Why should we believe electrons move about a central nucleus?
FrankH
central nucleus containing neutrons/protons and electrons surround
this nucleus. Quantum mechanics show the electrons in probability
clouds around the nucleus. As near as I can tell, the reason for this
was due to electron scattering experiments done nearly 100 years ago,
using instruments that would be considered incredibly crude by todays
standards. These experiments showed that the nucleus had to be compact
and the electrons extremely small which made an atom mostly empty
space. But did they really??? If I took a gun and fired bullets at a
stack of cardboard boxes filled with packing peanuts, I might also
conclude that the boxes were mostly empty space due to limited
backscattering - when in fact, the boxes and their contents are quite
large. So the logic used to determine the size of the nucleus escapes
me. I have seen new pictures generated with the latest STM technology
at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0305/0305103.pdf What is
remarkable is that we can now actually image the structure of
individual atoms. The picture shows the surface of a group of Silicon
atoms and what I see doesn't appear to be mostly space or a fuzzy
cloud. Instead, it looks a lot like lego building bricks to me with
very distinct edges. My question is, has physics done any recent
experiments to verify the well accepted values for the size of the
atom/nucleus and electron?
I am wondering this because I was thinking, if I were a bunch of
protons and electrons, how would I assemble into atoms? Naturally, the
answer would be to start sticking together like building blocks with
proton/electrons alternating like a NaCL crystal. This is totally
contrary to the standard atomic nucleus model. I took this further and
started building out this structure so that you have atoms which are
built out of a regular geometric sequence of ever increasing layers of
electrons/protons. Curiously, the model does match some of the
observed electronic states for the atoms I have built out. However,
this model would mean that the central nucleus wouldn't exist. All of
the proton/electrons would be spread out in roughly a Octrahetral
shape in a completely neutrally charged matrix. I have detailed this
model and some pictures from this at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/frankhu/buildatm.htm
This web site also has the STM images I was talking about before. I
have not seen anyone propose such a simple theory before, so I was
interested in seeing what people think of it since this is a new way
of thinking about the atom with no central nucleus, but uses regular
geometric progression to describe the atomic structure.
Sam Wormley
Quantum Numbers
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/QuantumNumbers.html
Hydrogen Atom
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/HydrogenAtom.html
Uncle Al
>
> The central theme of most models of the atom is that there is a
> central nucleus containing neutrons/protons and electrons surround
> this nucleus. Quantum mechanics show the electrons in probability
> clouds around the nucleus. As near as I can tell, the reason for this
> was due to electron scattering experiments done nearly 100 years ago,
You are an uneducated dunce. Hey stooopid, don't you think that in
the 21st century there is an overwhelmingly preponderant understanding
of quantum mechanics that allows calculations to 14 significant
figures to agree with equally precise observations? Look up the "Lamb
shift."
If you cannot manage Google, have a grade school kid help you.
[snip simplistic crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Franz Heymann
"FrankH" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
You appear not to know any physics worth talking about.
Franz
Pyriform
Be careful now - you are pitting yourself against a profound thinker. I
quote from his website:
"What causes gravity?
Gravity is caused by a slight imbalance of positive/negative charges in
so called neutrally charged matter. The negative/positive charges in a
neutral atom do not exactly cancel each other out. There is a tiny
residual positive charge. These tiny positive charges added together
over the volume of the earth produce a very large positively charged
field at the surface of the earth. The diverging electrostatic field
created by the earth causes dipoles in neutrally charged matter to be
attracted to the source of the field"
So simple to see once a genius has lit the path.
--
Pyriform
galathaea
In case the others haven't scared you off from learning, you should really
read up on scattering theory. In particular, going from simple Rutherford
models to more complex atomic scattering models would really help you clear
up some of this confusion. It is quite a pretty field, and the problems of
inverse scattering calculations and objectives like determining charge
structure and field dynamics from scattering distributions in space and time
will give one a broad understanding of modern thought in this area.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
tj Frazir
pressure expands ,,a low forms around mass.
Thats why motion is a gain in mass .
It takes up more space per time unit of expansion so less eergy will
expand.
ELECTRON is in orbit.
Line all dipoles up so the orbits of atoms overlap and it will conduct.
If the orbits dont line up the electron wave or partical can not do a
figer 8 as it shares the orbit or be pushed into the next orbit.
WHY we know the electron orbits is the propties of conductivity.
FrankH
> Careful Frank, these might blowout your mind.
>
> Quantum Numbers
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/QuantumNumbers.html
>
justify the periodicy that we observe in the elctron shells? My simple
cubic model justifies them as the primary quantum number as
corresponding the the electrons in the core of the atoms and the
shells result from the geometric sequence extending out.
> Hydrogen Atom
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/HydrogenAtom.html
>
Gee, all this math to explain a Hydrogen atom? What was wrong with
saying that a hydrogen atom is composed of a proton and electron?
> Atom
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Atom.html
Yup, this is the rather limited history of the atomic model. As I
mentioned, my simplistic model is not part of this history. I would
have though this would have been the first to be proposed and then
thrown out. Certainly, it would be more believeable than the plum
pudding model. So what happened?
FrankH
> FrankH wrote:
> >
> > The central theme of most models of the atom is that there is a
> > central nucleus containing neutrons/protons and electrons surround
> > this nucleus. Quantum mechanics show the electrons in probability
> > clouds around the nucleus. As near as I can tell, the reason for this
> > was due to electron scattering experiments done nearly 100 years ago,
>
> You are an uneducated dunce. Hey stooopid, don't you think that in
> the 21st century there is an overwhelmingly preponderant understanding
> of quantum mechanics that allows calculations to 14 significant
> figures to agree with equally precise observations? Look up the "Lamb
> shift."
>
> If you cannot manage Google, have a grade school kid help you.
>
> [snip simplistic crap]
Well, thank you for the nice compliment - I am an MIT graduate, so I
am more educated than most - but I admit I no next to nothing when it
comes to particle physics which is why I need the assistance of
geniuses like yourself to help me ponder the nature of the universe.
I looked up the Lamb shift and found it quite interesting. I have
heard of this thing that got calculated to 14 digits of precision to
justify QM, but didn't know what it was. Thank you for clearing that
up. Although from what I read, it sounds a bit suspicious considering
science has a hard time measuring anything experimentally to 14 digits
of precision. If I wanted to measure the diameter of a penny, I
couldn't do that to 14 digits of precision, so how can something that
has to do with atoms we can't even see be measured with such
precision. But in any case, supposing that this result is correct, are
there any other such examples of QM coming out with an experimentally
verified prediction - I didn't see any in the web sites I visited. The
thing that they were measuring was also quite obscure - a slight
variation of a superfine spectrum line. How about something big and
obvious like the observed shell structure of atoms and why the shells
have the number of electrons and energy states that they do? Why do
they have such a geometric sequence? I have a book on quantum
mechanics and I don't find a chart of the electron shell sequence in
it. Does quantum mechanics explain why atoms combine into things like
H2O? Why not H4O instead? Surely there must be some calculation that
shows that the imbalance in the probability orbitals of the atoms
cause a lower energy state to exist or something like that. Although I
suspect the answer to all of these questions is No. But then again,
I'm an uneducated Newbie, and need the help from you folks who know
better.
FrankH
Ah yes, a famous quote from my own website. You laugh but some day
....
Actually there is no contradition between my lego block theory of
atoms an the electrostatic theory of gravity. All that is needed is a
slight imbalance of positive/negative charges on average. I have read
that it would take only 1 electron to be missing in 10^18 atoms to
create an electrostatic force equivalent to gravity. It isn't hard to
belive that out of a billion billion atoms that one of them might be
missing an electron, in fact I would be suprised if there weren't any
missing electrons considering how easily they can be ionized. The
Earth is also constantly bombarded by positively charged ions from the
solar wind, you'd think that alone would be enough to put a positive
charge on the earth.
FrankH
Damn straight! and proud of it. I don't know anything about your
physics filled to the brim with counter-intuitive ideas, miles of
nonsensical math, multi-dimension and generally defying all logic. You
all complain about not being able to find the one big elegant theory
everything, because you have to admit current theory can't do it, but
yet you go around like you already know how everything in the world
works down to the tiniest detail, but you don't. Excuse the flame, but
this forum exists to assist people understand and challange scientific
ideas, not to state the obvious that I am unfamiliar with the world of
conventional physics. I am presenting you with what appears to be an
entirely new concept of the atom never before seen. Shouldn't that be
the least bit interesting to you? How often do you run across unique
theories of atom formation?
FrankH
> In case the others haven't scared you off from learning, you should really
> read up on scattering theory. In particular, going from simple Rutherford
> models to more complex atomic scattering models would really help you clear
> up some of this confusion. It is quite a pretty field, and the problems of
> inverse scattering calculations and objectives like determining charge
> structure and field dynamics from scattering distributions in space and time
> will give one a broad understanding of modern thought in this area.
Thank you for your thoughful post. Can you recommend a web site that
might explain the more advanced scattering experiments? The books I've
been able to find devote about 1 sentence to the Rutherford experiment
with no further justification. Although fundamentally, I have a hard
time believing you can determine anything by scattering considering
that we don't know how "hard" the things that the electrons are
bouncing off. They could be billiard balls or puffs of gas. I'd have
to see more justification. For me, the new STM pictures of Silicon
atoms as little bricks is most convincing. If Rutherford had an STM, I
don't think he would be so quick to conclude that an atom is 99.999%
empty space. It looks 100% filled with sharply defined edges to me.
The picture on the web site also shows where an atom is missing and
you can peer down and see the clearly defined sides of the other
surrounding atoms - how can you explain this with an atom which is
nearly all empty space with the electrons wizzing about randomly? It
looks solid and space filling to me.
Franz Heymann
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:<4006DB47...@mchsi.com>...
> > Careful Frank, these might blowout your mind.
> >
> > Quantum Numbers
> > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/QuantumNumbers.html
> >
> Yes, very interesting these quantum numbers - Can Quantum Mechanics
> justify the periodicy that we observe in the elctron shells?
Quantum mechanics is capable of answering any question you wish about the
electromagnetic behaviour of atoms, and has already answered all the ones
which are currently regarded as being interesting.
My simple
> cubic model justifies them as the primary quantum number as
> corresponding the the electrons in the core of the atoms and the
> shells result from the geometric sequence extending out.
Your simple cubic model is a heap of rubbish, unless it can by any chance
tell us about the Lamb-Retherford frequency in the Hydrogen atom.
You have more confidence in your dung heap than is warranted by its value as
garden compost.
Franz
Franz Heymann
"FrankH" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com...
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<bu76kh$p31$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > "FrankH" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > You appear not to know any physics worth talking about.
> >
> > Franz
>
> Damn straight! and proud of it.
That's it, then.
[snip]
Franz
Franz Heymann
If the depth of your ignorance is such that you think that the force between
a charged sphere and a polarisable dielectric will obey the inverse square
law, you should not be putting your nonsense on the net.
Franz
Franz Heymann
Note for Galathea:
Perhaps this last effort from FrankH should convince you that his mental
abilities are not up to what is required to study quantum mechanics..
Franz
Bjoern Feuerbacher
outdated
view (Bohr's model), which was replaced approx. 80 years ago.
FrankH wrote:
>
> The central theme of most models of the atom is that there is a
> central nucleus containing neutrons/protons and electrons surround
> this nucleus. Quantum mechanics show the electrons in probability
> clouds around the nucleus.
Oh, you *do* know this? Then why did you choose such a nonsensical title
for your thread?
> As near as I can tell, the reason for this
> was due to electron scattering experiments done nearly 100 years ago,
That's *one* of the reasons, by far not the only one.
> using instruments that would be considered incredibly crude by todays
> standards.
They were perfectly well suited for the task which was tried to achieve.
The results are reliable.
Further, this experiment (you *do* talk about Rutherford scattering,
don't you?) has been repeated countless times in the meantime, with far
better instrumental equipment. Hey, I even did it myself a few years
ago!
> These experiments showed that the nucleus had to be compact
Right.
> and the electrons extremely small
Wrong. The experiment didn't show anything about the size of electrons.
> which made an atom mostly empty
> space. But did they really???
Yes - provided that Coulomb's law is right.
> If I took a gun and fired bullets at a
> stack of cardboard boxes filled with packing peanuts, I might also
> conclude that the boxes were mostly empty space due to limited
> backscattering - when in fact, the boxes and their contents are quite
> large.
False analogy. Rutherford scattering is due to electrostatic forces.
> So the logic used to determine the size of the nucleus escapes
> me.
Well, then try to learn the physics behind it.
> I have seen new pictures generated with the latest STM technology
> at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0305/0305103.pdf
I heard a talk about these results, and IIRC, they were disputed.
> What is
> remarkable is that we can now actually image the structure of
> individual atoms.
Possibly, yes. I wouldn't be too sure about this. Does anybody know if
these results have been confirmed by other researchers in the meantime?
> The picture shows the surface of a group of Silicon
> atoms and what I see doesn't appear to be mostly space or a fuzzy
> cloud.
Huh? To me, the "clouds" look *very* fuzzy! Try looking at Fig. 5, for
example! Even in Fig. 6 d, which is a *very* clear picture, the "clouds"
*still* look fuzzy!
> Instead, it looks a lot like lego building bricks to me with
> very distinct edges.
Are you sure you are looking at the same pictures as me???
> My question is, has physics done any recent
> experiments to verify the well accepted values for the size of the
> atom/nucleus and electron?
Yes. Such experiments are done all the time. Sizes of the atoms are
measured by determining the distances between layers and the overall
geometry of crystal lattices, for examples. Sizes of nuclei are a
by-product in lots of experiments done on nuclear structure. The size of
electrons is measured (and again is a by-product) in experiments done
with scattering of electrons and positrons (LEP, for example).
> I am wondering this because I was thinking, if I were a bunch of
> protons and electrons, how would I assemble into atoms?
By attracting each other by the electrostatic force and finding a stable
configuration of "my" probability distribution.
> Naturally, the
> answer would be to start sticking together like building blocks with
> proton/electrons alternating like a NaCL crystal.
That's "natural" in the macroscopic world, but unfortunately, such
common sense doesn't work for such small particles.
> This is totally contrary to the standard atomic nucleus model.
Duh.
> I took this further and
> started building out this structure so that you have atoms which are
> built out of a regular geometric sequence of ever increasing layers of
> electrons/protons.
Can this model predict the Rutherford scattering cross section?
Can it predict the valences of atoms, i.e. their possibilities to bind
other atoms?
Can it predict ionization energies?
The standard model can do all of this nicely - all of these things were
incorporated in it right from the start. So, you have got a *lot* of
things to do if you want to replace it! Good luck.
> Curiously, the model does match some of the
> observed electronic states for the atoms I have built out.
In what way does it "match" them?
> However,
> this model would mean that the central nucleus wouldn't exist.
Well, then please explain the results of the Rutherford experiment.
And the fact that the standard model, with the central nucleus, does
correctly predict a *lot* of features of atoms (start with the spectra).
> All of
> the proton/electrons would be spread out in roughly a Octrahetral
> shape in a completely neutrally charged matrix.
Completely contrary to experimental results, sorry.
> I have detailed this
> model and some pictures from this at:
>
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/frankhu/buildatm.htm
Try answering the questions above, then we'll see.
> This web site also has the STM images I was talking about before.
Thanks, I already looked at them in the original paper.
> I have not seen anyone propose such a simple theory before,
Have you looked at the model of Y. Porat? ;-)
> so I was
> interested in seeing what people think of it since this is a new way
> of thinking about the atom with no central nucleus, but uses regular
> geometric progression to describe the atomic structure.
I think it contradicts experimental results. If you think otherwise,
derive
the Rutherford scattering cross section and the atomic spectra from
your model.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> "Pyriform" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<40073268$0$2439$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > Careful Frank, these might blowout your mind.
> > >
> > > Quantum Numbers
> > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/QuantumNumbers.html
> > >
> > > Hydrogen Atom
> > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/HydrogenAtom.html
> > >
> > > Atom
> > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Atom.html
> >
> > Be careful now - you are pitting yourself against a profound thinker. I
> > quote from his website:
> >
> > "What causes gravity?
> > Gravity is caused by a slight imbalance of positive/negative charges in
> > so called neutrally charged matter. The negative/positive charges in a
> > neutral atom do not exactly cancel each other out. There is a tiny
> > residual positive charge. These tiny positive charges added together
> > over the volume of the earth produce a very large positively charged
> > field at the surface of the earth. The diverging electrostatic field
> > created by the earth causes dipoles in neutrally charged matter to be
> > attracted to the source of the field"
> >
> > So simple to see once a genius has lit the path.
>
> Ah yes, a famous quote from my own website. You laugh but some day
> ....
Well, what you neglect to consider is (among other things):
1) The charge of the electron and the proton have been shown to be equal
with *very* great accuracy - around 10^21! (see, for example, here:
<http://pdg.lbl.gov/2002/bxxxn.pdf>)
2) If the earth would have an overall positive charge (BTW, the
formulation "positively charge field" doesn't make sense), we would have
noticed this long ago - for example, by observing the trajectories of
charged cosmic rays.
3) The attraction force between a positive charge and dipoles depends
with 1/r^3 on distance, whereas the force of gravity depends on distance
with 1/r^2.
> Actually there is no contradition between my lego block theory of
> atoms an the electrostatic theory of gravity.
Well, unfortunately, there *are* a lot of contradictions with
observations.
See above.
> All that is needed is a
> slight imbalance of positive/negative charges on average.
See above for counterarguments.
> I have read
> that it would take only 1 electron to be missing in 10^18 atoms to
> create an electrostatic force equivalent to gravity.
Well, unfortunately for you, the charges of electrons and protons have
been shown to be equal to an accuracy of 10^21, so this charge of "1
electron missing per 10^18 atoms" can't be provided by your proposal.
> It isn't hard to
> belive that out of a billion billion atoms that one of them might be
> missing an electron,
It is neither hard to believe that out of a billion billion atoms, one
of them might have an electron too much, don't you think?
> in fact I would be suprised if there weren't any
> missing electrons considering how easily they can be ionized.
And *I* would be surprised if there weren't any additional electrons
considering how easily they can be attached.
> The
> Earth is also constantly bombarded by positively charged ions from the
> solar wind,
Oh, so you *know* that cosmic rays are charged? Why don't you see that
the observation of the trajectories of these rays instantly disproves
your "the earth is positively charged" idea?
> you'd think that alone would be enough to put a positive
> charge on the earth.
Hint: there are negatively charged cosmic rays, too...
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<4006DB47...@mchsi.com>...
> > Careful Frank, these might blowout your mind.
> >
> > Quantum Numbers
> > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/QuantumNumbers.html
> >
> Yes, very interesting these quantum numbers - Can Quantum Mechanics
> justify the periodicy that we observe in the elctron shells?
Depends on what you mean by "justify". QM *predicts* this periodicity.
It follows automatically when you solve the Schroedinger equation for
a Coulomb potential. BTW, the periodicity observed in *nuclear* shells
is *also* predicted, by the very same methods (only difference: anotjer
potential is used).
> My simple
> cubic model justifies them as the primary quantum number as
> corresponding the the electrons in the core of the atoms and the
> shells result from the geometric sequence extending out.
How does your model explain the spectra of the atoms, and the results
of the Rutherford scattering experiments?
> > Hydrogen Atom
> > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/HydrogenAtom.html
> >
> Gee, all this math to explain a Hydrogen atom?
Well, can you predict the spectrum of a Hydrogen atom with less math?
If yes, please show us!
> What was wrong with
> saying that a hydrogen atom is composed of a proton and electron?
This doesn't give much information about it's behaviour, for starters.
> > Atom
> > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Atom.html
>
> Yup, this is the rather limited history of the atomic model. As I
> mentioned, my simplistic model is not part of this history.
Nice. Hint: lots of other models (by laymen like you) are also not part
of this history. Try thinking about why this is the case... (hint: it
has to do something with "predictive power" and "consistency with
experimental results")
> I would
> have though this would have been the first to be proposed and then
> thrown out. Certainly, it would be more believeable than the plum
> pudding model. So what happened?
This model of "Lego blocks" of yours reminds me a bit of Demokrit's view
of atoms - granted, he didn't think that atoms consist of Lego blocks,
but
he *did* think that there are some "elementary particles", looking
essentially like "blocks" of different forms, and these elementary
building blocks he called "atoms".
So, essentially, your model *was* first proposed and then thrown out.
Bye,
Bjoern
Pyriform
> Well, thank you for the nice compliment - I am an MIT graduate so
> I am more educated than most - but I admit I no next to nothing when
> it comes to particle physics
Engineering degree, right?
--
Pyriform
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<4006E079...@hate.spam.net>...
> > FrankH wrote:
> > >
> > > The central theme of most models of the atom is that there is a
> > > central nucleus containing neutrons/protons and electrons surround
> > > this nucleus. Quantum mechanics show the electrons in probability
> > > clouds around the nucleus. As near as I can tell, the reason for this
> > > was due to electron scattering experiments done nearly 100 years ago,
> >
> > You are an uneducated dunce. Hey stooopid, don't you think that in
> > the 21st century there is an overwhelmingly preponderant understanding
> > of quantum mechanics that allows calculations to 14 significant
> > figures to agree with equally precise observations? Look up the "Lamb
> > shift."
> >
> > If you cannot manage Google, have a grade school kid help you.
> >
> > [snip simplistic crap]
>
> Well, thank you for the nice compliment - I am an MIT graduate, so I
> am more educated than most
What degrees do you have? It looks strange to me that a graduate of the
MIT should come up with such a strange model...
> - but I admit I no next to nothing when it
> comes to particle physics which is why I need the assistance of
> geniuses like yourself to help me ponder the nature of the universe.
Why didn't you try to learn something about atomic, nuclear and particle
physics first? About the available experimental evidence? About the
reasons
which lead to the current models?
Instead of trying to learn, you invented your own model - and now claim
that it's better than the standard models, although you don't even
*know*
much about them!
> I looked up the Lamb shift and found it quite interesting. I have
> heard of this thing that got calculated to 14 digits of precision to
> justify QM, but didn't know what it was.
It's new to me that the Lamb shift was calculated to so many digits.
Wasn't
this the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron instead?
> Thank you for clearing that
> up. Although from what I read, it sounds a bit suspicious considering
> science has a hard time measuring anything experimentally to 14 digits
> of precision. If I wanted to measure the diameter of a penny, I
> couldn't do that to 14 digits of precision, so how can something that
> has to do with atoms we can't even see be measured with such
> precision.
What can be measured with *very* great precision are frequencies (AFAIK,
it has to do something with "beats") - so if you want to measure
something with great precision, you only have to find a way to "convert"
it into a frequency. This can be done easily when measuring the magnetic
moment of the electron or the Lamb shift.
> But in any case, supposing that this result is correct, are
> there any other such examples of QM coming out with an experimentally
> verified prediction - I didn't see any in the web sites I visited.
*sigh* Try opening *any* textbook on QM or particle physics. You will
find *lots* of experimentally verified predictions.
Even better, go to the next university library and open an arbitrary
journal about experimental particle physics. I think most of the
articles you find in there (and there are tens of thousands of them!) do
contain an experimental
verification of predictions of QM resp. the Standard Model of Particle
Physics.
Some things to read about:
* anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and of the muon
* Casimir effect
* atomic spectra in general
* Moseley's formula specially
* resonances
* *countless* scattering experiments - among others, electron-positron
scattering
* neutrino oscillations (contradict the Standard Model (but this can be
easily solved), but are a *very* nice verification of principles of QM!)
* lasers
* the dependence of the heat capacity of metals on the temperature
These are only *very* few things which came to mind almost immediately.
There is *lots* of stuff more out there! Open your eyes!
> The thing that they were measuring was also quite obscure - a slight
> variation of a superfine spectrum line.
Yes, in a sense, that's obscure. So what??? Why should this be a *bad*
thing??? Isn't it amazing that we are able to predict accurately even
such
obscure things!?!
> How about something big and
> obvious like the observed shell structure of atoms and why the shells
> have the number of electrons and energy states that they do?
That *is* predicted by Schroedinger's equations. Complete with all of
the energies associated with these shells. Oh, add this to the list
above.
BTW, the observed shell structure of nuclei (I bet that you even haven't
*heard* so far that there is a shell model for nuclei, right?) is *also*
predicted by standard QM - again, in complete agreement with
experimental results. Oh, add this to the list above.
> Why do they have such a geometric sequence?
What's "geometric" about their sequence?
> I have a book on quantum
> mechanics and I don't find a chart of the electron shell sequence in
> it.
What book is this?
And what, precisely, do you want to see in such a chart?
> Does quantum mechanics explain why atoms combine into things like
> H2O?
Yes.
> Why not H4O instead?
Energetically unstable, plain and simple. You can't have a geometrically
stable configuration of an oxygen nucleus, four protons and 20
electrons.
> Surely there must be some calculation that
> shows that the imbalance in the probability orbitals of the atoms
> cause a lower energy state to exist or something like that.
Yes, you are close to it.
> Although I
> suspect the answer to all of these questions is No.
Well, you suspect wrong.
> But then again,
> I'm an uneducated Newbie, and need the help from you folks who know
> better.
OTOH, you are a graduate from MIT, on the other hand, you call yourself
"uneducated". Seems to be a bit contradictory...
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<bu76kh$p31$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > "FrankH" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > You appear not to know any physics worth talking about.
> >
> > Franz
>
> Damn straight! and proud of it.
In other words, you are unwilling to learn what our current models
say, why we think they are right, and what the experimental evidence
for them is?
> I don't know anything about your
> physics filled to the brim with counter-intuitive ideas, miles of
> nonsensical math, multi-dimension and generally defying all logic.
In other words "I don't understand it / like it, therefore it's wrong
and I don't bother learning anything about it."
> You all complain about not being able to find the one big elegant theory
> everything, because you have to admit current theory can't do it, but
> yet you go around like you already know how everything in the world
> works down to the tiniest detail, but you don't.
Why you think anyone here is "going around like [he] know[s] already how
everything in the world works"? I haven't seen anyone going around like
that in this thread. I, myself, am well aware that I know little about
the
world. OTOH, even knowing so little, it's clear that your model doesn't
work. You seem to think that anyone who critizes your model is doing
this simply because he is arrogant and close-minded...
> Excuse the flame, but
> this forum exists to assist people understand and challange scientific
> ideas, not to state the obvious that I am unfamiliar with the world of
> conventional physics.
The reaction of many people here is quite rude, granted, but that it
partly your fault. We have seen *far* to many people coming into this
newsgroup proudly shouting that they've found a new, simple model for
how xyz works, and that all standard theories are wrong. *Every* time,
these people knew little about what the standard theories even say (you
are a bit better here - you at least know that something like
"probability clouds" are supposed to exist!), but this lack of knowledge
never stops such people.
> I am presenting you with what appears to be an
> entirely new concept of the atom never before seen.
Sorry, we have seen stuff like this *far* too many times already...
> Shouldn't that be
> the least bit interesting to you?
It will get interesting as soon as you are able to predict the most
basic
things like atomic spectra and Rutherford's scattering cross section
from
your model.
> How often do you run across unique theories of atom formation?
*Lots* of times in this newsgroup... So far, none of it has been worth
looking at it. None of it even *tried* to predict the most basic
observable things like atomic spectra, Rutherford's scattering cross
section, and so on.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> >
> > In case the others haven't scared you off from learning, you should really
> > read up on scattering theory. In particular, going from simple Rutherford
> > models to more complex atomic scattering models would really help you clear
> > up some of this confusion. It is quite a pretty field, and the problems of
> > inverse scattering calculations and objectives like determining charge
> > structure and field dynamics from scattering distributions in space and time
> > will give one a broad understanding of modern thought in this area.
>
> Thank you for your thoughful post. Can you recommend a web site that
> might explain the more advanced scattering experiments?
I don't know about a web site, but I know a book which, in my opinion,
discusses this quite nicely.
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0387594396/qid=1074253613//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-7930935-5172948?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>
If the link doesn't work: the author is B.Povh, the title is
"Particles and Nuclei: An Introduction to the Physical Concepts". I know
only the German version of this book, but I think the English version
should be nice, too... ;-)
> The books I've
> been able to find devote about 1 sentence to the Rutherford experiment
> with no further justification.
That's a pity. :-(
> Although fundamentally, I have a hard
> time believing you can determine anything by scattering considering
> that we don't know how "hard" the things that the electrons are
> bouncing off.
Scattering of electrons has little to do with "hardness". It works by
the
*Coulomb* force.
> They could be billiard balls or puffs of gas.
Scattering of electrons has little to nothing to do with scattering of
marbles of billiard balls. The mechanisms are completely different.
> I'd have to see more justification.
Well, *assuming* that there is indeed a "compact" nucleus with a
positive
charge equal to the number of electrons around it, and calculating what
number of particles should be scattered into which direction, and
comparing this prediction with experiment, it turns out that there is
*very* good agreement. (read up on "Rutherford scattering cross
section") I still have to see someone reproduce this formula with
another model...
> For me, the new STM pictures of Silicon
> atoms as little bricks is most convincing.
Derive Rutherford's scattering cross section formula from it.
> If Rutherford had an STM, I
> don't think he would be so quick to conclude that an atom is 99.999%
> empty space. It looks 100% filled
Err, did it ever occur to you that the brightness of the clouds in these
pictures is purely conventional? The density of the electrons in atoms
*is*
very, very, very small - these pictures don't contradict this in any
way.
> with sharply defined edges to me.
Are you sure we are looking at the same pictures????? I don't see sharp
edges there, but *fuzzy* edges.
> The picture on the web site also shows where an atom is missing and
> you can peer down and see the clearly defined sides of the other
> surrounding atoms - how can you explain this with an atom which is
> nearly all empty space with the electrons wizzing about randomly? It
> looks solid and space filling to me.
Look at the Figure 5. To me, the atoms look *very* fuzzy to me. Even
more, the lines drawn in there show you how the electron density
decreases from the center outwards. This is exactly what the theory
predicts! And, BTW, no one says that electrons are "wizzing [sic] around
randomly" there.
Bye,
Bjoern
OC
> The central theme of most models of the atom is that there is a
> central nucleus containing neutrons/protons and electrons surround
> this nucleus. Quantum mechanics show the electrons in probability
> clouds around the nucleus. As near as I can tell, the reason for this
> was due to electron scattering experiments done nearly 100 years ago,
> using instruments that would be considered incredibly crude by todays
> standards. These experiments showed that the nucleus had to be compact
> and the electrons extremely small which made an atom mostly empty
> space. But did they really??? If I took a gun and fired bullets at a
> stack of cardboard boxes filled with packing peanuts, I might also
> conclude that the boxes were mostly empty space due to limited
> backscattering - when in fact, the boxes and their contents are quite
> large. So the logic used to determine the size of the nucleus escapes
> me. I have seen new pictures generated with the latest STM technology
> at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0305/0305103.pdf What is
> remarkable is that we can now actually image the structure of
> individual atoms. The picture shows the surface of a group of Silicon
> atoms and what I see doesn't appear to be mostly space or a fuzzy
> cloud. Instead, it looks a lot like lego building bricks to me with
> very distinct edges.
Could it be that they are showing the surface of a Si crystal?
> My question is, has physics done any recent
> experiments to verify the well accepted values for the size of the
> atom/nucleus and electron?
Do you think that modern physics would work if the atomic model was
completly wrong? You cannot build a house on bad foundations.
> <snip>
OC
Sean Chapin
Please spare us of your pretentious garbage where you think you are a
cut above the rest because you went to MIT or any other school that
claims to only graduate the "best". I've been to enough conferences
and met enough graduates of institutions like yours, both in academia
and in industry, to know the only way any of you are a cut above the
rest is that you are better BS artists. The truly gifted ones are few
and far between. Aside from that, you certainly aren't any more
"educated" than anyone else, and arrogant comments like yours bear
that out quite clearly. Get over yourself. You and your degree ain't
that special.
If you actually want to discuss science, with some logic behind it,
and without flashing around where your degree comes from, then you'll
get a lot more ears here.
Gregory L. Hansen
You realize, don't you, that an STM is not like poking an atom with an ice
pick and drawing a dot where it goes "tink tink". The signal is an
electrical current that varies continuously as the distance between tip
and atom is changed. Where you draw the contour is arbitrary. If the
Leggos you're looking at are on the right on page 8, that looks to me like
artifacts caused by a finite resolution of the instrument. Download any
porno picture from the internet and zoom in enough, and you'll see the
same effect.
Scattering theory is rather complex. Most quantum mechanics textbooks
will get you far enough to distinguish "hard" from "soft" potentials. The
billiard ball model, i.e.
V(r) = V0, r<a
= 0, r>a
is a standard example of a particle with a clearly defined edge. Other
models, like V(r)=1/r or V(r)=exp(kr)/r give different scattering results.
You can theoretically model the scattering from a 1/r potential versus a
potential like
V(r) = V0, r<a
= 1/r, r>a
which would compare the scattering from a point-like particle versus a
particle with a finite charge radius. Internal structure, like the quarks
that make up a proton, will change your scattering results in complicated
ways. To really explore that theoretically is in the realm of quantum
field theory.
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
Franz Heymann
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:4007C797...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
[snip]
> 3) The attraction force between a positive charge and dipoles depends
> with 1/r^3 on distance, whereas the force of gravity depends on distance
> with 1/r^2.
It is actually a lot worse than that. His dipole is not a permanent dipole,
but one whose moment is induced by the local field. thus P itself varies as
1/r^2, giving him a 1/r^5 interaction. Such a radial dependence is
incapable of supporting a stable orbit.
[snip]
Franz
Franz Heymann
> FrankH wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > In case the others haven't scared you off from learning, you should
really
> > > read up on scattering theory. In particular, going from simple
Rutherford
> > > models to more complex atomic scattering models would really help you
clear
> > > up some of this confusion. It is quite a pretty field, and the
problems of
> > > inverse scattering calculations and objectives like determining charge
> > > structure and field dynamics from scattering distributions in space
and time
> > > will give one a broad understanding of modern thought in this area.
> >
> > Thank you for your thoughful post. Can you recommend a web site that
> > might explain the more advanced scattering experiments?
>
> I don't know about a web site, but I know a book which, in my opinion,
> discusses this quite nicely.
>
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0387594396/qid=1074253613//re
f=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/102-7930935-5172948?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>
>
> If the link doesn't work: the author is B.Povh, the title is
> "Particles and Nuclei: An Introduction to the Physical Concepts". I know
> only the German version of this book, but I think the English version
> should be nice, too... ;-)
I don't think that book will be very suitable for FrankH. It is, after all,
only an introductory book, and he specifically asked for a book which would
"explain the more advanced scattering experiments". Perhaps he should
acquire Greiner's two excellent books on quantum mechanics. I have English
versions of them.
{:-))
[snip]
Franz