New Cubic Atomic Model explains electron energy levels and bonding
frank...@yahoo.com
made up of alternating series of protons and electrons. The original
web site describing my first attempts at this model can be found at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/frankhu/buildatm.htm
However, this initial model could not explain the observed electron
shells. After re-working the model, I have discovered an arrangement
which can account for the observed energy levels. This model can also
account for the molecular binding characteristics (common oxidation
numbers and binding angles) for some of the atoms I have worked out in
detail from Hydrogen to Neon. See this revised model at:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/atmpics2.html
This model provides a clear and intuitive reason why atoms have the
properties that they do. If you think it is a little difficult to
explain how electron clouds could possibly form bonds, have a look at
this model. In this model, bonds form through simple electrostatic
attraction of oppositely charged particles.
frank...@yahoo.com
Y.Porat
do you folow a guy in the net his name is Y.Porat?
he has something similar say cubic but .....
listed carefuly if you dont waht to spend the rest of your life on
something that has no chance:
it at all you have to combine your cubes .......
LINEARILY go it ???
that model is in my book for more than 10 years
other people could testify about it.
now
after i finished my model and without knowing about it
i read in a chemistry book that
the Amwrican chemist at the beginning of the 20 th
century Gilbert lewis
suggested his octet model
and descrived it as
cubes connected linearlily!!!
yet
*that was his **atomic model**
my *unprecedented * discovery waas that ........
it is not only the atom that can be described that way
but .....
the nuceus as well !!!!
iow
the atomic structure
IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE *GEOMETRIC STRUCTURE* OF THE NUC !!!
if you got it please stick it deap into your mind
and memory
because that should sve you and the rest of the world
a lot of mumbling
and a huge wast of time
that is my friendly suggestion
i cannot in principle be against any model because....
i deeply believe in the saying of
Mau ce tung:
'let a thousand flowers flourish'!!!!
ie lack of compultion in scince!
anyway that is my sensere suggestion.
and if you dont mind - very substanciated.
more and more as time passes!!
never a refutal of it !
----------------------------
Franz Heymann
<frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107407156.7...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I have been working on an atomic model which assumes that atoms are
> made up of alternating series of protons and electrons.
Dead on arrival
[snip]
Franz
Morituri-|-Max
> I have been working on an atomic model which assumes that atoms are
> made up of alternating series of protons and electrons.
Why do you arbitrarily assume this? What have you observed that would
benefit from this arrangement?
Eric Gisse
The voices told him.
Y.Porat
first make a better suggestion
and then start to lough
or else you have to produce a sound of a parrot....
(you see mocking is much easier than creating something new)
iow it is much easyer to be a parasite.......
Y.Porat
----------------------------
PD
The primary problem that you have to solve is reconciling this with the
Rutherford scattering experiment, as yours and similar "plum pudding"
models of the atom are ruled out by those results. I see from your
website that you've made a very coarse attempt to reconcile Rutherford
scattering results. What you've done is not good enough at all. You
only categorized scattered particles into three angular bins, and you
hand-waved an argument why particles hitting your grids would be
deflected into each of those three bins. Rutherford's model predicts
with a smooth function what the distribution of the scattered particles
should be, and how it would vary with the size of the nucleus, and how
it would vary with the charge and mass of the scattered particle. You
would be required to do the same. After all, Rutherford's results are
over 100 years old.
PD
Uncle Al
>
> I have been working on an atomic model which assumes that atoms are
> made up of alternating series of protons and electrons.
You would have been an idiot 85 years ago: Rutherford scattering re
Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden, 1909-1911. Today you are a public
fool.
F = [1/(4(pi)y_0)][(2Ze^2)/(r^2)]
dN/dQ = n([(2e)(Ze)]/(4(pi)y4E)]1/(sin4(G/2))
(mv^2)/2 = [(2e)(Ze)]/(4(pi)y_0r_0)
r_0 = [(2e)(Ze)]/2(pi)y_0mv^2)
F - force
(2e) - alpha particle charge
(Ze) - atomic nucleus charge
y_0 - permittivity of free space
r - distance between the nucleus and particle
dN- the number of alpha particles scattered/time unit inside the
solid angle dQ
dQ - solid angle
n - alpha particle flux density
G- angle of scattering alpha
E - alpha energy.
m - alpha particle mass
v - alpha particle velocity before collision
r_0 - nuclear radius
Even at the turn of the century, r_0 ~ 3x10^(-14) meter as compared to
the radius of an atom.
> This model provides a clear and intuitive reason why atoms have the
> properties that they do.
Fucking imbecile. Spectroscopy, including selection rules; fine and
hyperfine line splittings - Stark and Zeeman splittings. Crystal
field splitting. Fermi exclusion rules and the Periodic Table.
Aufbau!
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Y.Porat
and so is your understanding of the nuc.
and so it will be for the next thousand years
if you dont refresh some of your paradigma
the scatering of Rutherford is manly not due to the electric charge
of the atom!
it was done with alpha particles
now have you ever considred that ypu would get the same scattering
once you take the folowing model:
a mass (that becomes bigger with z) that is suspended on springs
directed to say 4 directions of a teraheder or even adind ro it
two aditional aprings
and then bombard it with alpha particles??
if not try to do it!
ie the scattering is typical to collision between a constant 'bullet'
and a growing with z mass
just some qualitatively examples to start igniting your crative
immagination:
if the hanging mass is veey small
the alpha bullet will pass through it as if it was feathers
once the hanging mass is becoming bigger much bigger than the apha
it will recoiled stright back in a direct hit
if it is a near by hit the hanging mass will just deviate the alpha
and other cases are in between those edge posibilities.
and do you knoew why i saggest that model??
because acording to my findings
in heavy atome ther is no story of
one electron to one proton
no shells and subshells that only the inventors know were to stuff them
can you bring experimantal evidence say for a heavy element lik seay \
Lead
to have 6 shells of electrons
if yes lets have it !!
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------
---------------------
all the best
Y.Porat
PD
J. P. Davidson back in the 1970s and 1980s did a number of studies of
muonic atoms where an electron in an inner shell of a heavy atom is
replaced by a muon. Being more massive, the muon's wavefunction
penetrated the nucleus more than an electron would. The key point is
that the energy level of the muon (tracked by the "falling-in" photon)
corresponded to what would have been expected for the appropriate QM
shell.
Suggest you go to the library, do a literature search, and bone up on
what's actually been seen experimentally and what's not.
PD
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> Eric Pisse
Gisse.
Eric Gisse
PD wrote:
[snip]
> Suggest you go to the library, do a literature search, and bone up on
> what's actually been seen experimentally and what's not.
Porat does not do research.
Just so you know.
[snip]
frank...@yahoo.com
The benefit is simplicity. I am working towards a model of the atom
which can be understood in purely classical mechanical (billiard ball
etc.) concepts where the "why" something happens can be clearly
observed from the mechanical structure. For example, the bonds that
form with Oxygen are at a high angle > than 90 degrees. Why doesn't it
form a linear bond like that seen in CO2? The Cubic Model shows that
the avaliable bonding sites for Oxygen are at 90 degrees to each other
and not 180 degrees as can be found in Carbon.
It is also simple in terms of what we know about protons and electrons.
A hydrogen atom can be thought of as nothing more than an alternating
series of proton/electron. A hydrogen H2 molecule would also be
similar. The Cubic Atomic model throws in an additional binding type to
form neutrons, but it is the logical extension of just gluing together
hydrogen atoms. Also, if the electron is not orbiting the proton and is
in fact just sitting static on the proton, this eliminates the problem
that one would expect an electron moving about the proton would radiate
energy. I have seen/heard/read/debated all about the various
explanations of how an electron moving about the proton doesn't radiate
energy and I find none of it convincing. It usually just boils down to
"that's how it works stupid" - which isn't much of an explanation. If
the electron moves about the proton, it must radiate energy plain and
simple. Since we observe that it doesn't, it must be static in relation
to the proton as is assumed in the Cubic Model.
When a electron is, in fact, allowed to freely roam about the proton,
this means it has been ionized and is released from the atom and in
this case, we do observe the electron giving off the expected energy.
The energy this gives off is governed by the rules of spherical
harmonics which (as near as I can tell) the usual QM formulas are based
off of. So I think that there is no contradiction between what is
observed and predicted for QM, because what you are dealing with is the
behavior of electrons which have been ionized and whether an atom
contains a large nucleus (Cubic Model) or a small nucleus (Rutherford)
doesn't matter since all charges act if they were concentrated in a
point anyways. But once you allow the atom to come back to the ground
state, the electron mates back up with its proton in a static position
and everything about QM observations are meaningless since you don't
observe anything happening with an atom at ground state.
One thing I do not understand (and hopefully someone can clarify) is
how you can determine the electron energy levels from the spectrum
released by ionized atoms. It doesn't seem like the line spectra fall
into patterns that would suggest the electron shell configuration. I
can see how the electron shell levels can be derived directly from the
ionization data.
frank...@yahoo.com
observed ionization pattern. Notice that this is experimental data and
not something arbitrary. It falls into specific patterns which your
linear model cannot possibly explain. The Cubic Model carries along
with it many of the initial advantages of your model, but I think you
should seriously consider whether the Cubic Model is superior to your
own due to its ability to explain hard scientific data on the
ionization pattern.
frank...@yahoo.com
categorically rule out all other possiblities. The Rutherford
experiment is only 1 experiment done long ago. You'd think by now we'd
have all kinds of other ways of determining the size of the nucleus. We
have NMR, electron tunneling microscopes, accelerator, etc. etc. etc.
Yet with all of this new equipment, I have yet to find a independent
confirmation of the size of the nucleus that doesn't somehow depend on
exactly the same scattering setup and math as Rutherford. I would
challenge you to find any experiment to determine the size of the
nucleus that doesn't involve scattering, but uses an entirely different
method of determing the size. For example, if we designed a microscope
capable of visually resolving something as small as a proton and an
electron and we directly observed the physical size of the nucleus,
this would be independent confirmation of Rutherford. Perhaps we could
make a tunneling microscope so precise that we could direclty measure
the radius of the nucleus in comparison to the overall size of the
atom. As it stands, we are shooting bullets into a dark room and making
an eduated guess as to what is in the room. This is highly indirect and
I don't find it particularly convincing. It is good science to
independently confirm things in as many ways as possible. I don't think
this has been done in the case of the size of the nucleus, so this
leaves the door open to other models.
fhumodel
Y.Porat
since you are after all a gentleman
i will call you properly(Gisse)
do you see
people are like a mirror-
you can soemtimes lead the mutual relations by being and behaving -
a good positive example!!!
you even succeeded to make me ashmed of myself !!(no cynicism- one
point for you)
btw tell that to Uncle.......
all the best
Y.Porat
Y.Porat
i hope you realise that the examplwe you gave
above i svery abstract
and does not mean much against my above claim
that i asked a specific question
i took a raddom example of a heavy atom
the Lead
and assked you to bring concrete experimental
evidence that Lead has (listen carefully)
6 shells and subshells and God knows what else
the example you gave is nothing like that !!
and actually a dangerous way of threating
scintific issues!!
because it ligh tmislead the innocent whacher
that is not 'in' those issues
to maske the false impression that you realy answerd my questioon
btw mind you
in my model as well ther is medium orbitals
bridgi9ng between the nuclear once
and the electric ones
the Muones are very good candidates for it
now to your scattrings of Rutherford
you aparently not aware to the fact that qm
never went much further than about the iron element
so
how can the rutherford scattering verfy elements
much heavier than Iron while it was not solved
satisfactory
now
the model wich i suggested above
tells you that you can get the same scattering results if you consider
just the mass
of the mesh element
the svcatering will be prpotional to th emass
of the eelement
now i will you remind you a little fact:
the scattering calculations are acompanied by
(listen carefully)
by many *adjustment constants*
ie in simpler words:
fitting the experimantal results
to what is expected from theory*!!!
that 'fitting' can be done by my model as well!!
---------------------
all the best
Y.Porat
Y.Porat
and that is only the begining
waht he did is nothing like ananswer to my specific question(abouth say
Lead)
'hand waving ' will describe that better (if to be a bit polite)
if you pose to be asolutely acurate as qm does
it has to answer any raising question all laong
that is what is demanded from a dominat theory
or else .......! it should not be dominant !
Y.Porat
ps and the worst thing about it is that some hand waivings will
put people asleap smugly illuding themselves *and others* !!!
that 'anything is under control'
that is like sending a cancer ill person back to home from hospital
telling him 'just forget about your worries'
----------------
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
---------
Y.Porat
Franz Heymann
<frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107493917....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Try making use of the Ritz combination principle.
Are you aware of the theorem which says that no system of charges can
be in static equilibrium under the action of electrostatic forces
alone?
Franz
Eric Gisse
Many times you have asked for people to provide you with research to
prove your claims correct. You refuse to lift a finger and go into a
library and read up on the last century of physics.
Lets see your reply to Paul:
~
i took a raddom example of a heavy atom
the Lead
and assked you to bring concrete experimental
evidence that Lead has (listen carefully)
6 shells and subshells and God knows what else
the example you gave is nothing like that !!
and actually a dangerous way
~
Atrocious spelling aside, I don't see what prevents you from doing that
yourself. The onus is not on others to do your work for you.
PD
> PD
> i hope you realise that the examplwe you gave
> above i svery abstract
> and does not mean much against my above claim
> that i asked a specific question
> i took a raddom example of a heavy atom
> the Lead
The example I gave is not abstract. Davidson's work is quite specific,
dealing with particular heavy atoms. I'm just not going to type in his
papers in a newsgroup. The particulars in the library. Look them up.
For that matter, if you expect ANYONE to type in a published paper in
this newsgroup to satisfy your demand for concrete evidence, I predict
you will be left wanting.
Do the research. Read.
PD
PD
Then you haven't read much about the Balmer series. There is indeed a
wonderfully simple pattern in the line spectra that is also predicted
by the electron shell model.
Start here, and go forward and backward to get a better explanation:
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/balmer.html
PD
What you don't understand is that almost EVERY microscope works this
way, by scattering projectiles off a target. This is true for optical
microscopes, electron microscopes, STMs and particle accelerators.
And until you've actually done the little experiment shooting BBs into
a black box lined with carbon paper, at an object of unknown size and
shape, you probably can't appreciate how much information you can get
from that desktop experiment.
> It is good science to
> independently confirm things in as many ways as possible. I don't
think
> this has been done in the case of the size of the nucleus, so this
> leaves the door open to other models.
Actually, you are unaware of the vast library of experiments on nuclear
reactions and nuclear stability that all have supportive evidence of
the size of the nucleus. They just aren't typically published in a
first-year physics text.
PD
> fhumodel
Y.Porat
1 my access to libraries dat et is much less than many others on the
net
2 wha t id wrong inmutual help
3 sometimes i provide information that no one on earth can do
4 just see for example the thread ' isotop decay chains'
5 sometimes i somehow know the answer but waht others to do it
bacuse that will be more convincing than just spoon fed
6 you can be sure that once fo rinstance experimental evidence of
6 electron shells for a heavy element like Lead could be found
you and others (there are too many others that are folowing this
ng) so once it was existing----
amy people would have suplied it!!
so thats another point that i whant to achieve!!!!
and once people will not be able to show it
they will start to *thing* and not just parrot relying on taken for
granted paradigmas.
7 my typing mistakes ???? sory anyway anyone can somehow understand me
at least my poor physics....
ps
if you can bring experimantal evidence for 6 shells in Lead you could
do something
helpful ..........to a poor old man and may be for others as well!
--------------
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Y.Porat
my question is very simple
just bring experimental evidence for 6 (nothing more nothing less)
electron shells in Lead (lead was just a random example0
so that we can study it here
or else it is just hand waving
not to mensin a posibility of cheating and obfuscationg- that i rule
out
just for this moment!!
ps othjer people here can (and are invited because that issue is very
important)
confirm or disconfirm your above claim
but that must be a substanciated response or else ... not innocent!
by knowing proper detasailes about the quote you mentioned
-----------------
Tia
Y.Porat
Y.Porat
you got only an abstract of a few pages
while my model is 155 pages
2 i never invested work on the spectra issue because it is a project of
say another
10 years
so i whated first to 'sell' my first basic findings and that see for
further
anyway a coplepe model is a job for a geraration not for one man
3 there are many substantiated parts of my model
see for instance the thread that is going on 'Isotop decay chains'
with a seemingly unprecedented prediction
and there are others.
can your model do such predictions as i do ???
Uncle Al
>
> Morituri-|-Max wrote:
> > frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > I have been working on an atomic model which assumes that atoms are
> > > made up of alternating series of protons and electrons.
> >
> > Why do you arbitrarily assume this? What have you observed that
> would
> > benefit from this arrangement?
>
> The benefit is simplicity.
It is a ghastly piece of crap that was empirically dead by 1902. Is
that simple enough for you?
frank...@yahoo.com
>
> Try making use of the Ritz combination principle.
OK, the references appear to support that there are energy levels which
can be described n = 2,3,4... etc.
But how does that explain that carbon has a 1s2 2s2 2p2 electron
arrangement? Why do p shells hold 6 electrons? The spectra do not
appear to say anything about how many electrons are in each level - or
do they?
>
> Are you aware of the theorem which says that no system of charges can
> be in static equilibrium under the action of electrostatic forces
> alone?
Yes, you keep saying that, but this assumes that electric charges are
infinitely small point charges. My model would have to assume that
electric charges take up finite space and would therefore act in a
manner similar to 2 magnets coming together and certainly attracting
magnets are a stable structure.
>
> Franz
PD
frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Try making use of the Ritz combination principle.
>
> OK, the references appear to support that there are energy levels
which
> can be described n = 2,3,4... etc.
>
> But how does that explain that carbon has a 1s2 2s2 2p2 electron
> arrangement? Why do p shells hold 6 electrons? The spectra do not
> appear to say anything about how many electrons are in each level -
or
> do they?
The evidence that p shells DO hold 6 electrons is the periodic table of
the elements. The explanation WHY they hold 6 electrons is the angular
momentum quantum numbers available to them, which is not evident in
spectra until you apply an external field.
>
> >
> > Are you aware of the theorem which says that no system of charges
can
> > be in static equilibrium under the action of electrostatic forces
> > alone?
>
> Yes, you keep saying that, but this assumes that electric charges are
> infinitely small point charges. My model would have to assume that
> electric charges take up finite space and would therefore act in a
> manner similar to 2 magnets coming together and certainly attracting
> magnets are a stable structure.
The difference is that magnets cannot be anything other than dipoles.
Dipoles formed from pairs of oppositely charged particles do not have
to be dipoles -- the poles can separate. It is precisely this
difference -- the existence of electrostatic monopoles and the absence
of magnetic monopoles -- that induces the instability. The analogy
fails. Moreover, the theorem does NOT apply only to point charges. It
is often derived for point charges, but it applies to extended charges
as well.
PD
>
> >
> > Franz
Franz Heymann
<frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107570525.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> > Try making use of the Ritz combination principle.
>
> OK, the references appear to support that there are energy levels
which
> can be described n = 2,3,4... etc.
>
> But how does that explain that carbon has a 1s2 2s2 2p2 electron
> arrangement?
Nobody said that it did.
> Why do p shells hold 6 electrons?
Angular momentum of 1 can have 3 different spatial orientations.
Multiply by 2 for the 2 possible spin orientations of the electron
> The spectra do not
> appear to say anything about how many electrons are in each level -
or
> do they?
No, not unless the atom is immersed in a weak magnetic field.
> > Are you aware of the theorem which says that no system of charges
can
> > be in static equilibrium under the action of electrostatic forces
> > alone?
>
> Yes, you keep saying that, but this assumes that electric charges
are
> infinitely small point charges.
The theorem is totally general
My model would have to assume that
> electric charges take up finite space and would therefore act in a
> manner similar to 2 magnets coming together and certainly attracting
> magnets are a stable structure.
Charges are electric monopoles. There are no known magnetic
monopoles.
However,
A similar theorem holds for static magnetic fields and magnetic
dipoles..
Magnets interacting with one another under the action of magnetostatic
fields alone are never in static equilibrium.
Franz
Y.Porat
since you are such an expert
i have a little trivial mission:
just show us experimental evidence for a heavy atom
(taken just randomly as representing a havy one)
like say Lead that has 6 shells of electrons
now just in case that my English is to blame i will put it
in specific figures:
just show us all the shells one by one say:
2 8 18 32 18 4
now i i was mistaken about some tetail just show the better
configuration
now a little humble request
if there is no damn real answer to my question just say honsetly
'i have no answer to your question'!
in that case
all the big scince insitutes of this universe are invited to give a
hand top Frantz.
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> If you think it is a little difficult to
> explain how electron clouds could possibly form bonds, have a look at
> this model.
I recommend looking into any textbook on atomic and molecular
physics instead, where it is clearly explained how that works.
With actual quantitative descriptions and predictions instead
of mere handwaving qualitative rants and nice, "intuitive" pictures
and models.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> For that matter, if you expect ANYONE to type in a published paper in
> this newsgroup to satisfy your demand for concrete evidence, I predict
> you will be left wanting.
>
> Do the research. Read.
Won't help. He does not have the intelligence to understand.
I once went to the trouble to scan in some papers and send them
to him per mail. He read them, and the subsequent discussion
should clearly that he did not understand a word.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Y.Porat
you are the Fertz inventor
the Ferts is :
an em wave with:
once cycle per year!!
do you dare to talk about intelligence???!!!
do you dare to talk about honesty??!!
you sent me paoers that you youself do not understand their meaning
hety spoke there about U 238 + 238or someting
but that cannot be nothing but a statisticasl +238
ie
if there is a statistical 238 than it is an avrage of
more then 238 and less than 238
so what is that more than 238
ie more electric charges than the number of protons
and besides:
waht is the acuracy of that experiment??
what is the reliability of that experiment
is it not just a 'ganaral name' of 238
without realy checking if it is more orless
the acurrate individual charge of anyone of them
2 i asked you and othjer parrots to bering experimental evidence of the
six shells of it
take U or Lead and bring experimental prove of the
(all) the shells ie
2 8 16 32 32 18 4
or wahever the stupid theory claimes
did you ever brought experimantal prove for it
damn crook??
anyone should know that you are an irrational
personal enemy of mine that i was spending
more than teo years on a halfwith like you
to explain my model
but you are a limited intelligence to grasp
waht an avrage educated person will grasp
jeaousy and disturbance are eating you
the only invention you ever did is
the Fertz invention so
keep away from my articles
got it dirthy swine ??
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
and others
i ask you to bypass the young dumn disturbed crook
he interveaned just a this point because
my question drove hinm into pannick
that i will make another step forwards
(and by that keep himself-
as a pesonal enemy - in light of a parrot)
iow he i s much more a personal politician
than a scintist.
and just stick to substanciated physics discussion
try answering my above question
and dont hide behind that crooks intervention
in order to evade my question about 6 shells
of a heavy element
it is ery important and meaninful.
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> fucken Nazi crook
> you are the Fertz inventor
> the Ferts is :
> an em wave with:
> once cycle per year!!
You simply can't let that one go, can you?
I can't help but wonder which is the case here...
a) There are no academic libraries in Israel
b) Y. Porat can't be assed to go to an academic library so he instead
asks others to do his research for him.
[snip]
Y.Porat
are you able to grasp how important is that issue??
if so simple
just bring the experimentlal evidence!!!
i suspect that no one before bothered to ask my above question!!
--------------
Y.Porat
---------------------
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> Gisse
> are you able to grasp how important is that issue??
I grasp it, I just don't care.
> if so simple
> just bring the experimentlal evidence!!!
> i suspect that no one before bothered to ask my above question!!
Why not go get it yourself?
> --------------
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------
Y.Porat
it seems that you are a bit slow
because until now you didnt got me properly
so i will expain it for you and others (once agine!)
i dont need the evidence that 6 electron shells in Lead and others -
is ......
A FAIRY TALE !!!
i just keep and ask it in order that ---------
POEOPE LIKE YOU WILL GET IT into their heads
Got it ???
now if yiou whant to refute me - go ahead do it !!!
now i just woder how long it takes an alleged intelligent man
to grasp that some alleged information is .... VOID
so if you dont whant to go on being a parrot (of a scintific politician
rather than a scintist just do
either bring the evidence that refutes me.... or
admit it is non existant!!
that is what i expect fromdecent scintists ie not to obfuscate
not to demagogise but stick to real facts
and remember what old Catto sayed:
You cant find coconuts at the north pole because .... they arn't
there!!
(only parrots can find coconuts at places they arn't...)
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> Gisse
> it seems that you are a bit slow
> because until now you didnt got me properly
> so i will expain it for you and others (once agine!)
> i dont need the evidence that 6 electron shells in Lead and others -
> is ......
> A FAIRY TALE !!!
> i just keep and ask it in order that ---------
> POEOPE LIKE YOU WILL GET IT into their heads
> Got it ???
No.
Y.Porat
(a clown that his real intenstion is to sabotage some advance-
in that case there is another name rather just a clown .....!!)
antway if the secondposibility is the righ tone
people will bypass you and brong experimental evidence for the shell
structure of
2 8 16 18 32 18 etc etc etc electrons.
Good luck
now just take into acount that no real answer is also an answer!!!
serious people are not fools
you can cheat one person forever
you can cheat everybody just once
but you cant cheat everybody forever
-----------------
Y.Porat
----------------------------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> web site describing my first attempts at this model can be found at:
>
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/frankhu/buildatm.htm
>
> However, this initial model could not explain the observed electron
> shells. After re-working the model, I have discovered an arrangement
> which can account for the observed energy levels. This model can also
> account for the molecular binding characteristics (common oxidation
> numbers and binding angles) for some of the atoms I have worked out in
> detail from Hydrogen to Neon. See this revised model at:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/atmpics2.html
>
> This model provides a clear and intuitive reason why atoms have the
> properties that they do. If you think it is a little difficult to
> explain how electron clouds could possibly form bonds, have a look at
> attraction of oppositely charged particles.
As far as I can see, you *still* have not succeeded to explain
even the most basic observation: that neutrons are so different
from hydrogen atoms, although both are composed of a proton and an
electron, according to you.
Mumbling about "different types of bindings" does not explain this in
any way.
Also, you *still* ignore that electrons can't be inside nuclei
(the counterarguments have been presented lots of times now).
And you *still* act as if elementary particles had solid surfaces which
prevent them from "overlapping", and you *still* have not explained
where the force necessary for that is supposed to come from, and
why it has never been observed (e.g. in scattering experiments).
And you also *still* have not managed to address some *basic* scattering
experiments, like Rutherford or Bhabha scattering, properly.
So, on to what you claim to have achieved. AFAIK, the only
thing which you can explain now is why ionization energies
come in groups, i.e. why there appear to be shells.
1) Does this work for all atoms, or have you singled out some
examples for which this works?
2) Yet again, almost nothing quantitative here. You can't predict
even one single ionization energy with your model.
3) You have to make some additional assumptions: that the energies
in one single "band" (a term which is not properly defined
in the page, as far as I can see) have all about the same
ionization energies - why should that be the case? And that
electrons in bands further inside have higher ionization energies
- why should that be the case?
Compare this with standard QM. Even in the very first paper,
in 1926, Schroedinger explained the ionization energy and
the excitation spectrum of hydrogen. Only shortly afterwards,
he addressed helium and the structure of the periodic table.
Reminds me of Rutherford scattering: there, too, in the very first
paper, all the results were explained quantitatively, in great detail.
The only thing you have is some very crude attempts to reproduce a very
small part of the data, and otherwise only vigorous handwavings...
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>>
>>>I have been working on an atomic model which assumes that atoms are
>>>made up of alternating series of protons and electrons.
>>
>>would benefit from this arrangement?
>
>
> which can be understood in purely classical mechanical (billiard ball
> etc.) concepts where the "why" something happens can be clearly
> observed from the mechanical structure.
You have not really answered the question. What have you *observed*
which would lead you to this hypothesis?
Theories in science are built on observations. Which observation led you
to postulate that atoms are composed of an "alternating series of
protons and electrons"?
> For example, the bonds that
> form with Oxygen are at a high angle > than 90 degrees.
Huh? Which bonds do you mean? The ones in water?
> Why doesn't it
> form a linear bond like that seen in CO2?
Because in the water molecule, there are single bonds,
whereas in the CO2 molecule, there are double bonds.
Hint: using the Schroedinger equation, we can actually
*calculate* the bonding angles.
> The Cubic Model shows that
> the avaliable bonding sites for Oxygen are at 90 degrees to each other
> and not 180 degrees as can be found in Carbon.
How does one recognize the "available bonding sites"
in your model?
BTW, above you said "> than 90 degrees"; now it's suddenly
simply "90 degrees". Make up your mind!
> It is also simple in terms of what we know about protons and electrons.
> A hydrogen atom can be thought of as nothing more than an alternating
> series of proton/electron.
And you still have not explained why neutrons, which according
to you have the same structure, behave so differently.
> A hydrogen H2 molecule would also be
> similar.
I.e. a hydrogen molecule should have a proton at one end
and an electron at the other. I.e. it should not be
symmetric.
Why has this never been observed somehow? For example,
why don't we see a dipole moment for the H2 molecule?
> The Cubic Atomic model throws in an additional binding type to
> form neutrons,
"additional binding type" explains *nothing*.
It is pure empty handwavy speculation.
I have asked you several times how a different type of
binding would explain the many difference between a H atom
and a neutron. You have not even explained *one* of the
differences up to now!
Hey, I could as well say "apples have the same inner
structure than peaches - they only look different from
the outside because their inner parts are bond differently
together". That would make equally much sense!
> but it is the logical extension of just gluing together
> hydrogen atoms. Also, if the electron is not orbiting the proton
Err, standard QM does not say that the electron orbits the nucleus.
This has been told to you many times already. When will you finally get it?
> and is in fact just sitting static on the proton,
Not possible, unless there is a repulsive force between
a proton and an electron for small distances - and something
like that has never been observed, despite decades of scattering
experiments.
> this eliminates the problem
> that one would expect an electron moving about the proton would radiate
> energy.
This problem was already solved 80 years ago by Schroedinger. You are
a little late.
> I have seen/heard/read/debated all about the various
> explanations of how an electron moving about the proton doesn't radiate
> energy and I find none of it convincing.
What have you read, specifically? Some pop science accounts,
or actual textbooks on atomic physics and/or QM?
> It usually just boils down to
> "that's how it works stupid" - which isn't much of an explanation.
If you haven't noticed: your own explanation boils down to
the same.
Question to you:
"Why do protons and electrons have hard surfaces and do not
overlap, but bind to each other in a fixed state?"
Your answer: "that's how it works stupid."
> If the electron moves about the proton, it must radiate energy plain and
> simple.
No. Only if there is a time-dependent electromagnetic
multipole moment, there has to be radiation.
> Since we observe that it doesn't, it must be static in relation
> to the proton as is assumed in the Cubic Model.
Non sequitur.
> When a electron is, in fact, allowed to freely roam about the proton,
> this means it has been ionized and is released from the atom and in
> this case, we do observe the electron giving off the expected energy.
> The energy this gives off is governed by the rules of spherical
> harmonics which (as near as I can tell) the usual QM formulas are based
> off of.
You really have almost no clue what you are talking about.
What does "spherical harmonics" mean, in your opinion?
Hint: they have almost nothing to do with the ionization energy.
> So I think that there is no contradiction between what is
> observed and predicted for QM, because what you are dealing with is the
> behavior of electrons which have been ionized and whether an atom
> contains a large nucleus (Cubic Model) or a small nucleus (Rutherford)
> doesn't matter since all charges act if they were concentrated in a
> point anyways.
Huh???
Have you ever heard of myonic atoms?
> But once you allow the atom to come back to the ground
> state, the electron mates back up with its proton in a static position
> and everything about QM observations are meaningless since you don't
> observe anything happening with an atom at ground state.
Absolute nonsense. Have you ever heard of Stern&Gerlach,
for starters?
> One thing I do not understand (and hopefully someone can clarify) is
> how you can determine the electron energy levels from the spectrum
> released by ionized atoms. It doesn't seem like the line spectra fall
> into patterns that would suggest the electron shell configuration. I
> can see how the electron shell levels can be derived directly from the
> ionization data.
Sorry, I don't understand you here. The whole paragraph looks
contradictory to me.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>>Try making use of the Ritz combination principle.
>
>
> OK, the references appear to support that there are energy levels which
> can be described n = 2,3,4... etc.
Which references?
> But how does that explain that carbon has a 1s2 2s2 2p2 electron
> arrangement?
It doesn't.
> Why do p shells hold 6 electrons?
Degenerate energy levels: same energy for 6 electrons
with different orbital angular momenta and spin.
Crack open a book on atomic physics. It's all in there.
> The spectra do not
> appear to say anything about how many electrons are in each level - or
> do they?
They tell us that there are 6 electrons with about the same
energy.
>>Are you aware of the theorem which says that no system of charges can
>>be in static equilibrium under the action of electrostatic forces
>>alone?
>
>
> Yes, you keep saying that, but this assumes that electric charges are
> infinitely small point charges.
No. It simply assumes that there are only the attractive electromagnetic
forces between the charges, but no repulsive force which would prevent
them from overlapping.
You know, like the repulsive force which is necessary in your model,
but which has never been observed, despite decades of experiments with
protons and electrons.
> My model would have to assume that
> electric charges take up finite space and would therefore act in a
> manner similar to 2 magnets coming together and certainly attracting
> magnets are a stable structure.
For the 20th time: that such a configuration of magnets is stable is
simply due to the repulsive electric force between the atoms which make
up the magnets.
Do you claim that there are no such repulsive electric forces?
Or do you claim that they have not enough effect to explain why
the magnets do not overlap?
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> I would argue that most experiments support a hypothesis, but cannot
> categorically rule out all other possiblities.
And I would agree with that. One can always come up with far-fetched
excuses for why the experimental evidence does not contradict one's own
hypothesis.
But most sensible people would not do that.
> The Rutherford
> experiment is only 1 experiment done long ago.
Err, this one experiment has been done countless times since
then, both in the original version and in far more refined
and extended versions.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
> You'd think by now we'd
> have all kinds of other ways of determining the size of the nucleus.
We have.
> We have NMR, electron tunneling microscopes, accelerator, etc. etc. etc.
Both NMR and electron tunneling microscopes have nothing to do with
determining the sizes of nuclei.
> Yet with all of this new equipment, I have yet to find a independent
> confirmation of the size of the nucleus that doesn't somehow depend on
> exactly the same scattering setup and math as Rutherford.
What's wrong with Rutherford's experimental setup and/or math?
> I would
> challenge you to find any experiment to determine the size of the
> nucleus that doesn't involve scattering, but uses an entirely different
> method of determing the size.
Myonic atoms.
And, IIRC, even in normal "electronic" atoms, one can see
an effect of the finite nuclear size on electron levels.
E.g. one can measure nuclear quadrupoles.
> For example, if we designed a microscope
> capable of visually resolving something as small as a proton
> and an electron and we directly observed the physical size of the
> nucleus, this would be independent confirmation of Rutherford.
Thanks for showing that you have no clue of optics. Read up
on "optical resolution".
BTW: microscopes use essentially *also* scattering - the scattering
of photons!!!
> Perhaps we could
> make a tunneling microscope so precise that we could direclty measure
> the radius of the nucleus in comparison to the overall size of the
> atom.
So you also have no clue of how tunneling microscopes work.
> As it stands, we are shooting bullets into a dark room and making
> an eduated guess as to what is in the room.
Indeed.
Hint: microscopes do essentially the same thing.
> This is highly indirect
Not "highly". Only a tiny bit more indirect than microscopes.
> and I don't find it particularly convincing.
That's your problem. Everyone who has actually studied how
this works, and has looked at the evidence, *is* convinced.
Essentially you are using an argument from incredulity, based
on total ignorance.
> It is good science to
> independently confirm things in as many ways as possible.
Agreed.
> I don't think
> this has been done in the case of the size of the nucleus, so this
> leaves the door open to other models.
That you think so only shows your ignorance.
Bye,
Bjoern
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> it depends if you are a real scintist or a clown!!
> (a clown that his real intenstion is to sabotage some advance-
> in that case there is another name rather just a clown .....!!)
> antway if the secondposibility is the righ tone
> people will bypass you and brong experimental evidence for the shell
> structure of
You just said you didn't need the data.
Franz Heymann
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1107757887.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Gisse
> it seems that you are a bit slow
> because until now you didnt got me properly
> so i will expain it for you and others (once agine!)
> i dont need the evidence that 6 electron shells in Lead and
others -
> is ......
> A FAIRY TALE !!!
> i just keep and ask it in order that ---------
-------------you continue in your quest to become the worlds worst
bore?
For how many years have you been postng to this ng?
During that time even a half wit could have learnt to write reasonable
English.
Franz
PD
Y.Porat wrote:
> Gisse
> are you able to grasp how important is that issue??
> if so simple
> just bring the experimentlal evidence!!!
> i suspect that no one before bothered to ask my above question!!
And you would be wrong. The question HAS been asked before, and
answered, and published. You just won't look it up.
PD
> --------------
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------
Y.Porat
i suspect you either dont know waht you are talking about
or else you are cheting
and that is far more worse
so once again:
where is the experimetal evidence for
6 elctron shells of lead
in which they are built the folowing way:
got it MrPD i would like to see the exct folowing structure evidence:
2 8 16 32 18 4
or wahtever is the alleged exact figures
no general hand waving and no cheting just that structure
one by one of its componenets
first the 2
than the 8
than the 32
than the 18
etc etc
got it Mr hand waver ??
and if you dont have it
*dont cheat*
and say the truth as it is in facts.
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
PD
Photoionisation process in the 5d, 6s and 6p shells of atomic lead and
the 4d shell of atomic tin H Derenbach, H Kossmann, R Malutzki and V
Schmidt Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics Vol. 17
Issue 14 Article 009 1984-07-28
JETP Letters -- May 5, 1976 -- Volume 23, Issue 9, pp. 488-491
Intensity of mesic x-ray transitions in lead, thorium, and uranium
V. S. Buttsev, Z. Ganzorig, V. Kozokar, T. Krogulski, H.-G. Ortlepp, S.
M. Polikanov, B. M. Sabirov, W. D. Fromm, U. Schmidt, and D. Chulthem ,
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research
Read them.
Y.Porat
i was asking about 4 elctrons in the shell no 6
> the 4d shell of atomic tin H Derenbach, H Kossmann, R Malutzki and V
18 electrons in the shell no 5
---------------------
> Schmidt Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics Vol. 17
> Issue 14 Article 009 1984-07-28
>
> JETP Letters -- May 5, 1976 -- Volume 23, Issue 9, pp. 488-491
> Intensity of mesic x-ray transitions in lead, thorium, and uranium
--------------
32 electrons in the shell No 3
-----------------
> V. S. Buttsev, Z. Ganzorig, V. Kozokar, T. Krogulski, H.-G. Ortlepp,
S.
> M. Polikanov, B. M. Sabirov, W. D. Fromm, U. Schmidt, and D. Chulthem
,
> Joint Institute for Nuclear Research
* electrons in shell No 2
>
> Read them.
-------------
2 electron shells
in shell No 1
do they suply that information
one by one to each electron 'personally'
ie how can you tellfor instance that it is
one of the 18 electrons of shell say no 4
and not one of say 12 electrons.
2 i dont have any of those books
or any access to them
so may be someone else can suply the bottom lines-
*in an honest *responsible * way*
or may be you just count on my lack of posibility
to access those books.
3 i asume that all that informatin is experimental data
and not 'theorethic data. or only partiially
or superficially
answering my question
TIA
Y.Porat
ps PD thank you even for that partial information you brought
yet not at all sure thaty you realy answerd my question
as it was presented above in the former articles.
as for now i have not the tools to judge it
unless you bring it in detail
----------------
frank...@yahoo.com
Y.Porat wrote:
i would like to see the exct folowing structure evidence:
>
> 2 8 16 32 18 4
> or wahtever is the alleged exact figures
Porat, let's see if I can provide the experimental evidence that you
are asking for. Now, I'm no fan of electron shell theory. Like you,
I had doubts about how the shell theory was supported experimentally.
However, the groupings of electrons by energy level can be read off
directly from the ionization data. Now this doesn't mean that the
electrons are in the shells described by electron shell theory. It
just means that the force holding the electrons to the atom fall
into specifc repeating energy patterns. I had to change my cubic
atomic model to accomodate these patterns.
Now, to get to the specifics of proving that the electron shells
have been confirmed, I have studied the ionization data for Krypton.
This data comes from www.webelements.com. See:
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Kr/ionz.html
The accepted electron configuration comes from:
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Kr/econ.html
This is a 2.8.18.8 shell configuration. Each of the levels is
further subdivided into s shells which contain 2 electrons, p
shells which contain 6 electrons, d shells which contain 10
electrons. This is fully described in standard notation as:
[1s2] [2s2 2p6] [3s2 3p6 3d10] [4s2 4p6]
In this terminology:
The first number represents the energy level
The second letter represents the shell
The third number indicates the number of electrons in the shell.
The outermost electrons are towards the right, so one would
expect that the outside of Krypton has an energy level of 4
and the outermost group of electrons would fall into a group
of 6 and then 2 electrons with about the same relative energy
level.
Now, if you carefully examine the ionization chart, you can read
this shell pattern directly from the chart. Starting from the
left of the chart, you can see the energy levels for the first
6 electrons gradually rising. You would expect that as you ionize
electrons, it takes more energy to ionize subsequent electrons
since the force created by the protons remains constant. But we
see that the difference for the ionization energy is about equal
for the first 6 electrons. Then we see a somewhat subtle but
definite jump in the energy required for the 7th electron. This
forms a group of 2 electrons for the 7th and 8th electron. Then
we see a very large jump going to the 9th electron. We then see
a group of 10 electrons. If you are keeping track, this precisely
corresponds to the predicted electron shell levels of 6 (4p6),
2 (4s2), and 10 (3d10).
The chart of the ionization energy differences at:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/atmpics2.html
accentuates the differences in the energy level and makes it
pretty clear that the electron shell energy levels are obeyed.
Once again, I am no fan of electron shell theory, but this data
forced me to completely redo my cubic atomic model to explain this
data. I believe that this was a step in the right direction since
it produced a more regular geometric pattern than in my previous
model.
I think it is significant that I was able to find a pattern
that matched since it is not at all obvious that any pattern would
work. If I couldn't find any pattern to match the ionization data,
that would have been a serious problem. But since I did find a
suitible pattern, the cubic model passes this critical test.
I hope that this is enough proof that you can see with your own
eyes, that at least the groupings of the electron shell theory
are well supported. This doesn't go up to lead and the data beyond
Krypton is pretty spotty, but krypton is a fairly large atom and I
didn't see any indications that the shell groupings wouldn't hold
out further out in the elements.
Your model indicates that Iron (which is smaller than Kypton)
already exhibits the rectangular structure. I do not see how
this structure could exhibit the observed ionization pattern.
This should not be confused with matching up 'spectra' which are
the wavelengths of light given off by an ionzied atom. According
to the other posts, spectra do no indicate the number and type
of electrons in each shell, but the actual ionization energy does.
As a public service, I have posted the material I received from
Porat on my web site at:
Y.Porat
my question is not about light elements like even Krypton
which migh tbe right
my qiestion is about *the heavy elements*
so my question remeines unanswerd it is
please give us experimental evidece
(experimantal evidence is not fronm a book tha tmade a jump to
comclusions
from ligh tto heavy elements
that 'jump of conclusion is actually the core of my skepticism
not to mentionmore othe r evidence
so to be very specifc and leave no room for hand waiving
i was asking for instnce ;
bring experinmental evidenc for
32 electrons in a single shell (i think No 4) of a heavy element lkike
say Lead??!1
anotherr close element to Lead will also be fine!!
the uqestion is not only to you but to any great scince institute!!
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Y.Porat wrote:
> i would like to see the exct folowing structure evidence:
>
>>2 8 16 32 18 4
>>or wahtever is the alleged exact figures
>
>
> Porat, let's see if I can provide the experimental evidence that you
> are asking for. Now, I'm no fan of electron shell theory. Like you,
> I had doubts about how the shell theory was supported experimentally.
> However, the groupings of electrons by energy level can be read off
> directly from the ionization data. Now this doesn't mean that the
> electrons are in the shells described by electron shell theory.
What does, in your opinion, "electron shell theory" mean?
What is, in your opinion, a "shell" in that theory?
What does it, in your opinion, mean when one says that
"an electron is in that shell"?
> It just means that the force holding the electrons to the atom fall
> into specifc repeating energy patterns.
That sentence was rather meaningless babble.
[snip]
> [1s2] [2s2 2p6] [3s2 3p6 3d10] [4s2 4p6]
>
> In this terminology:
> The first number represents the energy level
> The second letter represents the shell
Already wrong. It represents the angular momentum
(of the sub-orbital). At best, you could say that it
represents the "sub-shell". But even that would only be
vaguely right.
> The third number indicates the number of electrons in the shell.
In the sub-orbital.
[snip]
> Once again, I am no fan of electron shell theory,
Perhaps you should learn it first?
BTW: I know of no actual physicists or chemists who
even uses the term "shell theory" in his work. I think
this is just a term used sometimes in popular science
and maybe in high school.
[snip]
> I think it is significant that I was able to find a pattern
> that matched since it is not at all obvious that any pattern would
> work.
You have many degrees of freedom to work with. After all,
we are talking about arrangements of cubes in 3D space here.
There *are* indeed many possibilities to do that.
Please notice that essentially *every* crank has found ways
to reproduce at least *some* of the data accurately. Porat has
e.g. reproduced the atomic masses quite accurately (although he
continues to ignore my argument that the masses of the electrons
are not negligible - BTW, I fully expect that he will answer this
with one of his usual incoherent, insane rants...) and has also
achieved some other (approximately!) accurate descriptions.
Or take the people from Black Light Power...
So, reproducing *some* of the data, even if accurate to,
say, 1%, is not a sign that you are on the right track. *Lots*
of people have already achieved that - and their models are
totally different from yours...
You would convince people far more if you concentrated first
on some "key experiments" which led to the development of the
physics we have today (Rutherford scattering, the double-slit
experiment, the Stern-Gerlach experiment etc.), and explained
*those* with *very* good accuracy, *quantitatively*.
> If I couldn't find any pattern to match the ionization data,
> that would have been a serious problem. But since I did find a
> suitible pattern, the cubic model passes this critical test.
The test wasn't very critical.
> I hope that this is enough proof that you can see with your own
> eyes, that at least the groupings of the electron shell theory
> are well supported.
You hope wrong. Porat is ineducable.
[snip]
> Your model indicates that Iron (which is smaller than Kypton)
> already exhibits the rectangular structure. I do not see how
> this structure could exhibit the observed ionization pattern.
Rectangular structure? Do you mean his "rectangular tube"?
Please note that this is actually an octogonal tube, although
he does not say that anywhere. (and expect yet another incoherent,
insane rant from Porat in reply to this)
[snip]
> As a public service, I have posted the material I received from
> Porat on my web site at:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/Y.Porat-model2.pdf
Uh oh. He will soon begin to cry about copyright...
Bye,
Bjoern
Y.Porat
>
> So, reproducing *some* of the data, even if accurate to,
> say, 1%, is not a sign that you are on the right track. *Lots*
> of people have already achieved that - and their models are
> totally different from yours...
>
>
> You would convince people far more if you concentrated first
> on some "key experiments" which led to the development of the
> physics we have today (Rutherford scattering, the double-slit
> experiment, the Stern-Gerlach experiment etc.), and explained
> *those* with *very* good accuracy, *quantitatively*
--------------
since youmenton my name and cheat i will respond
but dont answer mw directly
i wahnt you as far as possible
becuae it is better for my blood pressure........
the man is an expert of hand waving even woth other hands.
--------------
>
>
> > If I couldn't find any pattern to match the ionization data,
> > that would have been a serious problem. But since I did find a
> > suitible pattern, the cubic model passes this critical test.
>
> The test wasn't very critical.
>
>
> > I hope that this is enough proof that you can see with your own
> > eyes, that at least the groupings of the electron shell theory
> > are well supported.
-----------
parrot
pleas egiveus experiental evidence od the electron shell
(or group of subshells of the shell No 4
having 32 electrons in it
no one more no one less!!!!!
-------------
>
> You hope wrong. Porat is ineducable.
what a cheack of a parrot that can understans nothing than
what his parrot teacgers taufgt him
and the only inovation he could produce is the Fretz invention
yes i am ineducable about the Fertz
-----------------
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > Your model indicates that Iron (which is smaller than Kypton)
> > already exhibits the rectangular structure. I do not see how
> > this structure could exhibit the observed ionization pattern.
>
> Rectangular structure? Do you mean his "rectangular tube"?
> Please note that this is actually an octogonal tube, although
> he does not say that anywhere. (and expect yet another incoherent,
> insane rant from Porat in reply to this)
-----------
the ..... i will save the ionsult
he first heared about that 'retangular pipe from my book
and now he is educating mwe about what that tube is ......
it is realy an octahedral tube but wha tthe parrot didnt get is
that what is actualy relevant to thje building of the nuc
is only four sides of that octahedral tube
the magic figure 8 is because .......
that reatangular oipe has listen carefully:
*it ha two poles!! ij each one 4 free edges so together
in both poles 8 connectioons
and the youg crook whats to teach me about it !!!
(he whant to teach the father how to produce children .......)
----------
----------------
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > As a public service, I have posted the material I received from
> > Porat on my web site at:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/Y.Porat-model2.pdf
thank you afranki
anyway i would expect that you ask my permitionbefore publishing it
isnt it so ??
amyway it is not against my interset because i myself would do it
(just the abstraxct that you presented
it is not the whole book or model
btw i would like that Frantz hymann Angelo Mike etc
lately Eric Bazan asked me to show him something
so Eric did you by chnce got it here ??
if yess please let me know
and others would give a glips in it
because generally speaking he had no clue about what i am talking
i have no illution that he will undwerstnd it and see how it
issubstantiated
but just a general idea about what it is ingeneral..
btw franki since you started with it
i would ask your service to enable me to quots that abstract
to anyone i will be interested
can you ddo that service to me ?
TIA
-----------------
>
> Uh oh. He will soon begin to cry about copyright...
see above that is only an abstract of my book and still he should ask
my permition but i let it go as is
and try to extract the best of the existing data ....
--------------
now about the supid repetativeclaim of Bjoern that i disnt
iclude the electrons mass in my mass calculation!
he probably didn hear about the story about a skecraw that was built
somewhere in wonderland:
in that land people were biliding a scarcrow to fight birds
bu tthan they for got why they built it
got a fright nowing waht it is and thjan declared war
on the scarcrow !!! asa a deavil
--------
first that parrot is inventing 32 electrons in a shell
and then demands from me to prove tha there are 32 electrons there
and even calculate their mass!! in the general mass calculations .
but simes that God does not think so and helps me
and i am doing well withjnot so many electrons!!!
so sory that i succeded in it !!!
anyway may be those elcron mass is already in my binding energy loses
or whasoever
but the bottomline is
it works wondefully including chmistrry verification and
nuclear ones
and some of those unprecedents predictions are starting to
be vwerfied even in this very thread !!!!
-------------
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Franz Heymann
<frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108014649....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Now this doesn't mean that the
> electrons are in the shells described by electron shell theory. It
> just means that the force holding the electrons to the atom fall
> into specifc repeating energy patterns.
I would have tought that if "the force holding the electrons to the
atom fall
into specifc repeating energy patterns" you could have put on a pair
of gloves to fish out the force and put it back on the shelf where it
came from.
[snip]
--
Franz
The designers of fool proof equipment often forget the ingenuity of
fools
Y.Porat
instead of abfuscating physics unanswered question
by throwing red harrings about my Engish
just answer the folowing question:
please bring experimantal eveidece that
electron shell No 4 has in it 32 electrons
ps
if this article is such a bad English -to such extent that you cant
understand my above question
please let us know and we will understand at last
why cant you answer it by physics documentation.
(ie it is my English fault (:-)
ps do you think that you can fool the whole world forever ??
Y.Porat
------------------
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> Fratz
> instead of abfuscating physics unanswered question
> by throwing red harrings about my Engish
You obsfucate your already-muddled theories with your shitty English.
I grant LOTS of leeway to people who do not speak English as their
primary language, because hey - English is hard! You on the other hand,
have no desire to learn to fix your broken English so I have no desire
to hold back when you make mistake after mistake.
> just answer the folowing question:
> please bring experimantal eveidece that
> electron shell No 4 has in it 32 electrons
Why ask a question you aren't interesting in seeing the answer to?
"i dont need the evidence that 6 electron shells in Lead and others -
is ...... "
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ebf18f2b296429c0
You have already decided what you believe, nothing we can say can
change that fact.
> ps
> if this article is such a bad English -to such extent that you
cant
> understand my above question
> please let us know and we will understand at last
> why cant you answer it by physics documentation.
> (ie it is my English fault (:-)
> ps do you think that you can fool the whole world forever ??
I don't see how you can make yourself believe that instead of you who
is wrong, it is the ENTIRE WORLD. You appear to leave no room in your
mind for you being wrong, simply because you spent years on your
thoery.
>
> Y.Porat
> ------------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> I grant LOTS of leeway to people who do not speak English as their
> primary language, because hey - English is hard!
Do you really think so? I speak German as my native language,
English on Usenet and in my research work, and also can talk
a bit French - and among these three languages, I would say
that English is by far the most easy one.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Y.Porat
btw eric
di dyou already saw my pdf file??
2 this is a scince phycics group not a leterture ng
not a religion ng
now one has fo rgranted beleive anything
anything is always bound to reassement
skepticism is the core and crux of the advance in physics
3 untill now you talked a lot but didnt provide the simplest
evidence that i asked for
to bring evidence for 32 electrions in shell No 4
of heavy element!!
if it is so simple and obvious and handy than
what s the problem just 'shoot it'
(without waking around the bush)
acually many people saw my question and no one could anser it
do you kno why ???
it is shokingly estonishing that no one ever botherd
to check that paradigma!!
so ???
'if you have to shoot shoot dont talk '
quote fronm a known western (:-)
and once you even piped into my model you understand
why it is that 32 electron in
an electron shell No 4 will never be found !!!
(provided you start to understand it
it is not instantly that you can understand it
and start to swim in it extracting conviction
and conclusions .
you dont beleive ???
common show that i am wrong by evidence
not by smatguying and walking around the bush!1
another btw
just lately there are4 very good indications
that unprecedentd predictions of mine are confirmed
jus see and folow the thread:
'isotop decay chains'
and that is only he tip of the iceberg of evidence
in favour of my model!!
----------
btw
just supose i am right
is it a big shock to the existing theories ???
may be we can adjust the existing theories
to that findings as well??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
>
> >
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------------
Franz Heymann
I know that you are asking that question simply because you think it
gives you a rhetorical advantage. However, if you are *really*
interested in learning about disentangling the degeneracies of the
higher levels of large atoms, I give you the following guide for
reading matter:
Evidence for the details of the shell structure usually comes from a
study of the levels as perturbed by the application of a magnetic
field to the excited atoms in order to break the degeneracy.
You are very welcome to investigate the
literature on the subject in a book on atomic physics.
To prepare you for that task, it is almost obligatory to first get
under your belt the book
"Angular momentum" by Brink and Satchler
Franz
Eric Gisse
Eh, really? Thats awesome!
I hear almost nothing but horror stories about English when people who
don't have it as a native language try to pick it up...All the rules
and exceptions to the rules and so on and so forth...
>
> [snip]
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
Eric Gisse
Why ask for what you do not wish to see? You already believe that the
current model of the atom is a fairy tale...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ebf18f2b296429c0
Y.Porat
all what you sayed is perfectly fitting a theory
in which
trhe electron shell No 4 has .-------
twelve and a half electrons in that shell
di dyou got what i mean???
hope so
i hope you know the difference between scince and
hand waving and mumbling
do you know why???
because had it been the other way (in case* I * would substantiate my
model on arguments as you presented
you would tell me --- exactly what i told you just now !!!
just rry to be honest and objective and unbiased.
no need for a lot of words!!!
what i sayed is presently exactly the existing situation
of the shell model of electrons for heavy atoms
in which thwere is 32 electrons in the shell No 4
-----------------
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> no need for a lot of words!!!
That's right.
--
One Galileo in 2000 years is enough. Pope Pius XII
Franz
Y.Porat
so now is the third millenium .....
so am i galileo or may be Pius?? (:-)
anyway Frantz try to be serious
because if you try to beleive me we are dealing with very impotant
and meaninful issues and once you are pulling it dfown to a joke
mayh be you are causing an unjustified harm!!
2
i am realy intersted to know if there is real experimental evidence
for the elctron shell model while for me
32 electrons for shell No 4 is an important test case!
3
my claim against that shell mosdel is only for heavy atoms
for light once i know it works
but still that 'works' is very misleading because it is only a part of
the 'story'
and 'part' is in many cases close to a lie.!
especially if all people consider that partial suceess as
'it is all well known ' and nothing to examine anymore-
'we can
lie on the laurals and fall asleep'.
-------------
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>>Eric Gisse wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>>I grant LOTS of leeway to people who do not speak English as their
>>>primary language, because hey - English is hard!
>>
>>Do you really think so? I speak German as my native language,
>>English on Usenet and in my research work, and also can talk
>>a bit French - and among these three languages, I would say
>>that English is by far the most easy one.
>>
>
>
> Eh, really? Thats awesome!
>
> I hear almost nothing but horror stories about English when people who
> don't have it as a native language try to pick it up...
Well, then what would you consider to be an easy language?
> All the rules
> and exceptions to the rules and so on and so forth...
German has *far* more rules and exceptions to the rules, I can
tell you... Even French has more, I think.
A nice example: English has only one definite article, "the".
German has first three different for masculine, feminine
and neuter and then also different forms for nominative, genitive,
dative, and accusative ("der", "die", "das"; "des", "der"
"des"; "dem", "der", "dem"; "den", "die", "das"). And the nouns have
also to be changed accordingly in many cases...
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> the written page.
Well, we were talking here mainly about writing and reading English or
German (from the context), not about speaking it.
> The rules of pronunciation are virtually completely consistent,
There are also some strange exceptions - but only a few, right.
> and there are fewer homonyms.
Not sure about that. We have a *lot* of homonyms in German. We even
have a children's game based on the use of homonyms.
> English suffers from its mongrel ancestry, as evidenced by:
> cough/rough/through/though/bough/hiccough. Note to mention
> bow/cow, sew/few, go/to, roll/doll, shoulder/should, beau/beauty,
> road/broad, dove/move/love, toe/shoe, bone/done/gone, comb/bomb/tomb.
All about pronunciation, apparently. See above.
Bye,
Bjoern
PD
German is much, much easier to pronounce, especially when reading from
the written page. The rules of pronunciation are virtually completely
consistent, and there are fewer homonyms. English suffers from its
mongrel ancestry, as evidenced by:
cough/rough/through/though/bough/hiccough. Note to mention
bow/cow, sew/few, go/to, roll/doll, shoulder/should, beau/beauty,
road/broad, dove/move/love, toe/shoe, bone/done/gone, comb/bomb/tomb.
PD
Y.Porat
stop obfuscating this thread!!
you ar e not scintists you are damn crooks!
my question is still on:
where is the experimantal evidence of
32 electrons in shell No 4??
if you cant do it lets start with
18 or 16 (God knows) for shell No 3 (and then we go further to the 32.)
if you dont have it say we dont have it !!!
and dont spread smelly red herrings all around
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Franz Heymann
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:cupuce$ekk$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> >
> >>Eric Gisse wrote:
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I grant LOTS of leeway to people who do not speak English as
their
> >>>primary language, because hey - English is hard!
> >>
> >>Do you really think so? I speak German as my native language,
> >>English on Usenet and in my research work, and also can talk
> >>a bit French - and among these three languages, I would say
> >>that English is by far the most easy one.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Eh, really? Thats awesome!
> >
> > I hear almost nothing but horror stories about English when people
who
> > don't have it as a native language try to pick it up...
>
> Well, then what would you consider to be an easy language?
Afrikaans. It has no baggage of unessential grammar. For example, no
gender, no strong verbs, totally phonetic spelling, standardised
plurals, only 22 letters in the alphabet, etc., etc.
[snip]
Franz
Franz Heymann
"PD" <pdr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108400549.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The following is a valid English sentence, once two commas and two
full stops have been placed correctly:
John where Jack had had had had had had had had had had had more
favour with the examiner
Franz
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> Crooks
> stop obfuscating this thread!!
> you ar e not scintists you are damn crooks!
MEEE!
MEEE!
PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEE!
>
> my question is still on:
> where is the experimantal evidence of
> 32 electrons in shell No 4??
Get off your fucking ass and find it for yourself.
If I go to the library and ask the same question of you, I will be
politely shrugged off. If I go to the chem department and ask the same
question, I will get an answer - but only if I ask very nicely. Why
don't you email a competent chemist? Uncle Al most likely hates you,
but sci.chem has Richard Schultz who is a professor in Israel, your
territory. You won't even have to communicate with broken English!
>
> if you cant do it lets start with
> 18 or 16 (God knows) for shell No 3 (and then we go further to the
32.)
DO MY RESEARCH FOR MEEEEEE!
>
> if you dont have it say we dont have it !!!
> and dont spread smelly red herrings all around
I WON'T ACCEPT ANYTHING BUT YOU DOING YOUR RESEARCH FOR MEEEEE!
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------------------
Uncle Al
>
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Crooks
> > stop obfuscating this thread!!
> > you ar e not scintists you are damn crooks!
>
> MEEE!
>
> MEEE!
>
> PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEE!
>
> >
> > my question is still on:
> > where is the experimantal evidence of
> > 32 electrons in shell No 4??
>
> Get off your fucking ass and find it for yourself.
>
> If I go to the library and ask the same question of you, I will be
> politely shrugged off. If I go to the chem department and ask the same
> question, I will get an answer - but only if I ask very nicely. Why
> don't you email a competent chemist? Uncle Al most likely hates you,
> but sci.chem has Richard Schultz who is a professor in Israel, your
> territory. You won't even have to communicate with broken English!
Since he is self-admittedly brilliant in his cul de sac of Douglas
area of expertise, Richard Schultz is definitely the proper foil for
idiot Porat - faculty inorganiker and bitter about a stalled career.
(Schultz, a Berzerkeley graduate, would be more interesting personally
and professionally if he intellectually wore boxers instead of
too-tight tidy-whities.)
<http://www.biu.ac.il/ESC/ch/faculty/schultz/schulint.html>
Go for it, Porat. Verify from a neutral external source that you are
of less significance than fly upchuck on a particularly inferior
semi-solid dog turd.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Y.Porat
there were time that had some respect for you
i though that you are a disturbed rude ashole but though that at least
you know something and thr most important- that you speak only about
things
*you realy know*
yet now that you fell into 'my yard' ie in that area which i am a
leader of
i realisw about how much a croock you are
you sleak pompously about things you are adamn ignorant
with the pose you are a super scintist
while in real you are a poor croock!!
not to speak about your mental condition which more than likely
it is a direct result of you senility, the piles of pills you take etc
no boubt you are mentally disturbed.
now just to show you how low and inferiour you are in 'my yard' of
expertise
just have a look in my abatract:
http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
btw the tribute to Linus paulling is because he was the second person
who told me that :
'God didnt play the dice'
and inferiour people like you that play the crook.
so piss of to your retirment home and dont sabotage
dont try to avoid advace because:
you can cheat one person forever
you can cheat everybody just once
but you (and fucken Pisse) cannot cheat everybody - *forever*
got it old fucker and old pisser just go on piss your own pants.
keep well and dont forget to take your pills
all of them with all their various coulers (like the coulers of the
quarks
and virtual particles that has no mass)
and dont mix them together with your old smelly worth for nothing-
balles
and get of my back of else you are going to get it because i am the
one who is able to
take of the mask of your ugly disturbed face..
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Franz Heymann
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cur7og$4em$4...@sparta.btinternet.com...
I can't count. 2 Sentences, actually.
Franz
Y.Porat
so count 32 electrons in shell No 4
or any shell you wish
but a whole shell not bits and pieces gathered to gether
acording to the invetors immagination.
you can recrute for that task
the biggest scince intitutes of this universe.
and tell Mr Eric pisse not to send me to any library
because there is no such information in any library
the same as
you cant find coconuts at the north pole!!
---------------------
Good luck
Y.Porat
--------------------------
ps its more than time for some honesty
-----------------------------------------
Y.Porat
bitte gefinen si tzwei unt dreisish electronen in ein eintzige ......
...
please God help me i got entanled !!!!!! (:-)
it seems that i fell into the wrong ng because this is
a a German literature ng.
if not God may be the German speakers will help me to
type it correctly
2
to find 32 electrons in shell No 4
TIA
Y.Porat (an ignorant in German language and not only in that .....(:-))
(yet the others are even bigger ignorants and obfuscators (which i am
not )
----------------------------------------
PD
But I've yet to learn the Afrikaans word for "butterfly".
PD
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> message news:cupuce$ekk$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
[snip]
>>Well, then what would you consider to be an easy language?
>
>
> Afrikaans. It has no baggage of unessential grammar. For example, no
> gender, no strong verbs, totally phonetic spelling, standardised
> plurals, only 22 letters in the alphabet, etc., etc.
Great! Now, how can we convince the international scientific community
to use this as the official language of science, instead of English? ;-)
Bye,
Bjoern
Franz Heymann
Not a cat in hell's chance.
Whether we like it or not, English is established.
Franz Heymann
There is actually a redundancy:
Vlinder or skoelapper.
The former is used more commonly.
Y.Porat
no matter in German in Africans in Zulu
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------
frank...@yahoo.com
> frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Morituri-|-Max wrote:
> >
> >>frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>I have been working on an atomic model which assumes that atoms
are
> >>>made up of alternating series of protons and electrons.
> >>
> >>Why do you arbitrarily assume this? What have you observed that
> >>would benefit from this arrangement?
> >
> >
> > The benefit is simplicity. I am working towards a model of the atom
> > which can be understood in purely classical mechanical (billiard
ball
> > etc.) concepts where the "why" something happens can be clearly
> > observed from the mechanical structure.
>
> You have not really answered the question. What have you *observed*
> which would lead you to this hypothesis?
>
> Theories in science are built on observations. Which observation led
you
> to postulate that atoms are composed of an "alternating series of
> protons and electrons"?
>
The most simple and fundamental of observations that a proton is
attracted to an electron. If these 2 types of particles were to be put
next to each other, it is intuitive that they would stick together like
2 magnets. The most logical array that produces the most neutral and
low energy arrangement would be a alternating array.
Now you say that this is not a stable arrangement because I have not
explained what is the force that keeps the electron and proton separate
like how magnets are repelled by their electrically charged outer
surfaces. I would argue that there actually is no "force" separating
the proton and electron. Rather, that the reason why they do not merge
into exactly the same place in space is due to the fundamental property
of space that objects which fill space cannot both occupy the same
space at the same time. I think this is a rather intuitively obvious
statement that 2 objects cannot occupy the
same place in space. So if you have 2 billiard balls and you push them
together, you would argue that the negative replusion of the atoms is
what is keeping the balls from merging into each other. I would argue
that there is no such replusion going on. You could put 2 billiard
balls right next to each other (touching at the atomic level) and
measure zero repulsive force between the 2. If there were such a
repusive force keeping the balls apart, then you'd might think that
there would be a point where if you applied enough force, this could be
overcome and the surfaces would merge past each other. But this doesn't
happen, the ball would rather shatter than merge. I would
argue that protons and electrons are as "hard" as a billiard ball even
at the atomic level. Now you can choose not to believe something that
can be intuitively demonstrated at macroscopic level, but I think it
far more likely than believing something which cannot be demonstrated
at the macroscopic level. My goals are to explain everything in terms
which can be demonstrated at a macroscopic level. The concept that 2
particles of finite size cannot occupy the same space no matter what
the attracting force between them is
something that should be intuitively obvious to the most causal
observer.
>
> > For example, the bonds that
> > form with Oxygen are at a high angle > than 90 degrees.
>
> Huh? Which bonds do you mean? The ones in water?
I would be referring to most compounds of oxygen which contain 2 other
atoms like water. Based on information in www.webelements.com, these
types of compounds form bonds in the vicinity of 90 degrees (like
around 107).
>
>
> > Why doesn't it
> > form a linear bond like that seen in CO2?
>
> Because in the water molecule, there are single bonds,
> whereas in the CO2 molecule, there are double bonds.
I'm not sure if CO2 forms double bonds - I would presume single bonds
based on lewis-dot diagrams. But even if it did, why would a double
bond indicate a linear bond?
>
> Hint: using the Schroedinger equation, we can actually
> *calculate* the bonding angles.
>
Do you have any web references on this?
>
>
> > The Cubic Model shows that
> > the avaliable bonding sites for Oxygen are at 90 degrees to each
other
> > and not 180 degrees as can be found in Carbon.
>
> How does one recognize the "available bonding sites"
> in your model?
>
Bonding sites are identified as those parts of the atom which cannot be
part of an alpha particle (or helium). For example Lithium can be
though
of being made out of a helium and a deturium atom. The deuturium cannot
be part of a second helium particle, so it is avaliable for bonding.
> BTW, above you said "> than 90 degrees"; now it's suddenly
> simply "90 degrees". Make up your mind!
>
The actual bond angle is a product of angle formed by the atom (90
degrees) and the amount of repulsion between the attached atoms. The
repulsion between the attached atoms (like hydrogen in water), do push
the bond further apart than 90 degrees.
>
>
> > It is also simple in terms of what we know about protons and
electrons.
> > A hydrogen atom can be thought of as nothing more than an
alternating
> > series of proton/electron.
>
> And you still have not explained why neutrons, which according
> to you have the same structure, behave so differently.
>
This is correct. The fundamental difference bewteen hydrogen atoms,
neutrons
and neutrinos must still be postulated.
>
> > A hydrogen H2 molecule would also be
> > similar.
>
> I.e. a hydrogen molecule should have a proton at one end
> and an electron at the other. I.e. it should not be
> symmetric.
>
> Why has this never been observed somehow? For example,
> why don't we see a dipole moment for the H2 molecule?
>
I would predict that an H2 molecule lines up as an alternating array
and everything cancels each other out.
I haven't been able to find any data for the dipole moment for a
solitary H atom, but you can see that the magnetic moment is
quite large, indicating that this may not be a symettric
arrangment.
>
> > The Cubic Atomic model throws in an additional binding type to
> > form neutrons,
>
> "additional binding type" explains *nothing*.
>
> It is pure empty handwavy speculation.
>
> I have asked you several times how a different type of
> binding would explain the many difference between a H atom
> and a neutron. You have not even explained *one* of the
> differences up to now!
>
We can't adequately describe what gravity is either, but it
doesn't stop us from doing useful work by only knowing "how"
it works. While it would be better to be able to explain these with
precision, such differences do not prevent the further
development of the cubic theory while these properties
remain postulated.
>
> Hey, I could as well say "apples have the same inner
> structure than peaches - they only look different from
> the outside because their inner parts are bond differently
> together". That would make equally much sense!
>
>
> > but it is the logical extension of just gluing together
> > hydrogen atoms. Also, if the electron is not orbiting the proton
>
> Err, standard QM does not say that the electron orbits the nucleus.
> This has been told to you many times already. When will you finally
get it?
>
I was referring to the old problem which QM was supposed to solve by
saying we don't know what the electron is really doing.
>
> > and is in fact just sitting static on the proton,
>
> Not possible, unless there is a repulsive force between
> a proton and an electron for small distances - and something
> like that has never been observed, despite decades of scattering
> experiments.
As I explained above, there is NO repulsive force. This arrangement
occurs as a fundamental principle of solid objects in space.
>
>
> > this eliminates the problem
> > that one would expect an electron moving about the proton would
radiate
> > energy.
>
> This problem was already solved 80 years ago by Schroedinger. You are
> a little late.
>
By saying we cannot describe the motion of the electron about the
nucleus
hardly seems to be an answer to me.
>
> > I have seen/heard/read/debated all about the various
> > explanations of how an electron moving about the proton doesn't
radiate
> > energy and I find none of it convincing.
>
> What have you read, specifically? Some pop science accounts,
> or actual textbooks on atomic physics and/or QM?
>
>
> > It usually just boils down to
> > "that's how it works stupid" - which isn't much of an explanation.
>
> If you haven't noticed: your own explanation boils down to
> the same.
>
> Question to you:
> "Why do protons and electrons have hard surfaces and do not
> overlap, but bind to each other in a fixed state?"
> Your answer: "that's how it works stupid."
My answer, look at what you see in the macroscopic world, apply that to
the atomic world. Doesn't seem like too much of a leap whereas QM would
require to to completely ignore the macroscopic world. There is a
difference.
>
>
> > If the electron moves about the proton, it must radiate energy
plain and
> > simple.
>
> No. Only if there is a time-dependent electromagnetic
> multipole moment, there has to be radiation.
>
>
> > Since we observe that it doesn't, it must be static in relation
> > to the proton as is assumed in the Cubic Model.
>
> Non sequitur.
Hardly, if you cannot describe the motion of the electron with some
precision you cannot tell whether it should be radiating or not. There
are definitely
motions which would radiate, so this would favor a model which is
static in
configuration.
>
>
>
> > When a electron is, in fact, allowed to freely roam about the
proton,
> > this means it has been ionized and is released from the atom and in
> > this case, we do observe the electron giving off the expected
energy.
> > The energy this gives off is governed by the rules of spherical
> > harmonics which (as near as I can tell) the usual QM formulas are
based
> > off of.
>
> You really have almost no clue what you are talking about.
>
> What does "spherical harmonics" mean, in your opinion?
Sperical harmonics describes the motion of a particle around an
attractive point source. This is exactly the case that we have for a
hydrogen atom where the electron has been ionized from the atom and is
freely roaming the vicinity of the proton. From
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chem81/thps/Ylm.html
The Spherical Harmonic functions Yl,m are the wavefunctions for any
particle that is free to move in the spherical polar angles theta and
phi (i.e., that has no dependence on these angles in the particle's
potential energy function, as in the hydrogen atom).
The equations and plots for spherical harmonics is exactly the same as
those
given for the hydrogen orbitals. I really couldn't find anything that
would suggest that the Schroedinger equations were doing anything
different than what spherical harmonics would suggest.
>
> Hint: they have almost nothing to do with the ionization energy.
Of course it doesn't have anything to do with ionziation energy. But
what I am
saying is that the atom must be ionized in order for this situation
to apply.
>
>
> > So I think that there is no contradiction between what is
> > observed and predicted for QM, because what you are dealing with is
the
> > behavior of electrons which have been ionized and whether an atom
> > contains a large nucleus (Cubic Model) or a small nucleus
(Rutherford)
> > doesn't matter since all charges act if they were concentrated in a
> > point anyways.
>
> Huh???
This is my big point! The predictions made by QM (so far as emitted
spectra
are concerned) are absolutely correct because they are simply
describing
what a free electron would do in the vicinity of the hydrogen's proton
in
a classical mechanical sense. When you discharge electricity through
hydrogen,
you get ionized hydrogen atoms and all of the resulting spherical
harmonic
motion of the flowing electrons around them produce the spectra that
are observed. This is a wildly chaotic situation and the math required
to
describe this is justified due to this situation.
My even bigger point is that this can happen even if you accept the
cubic
model as fact. This is because as electrons are ionized, they don't
care
if the atom is a tiny spec or a big cubic model atom. It only cares
about
the net charge coming from the atom to determine its behavior according
to spherical harmonics.
>
> Have you ever heard of myonic atoms?
Nope, can't seem to find any web references either - can you point me
in the right direction?
>
>
> > But once you allow the atom to come back to the ground
> > state, the electron mates back up with its proton in a static
position
> > and everything about QM observations are meaningless since you
don't
> > observe anything happening with an atom at ground state.
>
> Absolute nonsense. Have you ever heard of Stern&Gerlach,
> for starters?
>
OK, Stern & Gerlach is part of QM which justifies to concept of spin
without
the atom in the ionized state. However, this only justifies spin, it
does
not explain spectra or anything about the bulk structure of an atom. I
would
have to clarify that everything in QM regarding spectra is meaningless
when applied to atoms in their ground state. Atoms in the ionized state
are not representative of the atom at the ground state. In particular,
a hydrogen atom at the ground state would be presumed to be a proton
surrounded by a spherical electron cloud 1s arrangement. However, this
is only a presumption. Everything that tells you the QM structure can
only be derived when the atom is ionized. The ground state atom is
still a black hole.
The Stern & Gerlach experiment does however, make some sense in the
cubic model. There is a strange phenomenon whereby if you pass a beam
of atoms through the experiment,it splits it into 2 beams, lets call
them + and -. If you then take the + beam and you run it through the
same experiment oriented at 90 degree angles to the first experiment,
you find that it again splits into a + and - beam.
This is described by the web site: http://www.weylmann.com/spin.htm
How can this be? If the beam was entirely + to begin with, how could it
then
split back into + and - beams when there was no - character spin
electrons
to start? The web site simply states that there is no classical analogy
and
that it simply happens as a matter of quantum mechanics and that the
transition simply occurs. That's not much of an explanation.
However, if you consider the cubic model, it says a hydrogen atom is a
linear
arrangement of proton and electron. In some ways it acts as a tiny bar
magnet.
We know from NMR that when a hydrogen atom is put into a strong
maganetic field, it will line up in 1 of 2 ways, either along the
magnetic lines or against it. This corresponds to the proton pointing
either up or down in the magnetic lines of force.
If we run a beam of randomly oriented atoms through the experiment,
they will
immediately align themselves with the magnetic lines of force (hydrogen
has a
large magnetic moment) and about half will have the proton point up and
the other half have the proton point down. Now I am a bit sketchy as to
whether the protons would then be immediately attracted to the poles of
the magnet, but I am going to presume that they are. This may have to
do with the asymmetric magnet arrangments. This is what causes the beam
to only split into 2. The magnetic field somehow polarizes the hydrogen
atoms and they are drawn equally to the opposite poles of the magnet.
Now if you pass the beam through the experiment oriented in the same
direction again, you see that if you have a + beam where the protons
point up, they will come out the same way with no - beam (which would
correspond to the protons pointing down). However, if you put the +
beam into the experiment oriented at 90 degree angles to the first, you
will have the atoms go into the experiment in a horizontal orientation
with the proton neither pointing up or down. At this point, the atoms
will reorient themselves to the magnetic field by going from horizontal
to vertical, and will randomly have the proton point up or down. This
causes the beam to split again into both + and - character beams
eventhough, there were only + character particles to begin with. I
think this is a far more likely explanation for how this experiment
works rather than attributing this to "electron spin".
Y.Porat
about the question why is the electron do not fell into the proton:
it starts from the wrong imagination of the say planetary model
of electrons orbiting the proton it is wrong
why not put the answer much simpler
the elctron is *steming out* of the proton as a chain of orbitals ??!!
if you like metaphorically like branches of a tree steming one after
the other
linearily.
much simpler isnt that ??
all the best
Y.Porat
------------------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
>>You have not really answered the question. What have you *observed*
>>which would lead you to this hypothesis?
>>
>>Theories in science are built on observations. Which observation led
>>you
>>to postulate that atoms are composed of an "alternating series of
>>protons and electrons"?
>>
>
>
> The most simple and fundamental of observations that a proton is
> attracted to an electron.
That's by far not sufficient to lead to an "alternating series of
protons and electrons".
> If these 2 types of particles were to be put
> next to each other, it is intuitive that they would stick together like
> 2 magnets.
No,there is nothing at all intuitive about that. Why on earth should
two (almost) elementary particles behave like two object we know in
the macroworld? Especially in light of the fact that we already have
tons of evidence that they don't?
Additionally, a small hint: it is also intuitive that the sun goes
around the earth. And that heavy things fall faster than light ones.
[snip]
> Now you say that this is not a stable arrangement because I have not
> explained what is the force that keeps the electron and proton separate
> like how magnets are repelled by their electrically charged outer
> surfaces.
Indeed.
> I would argue that there actually is no "force" separating
> the proton and electron.
They attract each other due to the electrostatic force. Hence there
is an acceleration (F=ma, you know?). So, if there is no counter force,
nothing would stop them from coming closer and closer to each other,
until they are at exactly the same place.
> Rather, that the reason why they do not merge
> into exactly the same place in space is due to the fundamental property
> of space that objects which fill space cannot both occupy the same
> space at the same time.
1) What's your evidence that this is a "fundamental property" of space?
2) That does not help you with the force problem mentioned above. The
best you could do is claiming that due to this fundamental property,
a force emerges (out of nowhere) which keeps them from overlapping.
> I think this is a rather intuitively obvious
> statement that 2 objects cannot occupy the
> same place in space.
It may be intuitively obvious in the macroworld. But in the microworld,
it's wrong, plain and simple.
See what I said about intuition just above.
> So if you have 2 billiard balls and you push them
> together, you would argue that the negative replusion of the atoms is
> what is keeping the balls from merging into each other.
Indeed.
> I would argue
> that there is no such replusion going on.
Err, it is a simple fact that there are electrons in the atoms of the
billiard balls, and that there is a repulsive force between them.
Which of these two facts do you dispute?
> You could put 2 billiard
> balls right next to each other (touching at the atomic level) and
> measure zero repulsive force between the 2.
Is this a prediction by your model?
Have you ever heard of the Lennard-Jones potential?
<http://www.fisica.uniud.it/~ercolessi/md/md/node15.html>
Hint: there is actual *evidence* that this describes nature well.
For details, look e.g. into books on solid-state physics.
> If there were such a
> repusive force keeping the balls apart, then you'd might think that
> there would be a point where if you applied enough force, this could be
> overcome and the surfaces would merge past each other.
That would be a non sequitur, since the force *increases* if the
distance becomes smaller.
> But this doesn't
> happen, the ball would rather shatter than merge.
Because the force needed is so great that it overcomes the binding
force inside the balls.
However, e.g. in nuclear fusion, exactly that is achieved: atoms overlap
so much that their cores come into contact and can merge.
> I would
> argue that protons and electrons are as "hard" as a billiard ball even
> at the atomic level.
Try to understand the problem with the non-existent force, please.
> Now you can choose not to believe something that
> can be intuitively demonstrated at macroscopic level,
Indeed. Because it has been experimentally shown that on the microscopic
level, particles behave differently. You choose to ignore that.
> but I think it
> far more likely than believing something which cannot be demonstrated
> at the macroscopic level.
There are lots of things which can't be demonstrated neatly in a lab,
e.g. nuclear fusion in stars. Do you think all of these things don't
happen?
Hey, due to the atmosphere of the earth, it is even not possible to
demonstrate that heavy things falls as fast as light things (only with
some experimental equipment providing a good vacuum)! So, do you also
deny that?
> My goals are to explain everything in terms
> which can be demonstrated at a macroscopic level.
Then, as I have pointed out lots of times, you should start with
explaining the results of the experiments which convinced that that
this is *not* possible. And with "explaining" I do not mean some
handwavy speculations, but an actual *quantitative* calculation showing
that your model can reproduce the results as least as well as standard
physics.
* Rutherford scattering (what you have done so far is far from sufficient)
* hydrogen spectrum (in principle lots of spectra, but I'll grant
you to explain only the simplest one)
* Stern-Gerlach
* Photo effect
* Compton effect
* Blackbody spectrum
* diffraction of matter particles (electrons, C60, etc.)
> The concept that 2
> particles of finite size cannot occupy the same space no matter what
> the attracting force between them is
> something that should be intuitively obvious to the most causal
> observer.
I'm quite sure that the last part is a quote (if you correct the
"casual"), but I can't find out by whom...
And, again: consider what I said about "intuition" just above.
>>>For example, the bonds that
>>>form with Oxygen are at a high angle > than 90 degrees.
>>
>>Huh? Which bonds do you mean? The ones in water?
>
>
> I would be referring to most compounds of oxygen which contain 2 other
> atoms like water. Based on information in www.webelements.com, these
> types of compounds form bonds in the vicinity of 90 degrees (like
> around 107).
>
>
>>
>>>Why doesn't it
>>>form a linear bond like that seen in CO2?
>>
>>Because in the water molecule, there are single bonds,
>>whereas in the CO2 molecule, there are double bonds.
>
>
> I'm not sure if CO2 forms double bonds
It does.
>- I would presume single bonds based on lewis-dot diagrams.
Huh? Please elaborate.
> But even if it did, why would a double
> bond indicate a linear bond?
My explanation wasn't entirely right: it is due to the different
orbitals in oxygen and carbon. Carbon can have so-called "hybrid
orbitals" which enable it to make a linear bond with two oxygen atoms,
whereas oxygen atoms can make only bonds at an angle with two other
atoms.
Standard molecular physics. Look it up in some textbooks.
>>Hint: using the Schroedinger equation, we can actually
>>*calculate* the bonding angles.
>>
>
>
> Do you have any web references on this?
A webpage of one of the programs used for molecular calculations:
<http://wserv1.dl.ac.uk/CCP/CCP1/docs/>
Essentially, what one does do here is varying the positions of the
nuclei until the energy of the molecule is minimal (where on gets the
energies using the Schroedinger equation).
This is one of several programs; others are e.g. Molcas or Gaussian.
Try googling.
The crucial point is now: these programs are used routinely, day after
day, year after year, for calculating properties of molecules. And the
results are essentially always compared with what is experimentally
known (unless one makes a prediction which has still to be checked
experimentally, obviously). There are several scientific journals
devoted almost exclusively to such calculations and experiments,
e.g. Journal of Chemical Physics, Journal of Physical Chemistry,
Physical Review A, Journal of Physics A etc. (I think there are at
least 20 of them!) Altogether, they publish thousands of articles
per year. And as far as I know, there had been no case where the
predictions disagreed with the observations...
I don't know if there are any of these articles free on the web for
laymen; most journals have articles online, but only free for university
members. But you could go to a local university library and try looking
up the journals in printed form.
>>>The Cubic Model shows that
>>>the avaliable bonding sites for Oxygen are at 90 degrees to each
>>>other and not 180 degrees as can be found in Carbon.
>>
>>How does one recognize the "available bonding sites"
>>in your model?
>>
>
>
> Bonding sites are identified as those parts of the atom which cannot be
> part of an alpha particle (or helium).
Why are these the bonding sites?
> For example Lithium can be though
> of being made out of a helium and a deturium atom. The deuturium cannot
> be part of a second helium particle, so it is avaliable for bonding.
Can your model also explain that some elements can bond a *different*
number of other atoms? E.g. that carbon can bond two oxygen atoms,
or one oxygen atom, a HO group and a H atom, or four H atoms? Or that
iron occurs as FeO as well as Fe2O3?
>>BTW, above you said "> than 90 degrees"; now it's suddenly
>>simply "90 degrees". Make up your mind!
>>
>
>
> The actual bond angle is a product of angle formed by the atom (90
> degrees) and the amount of repulsion between the attached atoms.
> The repulsion between the attached atoms (like hydrogen in water), do
> push the bond further apart than 90 degrees.
So there *is* repulsion between nearby atoms? Just above, when talking
about why material objects can't overlap, you apparently denied this
repulsion.
Could you please make up your mind?
[snip]
>>>A hydrogen H2 molecule would also be
>>>similar.
>>
>>I.e. a hydrogen molecule should have a proton at one end
>>and an electron at the other. I.e. it should not be
>>symmetric.
>>
>>Why has this never been observed somehow? For example,
>>why don't we see a dipole moment for the H2 molecule?
>>
>
>
> I would predict that an H2 molecule lines up as an alternating array
> and everything cancels each other out.
Huh? Sorry, but if a H2 molecule looks like that:
e-p-e-p
or
p-e-p-e,
i.e. an alternating array, lined up, it should have an electric dipole
moment. Nothing can cancel out there-
> I haven't been able to find any data for the dipole moment for a
> solitary H atom, but you can see that the magnetic moment is
> quite large, indicating that this may not be a symettric
> arrangment.
Where did you get the magnetic moment of the H2 molecule from, and
why does this indicate that this is not a "symmetric arrangement"?
[snip]
>>I have asked you several times how a different type of
>>binding would explain the many difference between a H atom
>>and a neutron. You have not even explained *one* of the
>>differences up to now!
>>
>
>
> We can't adequately describe what gravity is either,
We can. Spacetime curvature.
[snip]
>>>and is in fact just sitting static on the proton,
>>
>>Not possible, unless there is a repulsive force between
>>a proton and an electron for small distances - and something
>>like that has never been observed, despite decades of scattering
>>experiments.
>
>
> As I explained above, there is NO repulsive force.
As I explained lots of times now, that is not possible.
If there is only an attractive force, there has to be an acceleration.
If there is an acceleration, the two particles can come arbitrarily
close to each other, even overlapping.
Read up on "constraint forces". In classical mechanics, if one wants
to describe something which can only move in a certain region (e.g. on
the table etc.), one has to introduce forces which keep the object in
the desired region. Without them, it simply does not work.
Notice that in classical mechanics, no one explains where the force
comes from. But it is inevitable that they are *there* in order to
explain why objects don't go through each other.
If you dispute that stuff, you are disputing Newtonian mechanics!!!
> This arrangement
> occurs as a fundamental principle of solid objects in space.
That postulate does *not* enable you to get rid of the required force.
>>>this eliminates the problem
>>>that one would expect an electron moving about the proton would
>>>radiate energy.
>>
>>This problem was already solved 80 years ago by Schroedinger. You are
>>a little late.
>>
>
>
> By saying we cannot describe the motion of the electron about the
> nucleus hardly seems to be an answer to me.
But we are not saying that.
>>>I have seen/heard/read/debated all about the various
>>>explanations of how an electron moving about the proton doesn't
>>>radiate energy and I find none of it convincing.
>>
>>What have you read, specifically? Some pop science accounts,
>>or actual textbooks on atomic physics and/or QM?
Would you please answer that?
>>>It usually just boils down to
>>>"that's how it works stupid" - which isn't much of an explanation.
>>
>>If you haven't noticed: your own explanation boils down to
>>the same.
>>
>>Question to you:
>>"Why do protons and electrons have hard surfaces and do not
>>overlap, but bind to each other in a fixed state?"
>>Your answer: "that's how it works stupid."
>
>
> My answer, look at what you see in the macroscopic world, apply that to
> the atomic world.
An ignore tons of experiments which show that the microworld works
different.
> Doesn't seem like too much of a leap whereas QM would
> require to to completely ignore the macroscopic world.
Wrong. QM explains how the usual behaviour of the macroscopic world
emerges from the behaviour of the microscopic world.
And QM does not simply ask you to take for faith that the microworld
works differently. It actually *shows* this with *experiments*.
For the 10th time: if you want to start your model by assuming that
the microworld works in the same way as the macroworld, you *first*
have to explain all the experimental results which show otherwise.
See above for a short, not complete, list. Good luck.
Is this argument *really* so hard to understand?
> There is a difference.
Indeed, there is a big difference. QM goes where the experimental
evidence leads. You go where your intuition leads and ignore the evidence.
Say, do you think physicists have made up QM willy-nilly, out of thin
air, just because they like maths so much, or what??? People *struggled*
for *decades* trying to explain the observations with classical
mechanics. Finally, they had grudgingly to admit that this is not
possible. And now you come along, someone who does not even know 99%
of the evidence which led to the development of QM, and think you have
found an "obvious, intuitive" solution.
Don't you think this sounds somehow strange?
>>>If the electron moves about the proton, it must radiate energy
>>>plain and simple.
>>
>>No. Only if there is a time-dependent electromagnetic
>>multipole moment, there has to be radiation.
Did you get that?
>>>Since we observe that it doesn't, it must be static in relation
>>>to the proton as is assumed in the Cubic Model.
>>
>>Non sequitur.
>
>
> Hardly, if you cannot describe the motion of the electron with some
> precision
We can. Look at the solutions of the Schroedinger equation. It contains
everything about the motion of the electron which one ever has to know,
and which one even *can* even know.
> you cannot tell whether it should be radiating or not.
Wrong. It is enough to know if there is a time-dependent multipole
moment or not. We can calculate that. There is none.
> There are definitely
> motions which would radiate, so this would favor a model which is
> static in configuration.
Wrong. All you can say is that the multipole moments do not change.
That does not favor a static model more than dynamic ones.
[snip]
>>What does "spherical harmonics" mean, in your opinion?
>
>
> Sperical harmonics describes the motion of a particle around an
> attractive point source.
Wrong.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion.
> This is exactly the case that we have for a
> hydrogen atom where the electron has been ionized from the atom and is
> freely roaming the vicinity of the proton.
Wrong. Motions of an electron in the vicinity of a proton are in general
*not* described by one single spherical harmonics. You need linear
combinations of them, involving also radial functions.
> From
>
> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chem81/thps/Ylm.html
>
> The Spherical Harmonic functions Yl,m are the wavefunctions for any
> particle that is free to move in the spherical polar angles theta and
> phi (i.e., that has no dependence on these angles in the particle's
> potential energy function, as in the hydrogen atom).
Sorry to tell you, but that sentence is wrong. The spherical harmonics
are only the *angular* part of the wavefunction. The are not the *whole*
wavefunction.
> The equations and plots for spherical harmonics is exactly the same as
> those given for the hydrogen orbitals.
Wrong again.
Again, the spherical harmonics give only the *angular* part of the wave
function. For obtaining the hydrogen orbitals, you also need the
*radial* part.
> I really couldn't find anything that
> would suggest that the Schroedinger equations were doing anything
> different than what spherical harmonics would suggest.
Spherical harmonics do not suggest anything. You make no sense.
>>Hint: they have almost nothing to do with the ionization energy.
>
>
> Of course it doesn't have anything to do with ionziation energy. But
> what I am
> saying is that the atom must be ionized in order for this situation
> to apply.
Then you show only that you still haven't the faintest clue of what
spherical harmonics actually are.
[snip]
> This is my big point! The predictions made by QM (so far as emitted
> spectra
> are concerned) are absolutely correct because they are simply
> describing
> what a free electron would do in the vicinity of the hydrogen's proton
> in a classical mechanical sense.
Err, no, they don't. Why on earth do you think so?
Classical mechanics makes *totally* false predictions for the behaviour
of an electron in the vicinity of a proton.
> When you discharge electricity through hydrogen,
> you get ionized hydrogen atoms and all of the resulting spherical
> harmonic
> motion of the flowing electrons around them produce the spectra that
> are observed.
"spherical harmonic motion" makes no sense at all.
And, BTW, spherical harmonics have nothing to do with classical
mechanics (of point particles).
> This is a wildly chaotic situation and the math required to
> describe this is justified due to this situation.
Err, what on earth is chaotic about an electron flying around a proton?
You could as well say that for describing the motions of planets
or comets, we need QM!
> My even bigger point is that this can happen even if you accept the
> cubic
> model as fact. This is because as electrons are ionized, they don't
> care
> if the atom is a tiny spec or a big cubic model atom.
Wrong. Read up on "multipole moments". It is *very* important for
the electric field of a nucleus which shape it has, and this is
*measurable*!
> It only cares about
> the net charge coming from the atom to determine its behavior according
> to spherical harmonics.
And what on earth is "behaviour according to spherical harmonics"
supposed to mean, and why should the QM description be right for that
case?
>>Have you ever heard of myonic atoms?
>
>
> Nope, can't seem to find any web references either - can you point me
> in the right direction?
Try "muonic atoms". Sorry for the typo. I used the German term
"Myon" instead of the English term "myon".
You could also read up on determining quadropole moments of nuclei.
>>>But once you allow the atom to come back to the ground
>>>state, the electron mates back up with its proton in a static
>>>position
>>>and everything about QM observations are meaningless since you
>>>don't
>>>observe anything happening with an atom at ground state.
>>
>>Absolute nonsense. Have you ever heard of Stern&Gerlach,
>>for starters?
>>
>
>
> OK, Stern & Gerlach is part of QM which justifies to concept of spin
> without
> the atom in the ionized state. However, this only justifies spin,
My point was only that your assertion above "you don't
observe anything happening with an atom at ground state"
was wrong.
> it does
> not explain spectra or anything about the bulk structure of an atom.
Depends on what you mean with "bulk structure".
And, BTW, one can actually examine the structure of atoms and molecules
even in the ground state: by scattering, by atomic force microscopy, etc.
E.g. look here:
<http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~bfeuerba/chargedensity.jpg>
These are the measured charge densities for two organic (aromatic)
molecules. Nicely consistent with the predictions of QM. I don't see
how your model could explain that.
> I would
> have to clarify that everything in QM regarding spectra is meaningless
> when applied to atoms in their ground state.
Since spectral energies are often the differences between the energy
of an excited state and the energy of the ground state, I don't see how
that could be possible.
> Atoms in the ionized state
> are not representative of the atom at the ground state.
But in order to get the spectral energies, you need to describe *both*
of the states with QM.
Also, QM predicts ionization energies for atoms in their ground states.
> In particular,
> a hydrogen atom at the ground state would be presumed to be a proton
> surrounded by a spherical electron cloud 1s arrangement.
Congratulations, you got that roughly right!
> However, this is only a presumption.
A "presumption" which agrees with every observation so far.
Based on this "presumption", we e.g. calculate the ionization energy
of hydrogen correctly.
Please demonstrate that without using this assumption, one can also
get the ionization energy correctly. If you can't do that, shut up.
> Everything that tells you the QM structure can
> only be derived when the atom is ionized.
Wrong.
> The ground state atom is still a black hole.
Wrong.
> The Stern & Gerlach experiment does however, make some sense in the
> cubic model. There is a strange phenomenon whereby if you pass a beam
> of atoms through the experiment, it splits it into 2 beams
Actually, a beam of atoms with total electronic angular momentum 1/2.
For other types of atoms, the number of beams will be different.
Did you know that?
> lets call them + and -.
Yes, and that's all there is to the experiment. All that follows is
just an addition in order to illustrate some other concepts.
> If you then take the + beam and you run it through the
> same experiment oriented at 90 degree angles to the first experiment,
> you find that it again splits into a + and - beam.
Err, you shouldn't label the two new beams + and - again. These
are *different* types of beams. Maybe use x+ and x- for the first
two and y+ and y- for the second two.
> This is described by the web site: http://www.weylmann.com/spin.htm
>
> How can this be? If the beam was entirely + to begin with, how could it
> then split back into + and - beams
It doesn't!
The x+ beam splits into an y+ and y- beam!!!
> when there was no - character spin electrons to start?
Your notation only muddies the water instead of explaining anything.
> The web site simply states that there is no classical analogy
Indeed.
> and that it simply happens as a matter of quantum mechanics and that the
> transition simply occurs.
There is not really a "transition" involved here.
> That's not much of an explanation.
Exactly equal to your postulate "things can't overlap".
> However, if you consider the cubic model, it says a hydrogen atom is a
> linear
> arrangement of proton and electron.
Dipole moment...?
> In some ways it acts as a tiny bar magnet.
How? Why?
> We know from NMR that when a hydrogen atom is put into a strong
> maganetic field, it will line up in 1 of 2 ways, either along the
> magnetic lines or against it.
We know this already from classical electrodynamics, thank you.
> This corresponds to the proton pointing
> either up or down in the magnetic lines of force.
>
> If we run a beam of randomly oriented atoms through the experiment,
> they will
> immediately align themselves with the magnetic lines of force (hydrogen
> has a large magnetic moment)
In no way "immediately". This will take some time. At that destroys
your whole argument (see below).
> and about half will have the proton point up and
> the other half have the proton point down. Now I am a bit sketchy as to
> whether the protons would then be immediately attracted to the poles of
> the magnet, but I am going to presume that they are. This may have to
> do with the asymmetric magnet arrangments. This is what causes the beam
> to only split into 2. The magnetic field somehow polarizes the hydrogen
> atoms and they are drawn equally to the opposite poles of the magnet.
Sorry, this simply does not work.
One can calculate in electrodynamics how such little magnets would
behave in a Stern-Gerlach experiment. The result is that due to
the initial random orientation, they will be differently deflected
between the magnets (it takes a different amount of time until they
are precisely aligned for different atoms, and therefore the forces on
them are different). You won't get only two beams - you will get
a whole continuous set of beams. The result will not be two neat points
on the screen, but a line.
Again, if you dispute that, you are arguing against *classical* physics.
For the 10th time, I think, I recommend Styer's "The strange world of
QM" to you, where all of that is explained in detail.
> Now if you pass the beam through the experiment oriented in the same
> direction again, you see that if you have a + beam where the protons
> point up, they will come out the same way with no - beam (which would
> correspond to the protons pointing down). However, if you put the +
> beam into the experiment oriented at 90 degree angles to the first, you
> will have the atoms go into the experiment in a horizontal orientation
> with the proton neither pointing up or down. At this point, the atoms
> will reorient themselves to the magnetic field by going from horizontal
> to vertical, and will randomly have the proton point up or down. This
> causes the beam to split again into both + and - character beams
> eventhough, there were only + character particles to begin with.
Again, a whole continuum of beams, not only two. A line, not two dots.
> I think this is a far more likely explanation for how this experiment
> works rather than attributing this to "electron spin".
Unfortunately for you, this explanation simply does not work.
Bye,
Bjoern
frank...@yahoo.com
> >
[snip]
>
> >>>A hydrogen H2 molecule would also be
> >>>similar.
> >>
> >>I.e. a hydrogen molecule should have a proton at one end
> >>and an electron at the other. I.e. it should not be
> >>symmetric.
> >>
> >>Why has this never been observed somehow? For example,
> >>why don't we see a dipole moment for the H2 molecule?
> >>
> >
> >
> > I would predict that an H2 molecule lines up as an alternating
array
> > and everything cancels each other out.
>
> Huh? Sorry, but if a H2 molecule looks like that:
> e-p-e-p
> or
> p-e-p-e,
> i.e. an alternating array, lined up, it should have an electric
dipole
> moment. Nothing can cancel out there-
>
I didn't mean a linear array, I mean the most compact 3-d form which
would be:
e-p
p-e
>
> > I haven't been able to find any data for the dipole moment for a
> > solitary H atom, but you can see that the magnetic moment is
> > quite large, indicating that this may not be a symettric
> > arrangment.
>
> Where did you get the magnetic moment of the H2 molecule from, and
> why does this indicate that this is not a "symmetric arrangement"?
>
See http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/H/isot.html
Something must be causing the magnetic moment - something that is
perfectly
symettric couldn't possibly exhibit a particular orientation in a
magnetic
field. On the other hand, Helium, is perfectly symetrically in the
cubic
model and shows zero magnetic moment.
[snip]
>
>
> >>What does "spherical harmonics" mean, in your opinion?
> >
> >
> > Sperical harmonics describes the motion of a particle around an
> > attractive point source.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Thanks for confirming my suspicion.
>
OK, then what does describe the motion of a particle around an
attractive
point source - if spherical harmonics doesn't do this? Suppose I am in
space
outside the effects of gravity and a spray negatively charged pellets
at a positvely
charged shere. Is there some branch of physics which describes the
motion
of the pellets around the shere?
I am confused beause the diagrams assocated with sherical harmonics
such as:
http://www.uniovi.es/qcg/harmonics/harmonics.html
These are identical to those plots showing electron orbitals like at:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/index.html
So is it the same or different?
Y.Porat
the is some wrong assumptions in it imho
it asumes that orbitals are 'merging' ie they sort of overlap ans sort
of 'loosing thier
orriginal shape - thats a wrongf assumption sucked for just private
immagination
of eomebodys imagnation
i dont suport at all any spherical orbital (there i sno such animal
!(:-)
th eorbitals are while you take a chain of them - longish!!
there is nevr two atoms connected with two electrons - on one stright
line
it is always with a 'broken line'
so for instance the 2H molecule is not on one line
it is sort of a V shape while the nucs are at the top of that V as two
very little 'points'
th eelectrons are 'crossing hands but only the edge of their 'hands'
if you what methaphorically they clutch' only the palm of their hands
or if you like : they only 'shake hands'!
even that is not righ tto say 'points'
and the most shoking innovation is that th eelectron orbitals
in molecules and metal latices have more pr less *always the same
lemnth'
that is one of the decrets that lie behing the Avogadro law in gasses
it is valid soemthing similar bu tnot exactly in metal latice.
and another principle that has to be kept in mind is that
it is not alwats that two electrons from two sides are doing the
connection
in some cases it is just an elecron from only one atom (among the two)
that makes the connection
iow much more elabourated and variant than people immagine.
all the best
Y.P;orat
-----------------------------
---------------------
all th ebest
Y.porat
-----------------------
Dr. Photon
Can any of you atom remodellers model the following measurements:
4d orbitals
http://cbed.mse.uiuc.edu/images/cu2o.gif
N2 bonding orbital (half way down at)
http://cibernautes.com/didaclopez/944/2670/
figure caption I think approximately translates as
" One of the images obtained by the group of Villeneuve, which shows
the molecular orbital around the exterior of molecular N2, which
includes an amplitude region that encompasses both atoms and which is
uniquely determined. The images obtained coincide with the theoretical
models of the molecular orbital of diatomic nitrogen."
QM got them right, how do you guys compare?
BR
Franz Heymann
"Dr. Photon" <brendan....@nmrc.ie> wrote in message
news:b8f632e2.05022...@posting.google.com...
The calculations of electronic wavefunctions of small molecules have
been pursued actively and productively since the at least the late
seventies. A good name to look out for is J. Tennyson. Once you have
latched on to any of his papers you will open the floodgates for
further references.
--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley
Y.Porat
http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
there is a pdf file there that is only an abstract of my book
now in this file you can see right at the beginning the alpha aprticle
in 3d (you have to know how to read a 3d figure in what is called
'a technical drawing' ie described by a few side description and
definition
in that case - top and side description
a trained man is combining it in his 3d immagination to one 3d picture
2 i think that the Nitrogen nuc (and consequently the atom as well!!0
so it is there as well please note at the Ni decription
that it got 3 free alpha proton edges (alpha proton is a proton that
belongs as well
to an alpha particle and is one of the common active chine of orbitals
chamically crysalline etc)
and it got as well a 'deutron free orbital' ie a deurton that is
'hanging free' from the main structure and makes it active as well
with its different properties ie different electric charge.
althogether it fits to the +3 valence and another aditiona l valence
that is typical
to free deutron chain of orbitals
hope you get me at least vaguly ..........
all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Dr. Photon
For sure. The H orbital shapes have been calculated practically since
Schrodinger first published, and molecular orbitals have been done
more and more recently. Bonding angles have also been known for
absolutely ages, and agree with QM, as have energy levels, crystal
structure, atomic separation, surface charge density, etc, etc, but
how many measurements of actual orbitals have there been?
The links I post are experimental measurements, and I am not aware of
many others. On the other hand I have not looked particularly hard :).
If you have more I would be glad to include them.
Thanks,
BR
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>>frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>>>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>>>A hydrogen H2 molecule would also be
>>>>>similar.
>>>>
>>>>I.e. a hydrogen molecule should have a proton at one end
>>>>and an electron at the other. I.e. it should not be
>>>>symmetric.
>>>>
>>>>Why has this never been observed somehow? For example,
>>>>why don't we see a dipole moment for the H2 molecule?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I would predict that an H2 molecule lines up as an alternating
>>>array and everything cancels each other out.
>>
>>Huh? Sorry, but if a H2 molecule looks like that:
>> e-p-e-p
>>or
>> p-e-p-e,
>>i.e. an alternating array, lined up, it should have an electric
>>dipole moment. Nothing can cancel out there-
>>
>
>
> I didn't mean a linear array, I mean the most compact 3-d form which
> would be:
> e-p
> p-e
1) You said "line up", so it's no wonder I assumed you mean a linear
array.
2) This arrangement would have no dipole moment, true - but a
quadrupole moment.
>>>I haven't been able to find any data for the dipole moment for a
>>>solitary H atom, but you can see that the magnetic moment is
>>>quite large, indicating that this may not be a symettric
>>>arrangment.
>>
>>Where did you get the magnetic moment of the H2 molecule from, and
>>why does this indicate that this is not a "symmetric arrangement"?
>>
>
>
> See http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/H/isot.html
They only list the magnetic moment of the hydrogen atom (or only for the
nuclei? That's not entirely clear...), not the one of the H2 molecule,
as far as I can see.
> Something must be causing the magnetic moment - something that is
> perfectly
> symettric couldn't possibly exhibit a particular orientation in a
> magnetic field.
If it is rotating, it can.
> On the other hand, Helium, is perfectly symetrically in the
> cubic model and shows zero magnetic moment.
You probably mean only 4He?
Well, standard QM would say for that, too, that the magnetic moment
should be zero.
>>>>What does "spherical harmonics" mean, in your opinion?
>>>
>>>
>>>Sperical harmonics describes the motion of a particle around an
>>>attractive point source.
>>
>>Wrong.
>>
>>Thanks for confirming my suspicion.
>>
>
>
> OK, then what does describe the motion of a particle around an
> attractive point source - if spherical harmonics doesn't do this?
1) QM is not so much about "describing motion". "describing the
dynamics" would be a far better expression.
2) The dynamics of a particle in the field of an attractive point
source is described by a wavefunction, which can be described by
a linear combination of spherical harmonics, where the coefficients
are *radial wave functions*. Only in the special case that the particle
is in an eigenstate of angular momentum, there is only one spherical
harmonics - but even then, there is *still* also a *radial* wave
function necessary. The spherical harmonic alone simply isn't sufficient
to describe the dynamics.
> Suppose I am in space
> outside the effects of gravity and a spray negatively charged pellets
> at a positvely charged shere. Is there some branch of physics which describes the
> motion of the pellets around the shere?
Electrodynamics. Isn't that obvious???
> I am confused beause the diagrams assocated with sherical harmonics
> such as:
>
> http://www.uniovi.es/qcg/harmonics/harmonics.html
>
> These are identical to those plots showing electron orbitals like at:
>
> http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/index.html
>
> So is it the same or different?
At the second site, they only show the *angular* dependence of the
wave functions, which is indeed given by the spherical harmonics. But
for a *complete* description of the wave functions, you also need
the *radial* part.
If you go to the "Dots!" part of the webpage, you probably get a
more "realistic" picture of the wavefunctions (I don't have the plugin
necessary to see the pictures, but the description sounds sensible).
Bye,
Bjoern
Dr. Photon
It seems to me that your model would contradict QMs prediction of
electron orbital shapes. Is that correct? But as these orbitals have
been measured, where does that leave your model?
I won't even mention the nuclear part of your model which must be
totally contrary to any scattering measurements for over 100 years
now.
BR
Y.Porat
hey Mr
you cant just mumble
you have to be more specofic in your assertions
at least as i am specific
as you could see my electron presentaon is very abstract
in the alpha model it is jjusr a dottet line so ..
th eelctron is not the main issue in my model besides;
see my thread
'where has the 32 electrons in one shell gone'
if you can snswer it than comone!!
and you get the Nobel!!
But as these orbitals have
> been measured, where does that leave your model?
i donr know what is your 'measured'
on th eother hand it seems that you unsestood nothing
of my table no 2 and 3
abouth the relation between atomic weights
and specific weights.
>
> I won't even mention the nuclear part of your model which must be
> totally contrary to any scattering measurements for over 100 years
scattering shmatering
where do you see the contradiction
btw is Dr Photon is you real name ???
what is your real name?? are you sure your are not some
interesant?? because i heared that nonsense argument
from someone elese??
are you sure *you unserstans the scattering experiment??
i saye dit many times that is you take a mass
suported on springs in the right directions
and bombard them with some conxtant mass
you will get exactly the same resutls as
rutherfored scatterings.
> now.
>
> BR
you cant dismiss such massive svidense
that you dont have even a part of it in your hands
just by hand waiving
that sounds to me an apriory interesantic attitude.
see for instance the thread:
'isotope decay chains'
in which a much long and detailed discussion
of it was done!!
dont mumble first of all try to understand
what is that model and only then come in
by specific discussion
and again i think the presenting youself with your real name
will mak eyou a more reliable personality.
or else .....
Y.Porat
------------
Eric Gisse
Y. Porat presumes a nuclear model that contradicts everything observed.
He *will* ask you over and over for evidence, but when you actually
present it to him he will cry about being unable to access your
references. He will repeat the asking then crying for dozens of posts.
Y.Porat
at least there is some advance from your previous version of you
'Varney'
in past you farted just one or two words of mumbling
now you say two three sentences
good for you in a few decades yopu are going to become a human being!!
now to someting that looks like a discussion
i cant expect from you a real discussion:
1 first go out of your armchair and broing us experimenatl evidence
for 32 electrons in one shell
the question is as well for ' Dr Photon' (i hope it is not the Dr from
hidelberg...)
for Sam wormley & Co.etc etc
2 go to my site and see table 2
i wonder if you intelligence is good enough to kane the righ
tconclusions
anyway i will gibe you a chance
3 i suggesyed a model of a mass suspended on springs
attached by smaller masses and you get the same 'Ratherford
scatterings'
btw that was the feuerbacher parrot claim against me
you are just paroting him
4 i have another suggestion (to more serious people than you :
to make that 'rutherford scattering' with a particle that is not
charges electrically
and my prediction is that it will give the same results
rovided that an adjustment will be made for the other bombarding
particle.
4 a question to people who realy know not for you!:
was the 'rutherford scattering' tested *all along th e periodic
table*??
5 i have another 'cleaver argument' to suggest to you
from the school of the genious from Hidelberg ie
the claim that the HUP makes my model 'dead by arival'
now dont tell me that i am not a help for you !!! .
6 a much better suggestion -- piss of my back and find another victim.
or else i will turn yoiu to a victim.
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> Hi Michael Varney!!!
Hi idiot!
>
> at least there is some advance from your previous version of you
> 'Varney'
> in past you farted just one or two words of mumbling
> now you say two three sentences
> good for you in a few decades yopu are going to become a human
being!!
>
> now to someting that looks like a discussion
> i cant expect from you a real discussion:
>
> 1 first go out of your armchair and broing us experimenatl evidence
> for 32 electrons in one shell
> the question is as well for ' Dr Photon' (i hope it is not the Dr
from
> hidelberg...)
> for Sam wormley & Co.etc etc
Why should I do your research for you? You are the one with the fringe
belief.
>
> 2 go to my site and see table 2
> i wonder if you intelligence is good enough to kane the righ
> tconclusions
> anyway i will gibe you a chance
I conclude two things from your "site".
1) You are in desperate need of someone to teach you how to make a PDF.
2) You are in desperate need of an editor. I cannot understand what
your table is supposed to be showing.
>
> 3 i suggesyed a model of a mass suspended on springs
> attached by smaller masses and you get the same 'Ratherford
> scatterings'
> btw that was the feuerbacher parrot claim against me
> you are just paroting him
So you think your model predicts the correct numbers for Rutherford
scattering? Lets see!
>
> 4 i have another suggestion (to more serious people than you :
> to make that 'rutherford scattering' with a particle that is not
> charges electrically
> and my prediction is that it will give the same results
> rovided that an adjustment will be made for the other bombarding
> particle.
You predict that an uncharged particle, such as a neutron, will scatter
exactly the same as a charged particle, such as a proton? Why don't you
ask Gregory Hansen about neutron scattering? That seems to be a big
part of his field of study.
*snicker*
>
> 4 a question to people who realy know not for you!:
> was the 'rutherford scattering' tested *all along th e periodic
> table*??
Beats me. Rutherford used alpha particles and Gold, thats about 1% of
the periodic table.
Why don't you run your own series of experiments? A month in the lab
saves a day in the library. I mean, really - particle physics isn't
that big of a field, so I doubt anything has been published regarding
particle scattering...
>
> 5 i have another 'cleaver argument' to suggest to you
> from the school of the genious from Hidelberg ie
> the claim that the HUP makes my model 'dead by arival'
> now dont tell me that i am not a help for you !!! .
Unintelligible gibberish. Rephrase your question in English, please.
Bjoern was probably right anyway, considering he has the PhD in
particle physics and you don't.
>
> 6 a much better suggestion -- piss of my back and find another
victim.
> or else i will turn yoiu to a victim.
Best of luck with that. Whatever gets you through the night.
Lets see...
Given your proficency with composing PDFs, it is highly unlikely that
you are capable of attacking me electronically.
Considering you alienate everyone who does not unconditionally agree
with you, I doubt you have any friends who could harm me in any way.
You are incapable of writing proper English, so I doubt that you could
even send a poorly-written death threat in the mail to the proper
address without fucking up.
You have about 60 years older than myself, so I have no reason to fear
you physically.
As I said, best of luck with that. If you could write a little better
my laughter would be downgraded from "Uncontrolable" to "Maniacal".
You entertained me for another 20 minutes, thanks!
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------------------