Hover Model Vs. Bohr Hydrogen Atom Model

[Dan Marquez]

On 8/24/02 I replied to Franz Heymann on the subject of "What Does a Charge Look Like". I could not fully grasp David Thomson's reply, however, so I cannot say if my hover model is consistent with David's. For those who don't want to follow the links of replies, here is the Hover model in its simplified form. Can anyone confirm or dispute the model?

 

The Hover model will contradict Bohr's model!  But I think it explains why there are quantum energy levels, and the strange orbitals we see.

 

1) An electron is like a gyroscope with a magnetic North Pole and magnetic

South Pole. If you use your left hand, your curled fingers point in the

direction of spin and the thumb points in the direction of the North Seeking

Pole, I think. (Nothing new, yet.)

 

2) The proton is similar, but the magnetic poles are reversed to that of an

electron. So the right hand should be used to determine where the North

Seeking pole is.

 

3) There must be a repulsive force that prevents electrons and protons from

combining to form something like a neutron.

 

4) The repulsive force is dominant when the electron is very "close" to a

proton, and Coulomb's attractive force is dominant when the electron is

"far" from a proton.

 

5) There must therefore be a radius from the center of the proton to the

electron where the two forces cancel out. At a temperature of absolute zero

degrees, a proton may hover above a proton in this hover radius since the

forces cancel out.  Unlike the Bohr model, the hover model does not require

the electron to be orbiting around the proton. Yet, like the Bohr model, the

electron needs some energy to escape the hover zone.  (Interestingly, a

fixed, or quantized, energy amount.)

 

6) If the electron is bumped from the top (assuming it is hovering above a

proton), it with bounce up and down across the hover level, but the bounce

will not be sinusoidal (due the the assymmetry of the opposing forces.) The

electron will be above the hover radius longer than below the radius during

an entire bounce period.

 

7) If the electron is bumped sideways, it could easily orbit around the

proton. It needs to be bumped just hard enough to overcome the natural

alignment of the proton and electron magnetic poles before the orbit can be

achieved. Otherwise, you'll just get a sideways oscillation, and I think

this one is sinusoidal... or at least symmetrical from peak to peak.

 

8) Because the hover model doesn't require electrons to orbit an atom,

molecular attraction becomes a simple concept.  You can explain a hydrogen bond, for instance.  The way to get repelling protons to combine is to place an electron between

them. You can use Coulomb's math to see that Coulomb's attractive

forces dominate over Coulomb's repulsive forces (until the hover radii of the

two protons collide, in which case you need another math algorithm.) Add another

electron to the new molecule and then both electrons will settle between the

protons, but since electrons repel each other, they'll be pushed away from

each other. Add a little temperature, and then the electrons will spin

around the imaginary line that connects the two protons.  There is no need

for electrons to orbit around each proton to form the hydrogen bond.  I

think this is empirically confirmable, because I saw a computerized picture

once that shows two proton spheres separated by a donut cloud of two

electrons.  When one considers magnetic alignment, you will get more than one

type of stable bond.

 

9) Now, to explain diamagnetism. It is true that a charge will align itself

like a compass in the presence of a magnetic field.  However, the field adds

a torque to the spinning charge so the poles don't line up in a straight

line.  When the magnetic field is strong enough, the torque will be strong

enough to flip the charge around so that its magnetic poles repel the

magnetic field.  Thus, any charge exposed to a strong enough magnetic field

becomes diamagnetic, it will be repelled by the field.

 

10) Now think of a hurricane of charges that could occur in a star.  If

there are enough charges spinning in the hurricane, the center will have a

strong magnetic field (using the right hand rule for positive charges).  If

the field is strong enough, it will repel all charges. Therefore, the

hurricane of charges will become hollow as the magnetic field expels

anything within it... like a sun spot. I would call the hollow regions as

diamagnetic holes.

 

11) Nuclear decay can also be explained with the hover model.  I would

imagine that when charges are extra close to each other, they will encounter

still another attractive force that is even stronger than the  repelling

hover force I just hypothesized. If so, there must be another radius where

these powerful forces cancel. If nuleii particles stay within this radius,

they will bind tightly. Once they exceed the radius (like when the nucleus gets

unstably large, the hover repulsive force will dominate and therefore will shoot the particle.

 

Gee... if it is a positron or alpha particle that gets pushed away, then Coulomb's force will aid in the pushing. Acceleration always triggers photon emission, so you'll

get high energy photons that will reveal the nature of the forces involved.

 

12) I don't know what the equation would be for the hover repulsive force. I

can only say that whatever it is, it has to be inversely proportional to a

high order of radius, such as r^n, where n>2. (It would be interesting if n

is a multiple of 2.)

 

I could be in error, but I welcome all challenges I can grasp!

[David Thomson]

"Dan Marquez" <dmar...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zgT99.8139$ja.19...@twister.socal.rr.com...

On 8/24/02 I replied to Franz Heymann on the subject of "What Does a Charge
Look Like". I could not fully grasp David Thomson's reply, however, so I
cannot say if my hover model is consistent with David's. For those who don't
want to follow the links of replies, here is the Hover model in its
simplified form. Can anyone confirm or dispute the model?

Your views are similar in some ways, but still based on the assumption that
the electron is a solid particle in orbit. In any model of the electron
where the electron is seen as a point, or ball, or any shape of mass, the
model will fail because a free electron has nothing to orbit around. My
model assumes the electron is a ribbon of mass with no dimensions other than
a height of one Compton wavelength and a spin at the speed of light. There
is no inherent radius for an electron (or proton or neutron.) It is because
the mass is evenly distributed in a complete band that it can have spin even
as a free particle.

>1) An electron is like a gyroscope with a magnetic North Pole and magnetic
>South Pole. If you use your left hand, your curled fingers point in the
>direction of spin and the thumb points in the direction of the North
Seeking
>Pole, I think. (Nothing new, yet.)

In the case of the ribbon of mass I describe, yes the particle would behave
as a cylinder magnet with the north pole on one edge of the cylinder and the
south pole on the opposite edge.

>2) The proton is similar, but the magnetic poles are reversed to that of an
>electron. So the right hand should be used to determine where the North
>Seeking pole is.

Yes, an electron would spin (with reference to its north pole) to the left
and a proton would spin to the right.

But the charges for each of these angular momenta would be at their centers,
like a dot in the center of a circle.

>3) There must be a repulsive force that prevents electrons and protons from
>combining to form something like a neutron.

There would be no need for a repulsive force in my model. Due to the mass
of the electron compared to the proton, the effective circumference of the
electron angular momentum is about 1836 time greater than the effective
circumference of the proton angular momentum. The charges would be exactly
on top of each other (the electron and proton would form two concentric
circles of particle angular momentum,) but the angular momenta would
naturally remain separate due to their different circumferences.

Also, since the electron and proton are considered angular momentum, they
have no fixed radii. This means an electron can be captured by a proton
without affecting the angular momentum. What would be affected would be the
spin of the electron. Inside of a neutron, the electron would have to
increase its spin in order to account for the restricted circumference.

Dave

[Dan Marquez]

Hi David,

I replied to you by email already, but I am replying to the share more
insight.

I made no assumption that an electron is a particle because I really don't
know what a particle is. But I will try to show that an electron is likely
to have volume even if it has a set angular momentum.

If I understand your ribbon model correctly, you described an electron to be
an infinitely thin skinny cylinder with a length of one Compton. The
cylinder also has a point charge in the middle and either a magnetic pole (N
or S) at each end. The cylinder is spinning such that the circumference is
spinning with a tangential velocity equal to the speed of light.

Recalling my physics, moment of inertia (I) is the ratio of torque (L) to
angular acceleration (a). So it stands to reason, the more mass there is,
the more torque is needed to achieve an angular acceleration. The closer the
mass is to the center, the less torque is needed to achieve a desired
angular acceleration. So it stands to reason L = Ia, sort of like F = ma.

Angular momentum, is Iw, where w is the rate of spin (radians per time).
The resistance to
change spin rate is of course proportional to I.

Now, moment of inertia I for a cylinder is MR^2 / 2. For it to be a finite
value, M could be infinite so R would have to be zero. Alternatively, M
could be zero and R infinite. Both models don't strike me as feasible so
far.

A photon can be thought as zero mass multiplied by infinite gamma (since it
is travelling at the speed of light) to get a finite number for effective
mass. So maybe the inertial mass of zero should be used in your model. But
that would imply you need an infinite radius to get a finite angular
momentum.

O.K. Maybe the moment of inertia I isn't finite. Let's say it is 0. Then
w has to be infinite radians per second. Hmmm... that is a tough model to
grasp. Moment of inertia I is probably not 0. It probably isn't infinite
either, because then spin would be zero.

My gut feeling is that your model is somewhere in between the extremes that
give a finite angular momentum. That is, the radius cannot be zero nor
infinite, and the rest mass cannot be infinite nor zero. Instead, there is a
finite radius and the bulk of the mass is travelling within a radius who's
tangential velocity is under the speed of light. Maybe there is a volume.
Hmmm... maybe a particle isn't too bad a concept after all.

O.K. There is no disputing there is a finite angular momentum. Once there
is a finite value, there can be infinite number of models of different
circumferences that can give the same finite angular momentum.

Now you said an electron can capture a photon without affecting angular
momentum. That is really VERY interesting. Let's say MR^2 / 2 was fixed for
the fun of it. An increase in M (capturing a photon) will decrease the
radius where mass is effectively distributed. So the shape of an electron
would have to change in a photon capture. Now if the spin rate was not
fixed, and Iw was to be fixed in a capture, w would have to decrease, since
I would be bigger from a bigger M.

So now the fundamental question becomes, what evidence is there that Iw is
constant? How does one know what w is?

Dan

"David Thomson" <vola...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sl7a9.6219$ld4.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

[David Thomson]

"Dan Marquez" <dmar...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message

news:hcha9.32713$_7.32...@twister.socal.rr.com...

> I made no assumption that an electron is a particle because I really don't
> know what a particle is. But I will try to show that an electron is likely
> to have volume even if it has a set angular momentum.
>
> If I understand your ribbon model correctly, you described an electron to
be
> an infinitely thin skinny cylinder with a length of one Compton. The
> cylinder also has a point charge in the middle and either a magnetic pole
(N
> or S) at each end. The cylinder is spinning such that the circumference is
> spinning with a tangential velocity equal to the speed of light.

This seems correct so far.

> Now, moment of inertia I for a cylinder is MR^2 / 2.

The moment of inertia for a thin walled cylinder, which is what my model
describes, is MR^2.

> For it to be a finite value, M could be infinite so R would have to be
zero. Alternatively, M
> could be zero and R infinite. Both models don't strike me as feasible so
far.

Neither scenario is correct. The moment of inertia for the electron is the
mass of the electron times the Compton wavelength squared. An electron can,
in certain situations, accumulate angular momentum equivalent up to twice
the mass of the electron. The length and frequency of the electron (or any
subatomic particle) is fixed according to the speed of light and never
changes. The speed of light in its quantum values is one Compton wavelength
times the quantum frequency (1.236 x 10^20 Hz)

> A photon can be thought as zero mass multiplied by infinite gamma (since
it
> is travelling at the speed of light) to get a finite number for effective
> mass. So maybe the inertial mass of zero should be used in your model.
But
> that would imply you need an infinite radius to get a finite angular
> momentum.

A photon does not have a mass separate from its angular momentum, any more
than an electron, proton or neutron does. The inertial mass of the quantum
pulse (photon) in my model is equal to the inertial mass of the electron.
An electron and photon can be thought of much like a popcorn kernel and a
popped piece of popcorn. They are essentially the same substance but in
different modes. An electron keeps a tight angular momentum but a quantum
pulse has an expanding angular momentum. The electron keeps its charge
contained, but a photon abandons its charge.

> My gut feeling is that your model is somewhere in between the extremes
that
> give a finite angular momentum. That is, the radius cannot be zero nor
> infinite, and the rest mass cannot be infinite nor zero. Instead, there is
a
> finite radius and the bulk of the mass is travelling within a radius who's
> tangential velocity is under the speed of light. Maybe there is a volume.
> Hmmm... maybe a particle isn't too bad a concept after all.

If there were a volume then the dimensions of volume would be present.
There is nothing in any mathematical model of the atom that reveals an
electron (or any other subatomic particle) with a definite volume.

There is nothing in the middle of the subatomic particle other than a
massless charge so there can not be a radius in the classical sense. The
elementary charge does
have spherical "area," but it is area of charge and not area of length.

This can be seen in the formula for elementary charge where

e^2 = 8*pi*a*h*Cd

where h*Cd is the angular momentum of the electron times the conductance
constant (equal to the strong nuclear charge of the particle.) The area of
the angular momentum can be shown to be equal to 1/4pi of a sphere of the
same circumference as the angular momentum. 4*pi is interpreted as an
amount multiplied by the area of the angular momentum to cover a sphere. 2a
is twice the fine structure constant. 2a is the value that determines the
effective radius of the electron. The mass within the angular momentum
determines the radius and this is reflected in the fine structure constant.

> O.K. There is no disputing there is a finite angular momentum. Once there
> is a finite value, there can be infinite number of models of different
> circumferences that can give the same finite angular momentum.

No, there can't. I have seen no evidence that the subatomic particles spin
at any other speed than the speed of light. Nor have I seen anything that
suggests the height of the ribbon would change. The only variable factors
in the subatomic angular momenta are the mass, strong nuclear charge, and
fine structure constant. A given mass can only have one fine structure
constant and one strong nuclear charge.

I haven't yet found a cause for the specific masses contained in the
electron and proton. There must be a mechanism that predetermines only two
possible angular momentum masses. (The neutron, photon, and positron are
derived from the electron and proton.)

> Now you said an electron can capture a photon without affecting angular
> momentum.

No, this is not correct. A valence electron in an atom can absorb the
angular momentum of a photon and this would cause the total angular momentum
of the valence electron to increase. Once the valence electron has doubled
its angular momentum it jumps orbit to produce a quantum pulse (photon.) At
very high frequencies the valence electron would escape the atom entirely
and produce an electron - positron pair.

Dave

[Dan Marquez]

"David Thomson" <ne...@volantis.org> wrote in message news:POCa9.1530$%D6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

Wow.  This is going to take me some time to think over.

 

If the moment of inertia for an electron is MR^2, and R is a Compton wavelength, then that does imply that the electron has a radius, and that the mass is concentrated in a ring whose diameter is 2R. Are you saying the electron looks like a hollow tube with an infinitely thin wall? Is that what you meant by an infinitely skinny cylinder?

 

Now you said, "An electron can, in certain situations, accumulate angular momentum equivalent up to twice the mass of the electron. "  Since angular momentum and mass don't have the same units... I think you meant something else, right?  If mass were kilograms, Iw would be something like kilograms meter-squared per second.

 

You also said that "The speed of light in its quantum values is one Compton wavelength
 times the quantum frequency (1.236 x 10^20 Hz)." Hmmm... that is interesting.

 

You also said, "There is nothing in any mathematical model of the atom that reveals an
electron (or any other subatomic particle) with a definite volume."  Definite is key here.  It means there might still be a volume, but nothing defnite.

 

Now the equation you wrote, e^2 = 8*pi*a*h*Cd, is interesting, but I would need to look up where it was derived to verify it is being used correctly. Do you know a good web site that derives or explains this equation?

 

What do you mean by "a spin at the speed of light"?  Do you mean the circumference of the tube has a tangential velocity of c?

 

You said that charge and mass are variables, and probably not the spin rate.  So since R is not a variable, then we know the size of an electron. It is a hollow tube that is 1 Compton long with a radius of half a Compton.  That sounds like a definte volume to me!

 

If R was variable, or if spin rate was variable, then an electron would have variable magnetic pole strengths.  I don't think anyone sees this phenomena, so you sound right.

 

I don't know what a quantum pulse is, wait a minute... you defined it at the end. It is a photon!  So angular momentum causes a jump from one orbital to another.  Now that's the big question.  Did you determine this from a conservation of energy calculation?

 

The hover model requires that there is a repulsive force.  The reason I think there is one is because I saw a graph that showed the propability of an electron being at some radius in a hydrogen atom.  The graph had a horizontal-axis that was labelled the radius, and the vertical-axis was labelled the probability.  There was a radius where the probability was highest.  Radii lower than that radius had probabilities that were sharply less, and radii that were larger than that radius had probabilites that were gradually less, not sharply less.  That fits well with the hover model.

 

Dan Marquez

[David Thomson]

Hi Dan,

>If the moment of inertia for an electron is MR^2, and R is a Compton
wavelength, then that does imply that the electron has a radius, and that
the mass is concentrated in a ring whose diameter is 2R. Are you saying the
electron looks like a hollow tube with an infinitely thin wall? Is that what
you meant by an infinitely skinny cylinder?

The electron does have a radius, but the radius is not defined by the
angular momentum. The R^2 in the electron angular momentum refers to the
height of the ribbon (one Compton wavelength) and the length component of
the velocity (one Compton wavelength.) The mass of the electron is spread
over this area of one square Compton wavelength and repeated at a quantum
frequency of 1.236 x 10^20 Hz. Based on just this information alone, the
electron could continually vary its circumference and radius without
changing its angular momentum. If the "radius" were to increase, the ribbon
would still have a spin velocity of the speed of light. If we imagined the
ribbon were on the outside of a disc, the disc would appear to turn slower
as the radius increased.

>Now you said, "An electron can, in certain situations, accumulate angular
momentum equivalent up to twice the mass of the electron. " Since angular
momentum and mass don't have the same units... I think you meant something
else, right? If mass were kilograms, Iw would be something like kilograms
meter-squared per second.

I like to signify angular momentum of an electron by h, Planck's constant.
The angular momentum of a proton would be h.p and a neutron would be h.n.
Using the h as a unit, angular momentum can be expressed in terms of Planck
units. If the mass of an electron were increased by a factor of two, then
the h unit would also increase by a factor of two.

It is because the quantum length and quantum frequency of all subatomic
particles are invariant, and because all subatomic angular momentum is
indivisible (the mass cannot be separated from its velocity or height,) that
an increase in electron mass is equivalent to an increase in angular
momentum.

>You also said, "There is nothing in any mathematical model of the atom that
reveals an electron (or any other subatomic particle) with a definite
volume." Definite is key here. It means there might still be a volume, but
nothing defnite.

If the units can be found somewhere to show a volume, then we can discuss a
volume. Until then, there is no volume we can refer to in a discussion
about an electron.

>Now the equation you wrote, e^2 = 8*pi*a*h*Cd, is interesting, but I would
need to look up where it was derived to verify it is being used correctly.
Do you know a good web site that derives or explains this equation?

I invented this equation. I have the only web site that explains it. You
can see my notes on this equation at...
http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/how_charge_is_maintained.htm
I need to update the page, though, as I have made further discoveries
related to this.

>What do you mean by "a spin at the speed of light"? Do you mean the
circumference of the tube has a tangential velocity of c?

A spin at the speed of light refers to the angular momentum of the particle.
The electron has a spin of 1/2. Therefore there are actually two electrons
in a full spin of angular momentum. I can visualize this spin and how it
would look in an atom. Right now I'm working on giving a precise geometry
to spin and atomic structure. Today I've made progress in understanding how
angular momentum is related to charge. I'm going to wait to present the
idea until I have the graphics to back it up. It's a very common sense
model and is mathematically supported.

>You said that charge and mass are variables,

Let me clarify that. The strong nuclear charge is variable, not the
elementary charge.

>and probably not the spin rate. So since R is not a variable, then we know
the size of an electron. It is a hollow tube that is 1 Compton long with a
radius of half a Compton.

No, there is no radius. The angular momentum is one electron mass times one
Compton wavelength in height times the speed of light. If there were a
radius, then yes, there would be a volume because then there would be three
degrees of length. But there isn't, at least none that I have read about.
It sounds weird, doesn't it? But the lack of a definite radius is supported
by scientific investigation. The electron can change its radius, without
altering its angular momentum, in order to suit whatever situation it is in.
In fact, the electron does not have to be circular. It can look like a four
leaf clover in certain situations. It can be oval in others. There is no
radius in subatomic angular momentum, and hence there is no definite volume.

>If R was variable, or if spin rate was variable, then an electron would
have variable magnetic pole strengths. I don't think anyone sees this
phenomena, so you sound right.

That's a good point that I hadn't considered.

>I don't know what a quantum pulse is, wait a minute... you defined it at
the end. It is a photon! So angular momentum causes a jump from one orbital
to another. Now that's the big question. Did you determine this from a
conservation of energy calculation?

I determined this from investigating the nature of the fine structure
constant. I don't violate any energy, mass, or charge conservation laws in
my calculations. At all times all energy, mass and charge are accounted
for.

>The hover model requires that there is a repulsive force. The reason I
think there is one is because I saw a graph that showed the propability of
an electron being at some radius in a hydrogen atom.

I like your hover model because the concept is not that far off from my
angular momentum approach to the atom. Notice that you said "propability of
an electron being at some radius in a hydrogen atom." This probability is
due to the non-definite radius of the angular momentum. In a hydrogen atom
the angular momentum will be nearly circular. But in more complex atoms the
angular momentum can take on complex shapes. The probability curve will get
fuzzier with the more complex atoms.

Dave

[eshal]

 

"Dan Marquez" <dmar...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message news:bsFa9.43869$_7.42...@twister.socal.rr.com...

"David Thomson" <ne...@volantis.org> wrote in message news:POCa9.1530$%D6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> "Dan Marquez" <dmar...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:hcha9.32713$_7.32...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > I made no assumption that an electron is a particle because I really don't
> > know what a particle is. But I will try to show that an electron is likely
> > to have volume even if it has a set angular momentum.
> >
> > If I understand your ribbon model correctly, you described an electron to
> be
> > an infinitely thin skinny cylinder with a length of one Compton. The
> > cylinder also has a point charge in the middle and either a magnetic pole
> (N
> > or S) at each end.

 

[em] That is a powerful consideration.

[em] ...and thank you also for sharing your thoughts.

 

Brilliant.

 

eshal.

[eshal]

"David Thomson" <ne...@volantis.org> wrote in message

news:Z3Ta9.2972$N%4.29...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

oh.... doesn't that have a snappy feeling about it?

Yeah... an event that involves two points? bingo...

What would it be if we can relate those two points as being but the two end
points of a single line. If we can feel the combined spin of the two end
points in the one moment of event. This maybe revealing of a relation of
forces acting across our imediate moment of time. Where we feel the
perception of 'mass' derived at the intersection of neutrality.

Where what we are dealing with is not substance per se but wave interference
patterns.

We are definetly dealing with complex configurations of wave function over
any given area.

There is no solidity associated to an electron? It may even be a single line
as an association mediated by the Aetheric units.

What is its feild of radii is given by the spread of its standing waves
involving their construction zones.

[Dan Marquez]

"eshal" <un...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:3d6ee...@news.iprimus.com.au...

Thanks , Eshal!  Glad you liked the conversation. 

 

 I just noticed I mispelled probability!  I wrote propability!  Geee... what is the probability of that?

 

Dan

 

[Dan Marquez]

Hi Dave and Eshal,

Interesting conversation. Dave, I just visited
http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/how_charge_is_maintained.htm That is a
very nice summary. Now if I can grasp each equation I'll be in paradise.
Nothing like a little studying.

Dan

[David Thomson]

"eshal" <un...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d6ee...@news.iprimus.com.au...

> > A spin at the speed of light refers to the angular momentum of the
> particle.
> > The electron has a spin of 1/2. Therefore there are actually two
> electrons
> > in a full spin of angular momentum.
>
> oh.... doesn't that have a snappy feeling about it?
>
> Yeah... an event that involves two points? bingo...

I'm working with Dan offlist with some graphics that would better illustrate
this.

> Where what we are dealing with is not substance per se but wave
interference
> patterns.

You're close. We're actually dealing with the strong charge and how it
reacts with mass.

> > In fact, the electron does not have to be circular. It can look like a
four
> > leaf clover in certain situations. It can be oval in others. There is
no
> > radius in subatomic angular momentum, and hence there is no definite
volume.
>
> We are definetly dealing with complex configurations of wave function over
> any given area.

It's not as complex as it seems. When the graphics are available I'll be
able to clarify this.

> There is no solidity associated to an electron? It may even be a single
line
> as an association mediated by the Aetheric units.
>
> What is its feild of radii is given by the spread of its standing waves
> involving their construction zones.

There is no solidity associated with any isolated subatomic particle. Nor
is there any wave function. It is all angular momentum. When the protons,
neutrons and electrons come together to make atoms and complex
electromagnetic structures, however, the geometry changes and there are
solidity and wave functions. But there is definitely no solid mass
associated with subatomic particles.

Dave

[David Thomson]

"Dan Marquez" <dmar...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message

news:lKEb9.39835$ja.69...@twister.socal.rr.com...

Don't hesitate to ask questions. I'll gladly answer them.

Dave

[eshal]

"David Thomson" <ne...@volantis.org> wrote in message

news:WVEb9.8350$N%4.67...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

Good.

> > There is no solidity associated to an electron? It may even be a single
> line
> > as an association mediated by the Aetheric units.
> >
> > What is its feild of radii is given by the spread of its standing waves
> > involving their construction zones.
>
> There is no solidity associated with any isolated subatomic particle. Nor
> is there any wave function. It is all angular momentum. When the
protons,
> neutrons and electrons come together to make atoms and complex
> electromagnetic structures, however, the geometry changes and there are
> solidity and wave functions.

Yeah... like i said.. wave functions.

> But there is definitely no solid mass
> associated with subatomic particles.

I think we are in agreement.

em.

[eshal]

 

"Dan Marquez" <dmar...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message news:xAEb9.39744$ja.69...@twister.socal.rr.com...

That's okay... I didn't notice when I read it.  (-:

 

Fun times we are in. The jam is moving.

 

em