom consist largely of empty
> >space. The nuclei is packed in a very small space inside the atom. The
> >experiment has nothing to do with the distance between atoms! You can
read
> >this in any first year physics undergrad. book.
> >
> >
>
> That's right they say that ( That's what I was trying to say, I have
> typo's in the post) , and this is incorrect. Alpha particles don't pass in
> between the electron orbitals and the positive nucleus because of a very
large
> space between the nucleus and the electron orbitals. This is incorrect.
> I can't believe you still believe this even after you see with your
own
> eyes the vortex whirlpool fields directly inside the atoms. I noticed you
> didn't quote this link, hoping we would forget about it.
>
You've seen the inside of atoms with your own eyes? You have better vision
than I do, and the capability to voilate uncertainty.
S. Enterprize Company
>
>http://www.lkb.ens.fr/recherche/atfroids/anglais/vortex_an.html
>
>This experiment (Rotating condensates and quantum vortices
>Experiments with 87Rb) is NOT an experiment about vortex inside atoms.
>This is an experiment on vortices in Bose-Einstein Condensate.
Which involves the atom...
>Bose-Einstein condensate is a large collection of atoms (e.g helium
>atoms). Below a certain critical temperature, a large
>number of atoms will
>go to ground state (this will only be possible for boson objects). As a
>result, we are now having a condensate: a large
>number of objects which behave as an object because we cannot
>differentiate one object from another. The information of the position of
>each indivisual object has been lost.
>
>The vortex team was observing vortices in such condensate. Up to date, to
>my knowledge, there has been no experiment observing directly anything
>that happen inside an atom (so that we can see it with our own eyes).
You can see the entrance.
>Rutherford experiments is one example of scattering experiments which
>studies the structure of atoms or particles by analysing differential
>cross section data. By the way, Rutherford experiment was done before
>quantum mechanics era.
That's right then came along QM to misinterpret the experiment... .
>
>
>
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, S. Enterprize Company wrote:
>
>> I can't believe you still believe this even after you see with your own
>> eyes the vortex whirlpool fields directly inside the atoms. I noticed you
>> didn't quote this link, hoping we would forget about it.
>>
>>
>
>
>
S. Enterprize Company
>>
>> If the electron orbital shells are so packed with electrons, for the
>element
>> gold, how does the alpha particles just pass between that TO GET TO the "so
>> called" large area in between the positive nucleus and this orbital field?
>The
>> Answer is, this was the WRONG analysis back then, and it still is WRONG
>now,
>> and they made people learn this for so many years, they believe anything
>they
>> say for a passing grade in college.
>> The Smart Model is the model of the future and brings man out of the
>caveman
>> days of the atomic model.
>>
>The empty space inside the atom is not just between orbital electrons and
>the nuclei. The WHOLE atom is 99.9999999 % empty space. The concept of
Nope, there is an Aether fluid field around it forming the atom or particles.
>"electron size" is classical concept, and has no meaning in quantum
Classical Physics disagrees with QM.
>mechanics. But if we consider the "effective radius" of an electron we
>find an incredibly small number, negligible compared to the size of an
>atom. In fact, in quantum electrodynamics, we treat electron as a point
>particle with no size at all.
This is also wrong. An electron has mass, size, momentum, anti-matter,
matter, neutral particles, and interacts with the proton with Hydrogen, which
also HAS SIZE.
You people are so confused, it amazes me that you even know your own name.
S. Enterprize Company
We do see the exterior view of the atoms using the proper equipment, THEN
we use our eyes.
The TimeLord
> I've just reviewed this link:
>
> http://www.lkb.ens.fr/recherche/atfroids/anglais/vortex_an.html
>
> This experiment (Rotating condensates and quantum vortices
> Experiments with 87Rb) is NOT an experiment about vortex inside
> atoms. This is an experiment on vortices in Bose-Einstein
> Condensate. Bose-Einstein condensate is a large collection of atoms
> (e.g helium atoms). Below a certain critical temperature, a large
[...]
I have also just reviewed it and you are right. It also struck me that
in getting to the second equation from the first, there is an implicit
assumption that Grad[Density]=0. This means that the rotating fluid
must be of uniform density, which is apparently a violation of
conditions set forth in the Smart Model. So I don't see how that
proves the Smart Model right, when it doesn't even begin to apply.
--
// The TimeLord says:
// "Don't blame me because it's late,
// I lost track of time."
S. Enterprize Company
The Bose-Einstein condensate is a frozen state of the atoms, so you can
stop a see what it is really doing. It's like freezing a tornado to stop and
see in more detail the tornado. So not only did you get to see the helix spiral
field defined by the Smart Model, you got to see it with your own two eyes at
the atomic level, in a frozen still state, PROVING to you QM and the standard
model IS and always will be wrong. A frozen state vortex funnel whirlpool field
IS NOT an electron orbital shell. There is no such thing as a shell like that.
QM has always taught people wrong in physics and forced them to believe it by
getting good grades in college if they agree. I guess you were one of the
brainwashed straight "A" students.
Tjipto Juwono
implies a limitation in motion which cannot be applied to B-E condensation
because the information of the positions of individual atoms has lost.
> The Bose-Einstein condensate is a frozen state of the atoms, so you can
> stop a see what it is really doing. It's like freezing a tornado to stop and
> see in more detail the tornado. So not only did you get to see the helix spiral
> field defined by the Smart Model, you got to see it with your own two eyes at
> the atomic level, in a frozen still state, PROVING to you QM and the standard
> model IS and always will be wrong.
There is no such thing as "helix spiral effect" in B-E condensation. The
observed effect is the collective effect of millions of millions of atoms.
It is not a field of any sort.
> A frozen state vortex funnel whirlpool field
> IS NOT an electron orbital shell. There is no such thing as a shell like that.
> QM has always taught people wrong in physics and forced them to believe it by
> getting good grades in college if they agree. I guess you were one of the
> brainwashed straight "A" students.
>
I think your knowledge of Quantum Mechanics is very limited, less than
minimum. How can you create an alternative theory to replace QM if you
don't understand QM? I suggest you read "Modern Quantum Mechanics"
by JJ Sakurai. It is
quite advanced (It took me almost a year to finish the book), but when
you finish reading the book, you are considered adequate in your knowledge
of QM. Then, you can start your critism on QM, and create an alternative
theory.
S. Enterprize Company
>implies a limitation in motion which cannot be applied to B-E condensation
>because the information of the positions of individual atoms has lost.
To be within millionths of a degree away from absolute zero, IS a
sub-atomic "frozen" state. If you freeze water a 32 Fdegrees, what happens? It
H2O becomes frozen state at the molecular level. Now to freeze things at the
sub-atomic level, approach absolute zero. It's the same principle. YOU are
incorrect.
>
>> The Bose-Einstein condensate is a frozen state of the atoms, so you can
>> stop a see what it is really doing. It's like freezing a tornado to stop
>and
>> see in more detail the tornado. So not only did you get to see the helix
>spiral
>> field defined by the Smart Model, you got to see it with your own two eyes
>at
>> the atomic level, in a frozen still state, PROVING to you QM and the
>standard
>> model IS and always will be wrong.
>
>There is no such thing as "helix spiral effect" in B-E condensation. The
>observed effect is the collective effect of millions of millions of atoms.
>It is not a field of any sort.
(a basic example...)
http://www.lkb.ens.fr/recherche/atfroids/images/1Vx3D_red.jpg
A spiral funnel is formed during sub-atomic condensation. Why? Because when
the atom is moving this funnel exists. When placed in a near frozen state (
near absolute zero) you can observe the Helix Spiral Field, as it exists in the
internal area of the atoms in a "frozen" type state..
>
>> A frozen state vortex funnel whirlpool field
>> IS NOT an electron orbital shell. There is no such thing as a shell like
>that.
>> QM has always taught people wrong in physics and forced them to believe it
>by
>> getting good grades in college if they agree. I guess you were one of the
>> brainwashed straight "A" students.
>>
>
>I think your knowledge of Quantum Mechanics is very limited, less than
Thank you. This proves I haven't been taught too much of the WRONG thing. I
know just enough to see that it is almost totally incorrect.
>minimum. How can you create an alternative theory to replace QM if you
>don't understand QM? I suggest you read "Modern Quantum Mechanics"
>by JJ Sakurai. It is
>quite advanced (It took me almost a year to finish the book), but when
>you finish reading the book, you are considered adequate in your knowledge
>of QM. Then, you can start your critism on QM, and create an alternative
>theory.
To start with, electrons DO NOT exist in an orbital shell around positive
nucleus. How can I read read further in QM books, if the rest rest of QM is
based on this. They say they don't use Bohr's Model of the atom, but they
really still do under a different name called the Schrodinger Model. Bohr was
stuck at the hydrogen level of the atomic analysis, AND so was Schrodinger.
Why? Becasue they used the same principle of an electron orbiting a positive
nucleus.
Then Rutherford came along, and they made the QM model even MORE wrong by
claiming the reason why alpha particles could travel through the gold atoms is
because of the large distance between the nucleus and the electron orbitals
shells. BUT THIS IS WRONG. I even showed people the vortex entrance to atoms
that allows particles to pass throught it, and those around the vortex entrance
would be slightly deflected around the vortex entrance. I use the word vortex
because they used that word. I used helix spiral spinning field, which is
basically the same thing.
I suggest YOU read up more on The Smart Model and understand it, before
making statements about it.
Tjipto Juwono
The real information
we can get through spectroscopic experiments are energy levels, spin,
angular momentum,
etc. Those are the observables described by the quantum numbers.
> They say they don't use Bohr's Model of the atom, but they
> really still do under a different name called the Schrodinger Model.
I've read hundreds of quantum mechanics book, and I've never heard of
"Schrodinger Model". Schrodinger equation is merely a non-relativistic
wave equation of microscopic objects.
> Bohr was
> stuck at the hydrogen level of the atomic analysis, AND so was Schrodinger.
> Why? Becasue they used the same principle of an electron orbiting a positive
> nucleus.
> Then Rutherford came along, and they made the QM model even MORE wrong by
> claiming the reason why alpha particles could travel through the gold atoms is
> because of the large distance between the nucleus and the electron orbitals
> shells.
In Rutherfod experiment, most of the alpha particles went through the tin
foil made of gold. But you forget one thing: several of the alpha
particles are scattered or even bounced back. Conclusion: the differential
cross section is small, meaning: most of the alpha particles just don't
interact with anything at all.
> I suggest YOU read up more on The Smart Model and understand it, before
> making statements about it.
>
I don't know much about your model, and I haven't made any statement
about it. I merely comments on your knowledge in quantum mechanics
and BE condensation.
Anyway, I am willing to accept any new theory provided:
1. It is proven theoretically. You derive the equations that describe your
theory, and you show that your equations are correct. And of course, your
equation must contain variables which will relate your theory to
experiments. In other word: your theory has the capablity to predict
experimental result
2. You do the experiment, and the result is exactly as predicted in the
theory.
I am new to this group (though I've done physics for more than 20 years)
so I haven't had the chance to read your papers on this subject. Just give
me the link to your publications (in lanl, phys. rev., whatever), so I can
read your equations and your proof of that equations, and also the result
of your experiments.
S. Enterprize Company
>we can get through spectroscopic experiments are energy levels, spin,
>angular momentum,
>etc. Those are the observables described by the quantum numbers.
>
>> They say they don't use Bohr's Model of the atom, but they
>> really still do under a different name called the Schrodinger Model.
>
>I've read hundreds of quantum mechanics book, and I've never heard of
>"Schrodinger Model". Schrodinger equation is merely a non-relativistic
>wave equation of microscopic objects.
You need to read more.
>
>> Bohr was
>> stuck at the hydrogen level of the atomic analysis, AND so was Schrodinger.
>> Why? Becasue they used the same principle of an electron orbiting a
>positive
>> nucleus.
>> Then Rutherford came along, and they made the QM model even MORE wrong
>by
>> claiming the reason why alpha particles could travel through the gold atoms
>is
>> because of the large distance between the nucleus and the electron orbitals
>> shells.
>
>In Rutherfod experiment, most of the alpha particles went through the tin
>foil made of gold. But you forget one thing: several of the alpha
I didn't forget, I KNOWWWWWWWWWWWWWW that they said this too. But it's
because of the Smart Model that Rutherford's experiment worked.
>particles are scattered or even bounced back. Conclusion: the differential
>cross section is small, meaning: most of the alpha particles just don't
>interact with anything at all.
>
>
>> I suggest YOU read up more on The Smart Model and understand it, before
>> making statements about it.
>>
>
>I don't know much about your model, and I
See you are a big DUMMY( period) about the Smart Model.
haven't made any statement
>about it. I merely comments on your knowledge in quantum mechanics
>and BE condensation.
>
>Anyway, I am willing to accept any new theory provided:
>
>1. It is proven theoretically. You derive the equations that describe your
>theory, and you show that your equations are correct. And of course, your
>equation must contain variables which will relate your theory to
>experiments. In other word: your theory has the capablity to predict
>experimental result
>
>2. You do the experiment, and the result is exactly as predicted in the
>theory.
>
>I am new to this group (though I've done physics for more than 20 years)
>so I haven't had the chance to read your papers on this subject. Just give
>me the link to your publications (in lanl, phys. rev., whatever), so I can
>read your equations and your proof of that equations, and also the result
>of your experiments.
>
Just go to my Website shown below, so that you can become enlightened to
world of total universal scientific physics knowledge. After learning the Smart
Model, your hair will turn white and you will walk in a daze, like Moses did
in, "The Ten Commandments" movie. Then come to me and ask questions... .
Tjipto Juwono
you since you maintain a very closed-mind attitude. You propose a new
theory. That's okay. If you read all those ref. Journal (particularly
published by APS) you would see that people propose new theories almost
every day! But how do you proof that your theory is good? You have to test
it. Your theory will never be accepted by the scientific community if you
are not opened to critism. And critism is good. It will make your theory
better, correct mistakes, etc. Your theory cannot be a good theory just
because you claim that it is a good theory. It has to be tested by other
people, because science is a collective work. If you want to be alone with
your dream, that's okay. But none or the great figures of science in last
century ever propose a new theory without a proper interaction with the
scientific community.
==================================
S. Enterprize Company
>you since you maintain a very closed-mind attitude. You propose a new
>theory. That's okay. If you read all those ref. Journal (particularly
>published by APS) you would see that people propose new theories almost
>every day! But how do you proof that your theory is good? You have to test
>it. Your theory will never be accepted by the scientific community if you
>are not opened to critism. And critism is good. It will make your theory
>better, correct mistakes, etc. Your theory cannot be a good theory just
>because you claim that it is a good theory. It has to be tested by other
>people, because science is a collective work. If you want to be alone with
>your dream, that's okay. But none or the great figures of science in last
>century ever propose a new theory without a proper interaction with the
>scientific community.
>
>
If you research this News Group history on Internet, they have criticized The
Smart Model since about 1997. The Smart Model is still here and getting better
and more accurate.
And I did publish The Smart Model on INTERNET.