Why should we believe electrons move about a central nucleus?

8 views
Skip to first unread message

FrankH

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 1:15:46 PM1/15/04
to
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. 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

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 1:26:18 PM1/15/04
to

Uncle Al

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 1:48:25 PM1/15/04
to
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]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Franz Heymann

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 6:10:09 PM1/15/04
to

"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

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 7:36:57 PM1/15/04
to

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

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 8:38:55 PM1/15/04
to
"FrankH" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com...
: The central theme of most models of the atom is that there is a

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

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 11:50:32 PM1/15/04
to
Gravity is a push to less energy as the universe of energy under
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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 12:56:08 AM1/16/04
to
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? 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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 1:12:50 AM1/16/04
to
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 - 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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 1:20:47 AM1/16/04
to
"Pyriform" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<40073268$0$2439$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...

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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 1:32:20 AM1/16/04
to
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<bu76kh$p31$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>...

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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 1:43:18 AM1/16/04
to
>
> 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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 6:26:45 AM1/16/04
to

"FrankH" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46484c9f.0401...@posting.google.com...

> 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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 6:26:46 AM1/16/04
to

"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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 6:26:44 AM1/16/04
to

"FrankH" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com...

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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 6:26:47 AM1/16/04
to

"FrankH" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com...
> >

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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 6:04:21 AM1/16/04
to
Answer to the thread title: we shouldn't believe this. This is an
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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 6:14:31 AM1/16/04
to
FrankH wrote:
>
> "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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 6:20:28 AM1/16/04
to
FrankH wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 6:47:17 AM1/16/04
to
FrankH wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 6:36:50 AM1/16/04
to
FrankH wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 6:45:17 AM1/16/04
to
FrankH wrote:
>
> "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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 6:54:18 AM1/16/04
to
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//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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 7:58:09 AM1/16/04
to
frank...@yahoo.com (FrankH) wrote in message news:<46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com>...

> 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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 10:38:40 AM1/16/04
to
> Well, thank you for the nice compliment - I am an MIT graduate, so I
> am more educated than most - ....

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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 11:04:39 AM1/16/04
to
In article <46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com>,

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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 2:56:16 PM1/16/04
to

"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

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 2:56:17 PM1/16/04
to

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:4007D0EA...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

> 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


Franz Heymann

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 2:56:19 PM1/16/04
to

"FrankH" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com...
> 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 - 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.

It was the Lamb shift. I thought you said you looked it up?

> 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.

The Lamb shift has been measured and agrees exquisitely with the
predictions. I thought you said you looked it up? If you did, you would
have kinown how it was done.

> 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.

Physicists are clever. Now go and read about the Lamb shift and come back
when you understand something about it. Hint: The Lamb shift is a very
small frequency difference between two extremely large frequencies.

> But in any case, supposing that this result is correct,

There is no reason to do any supposing. The experiment has been performed
by more than one group of physicists, and by now it so well understood that
it is probably an undergraduate lab experiment in some physics department
somewhere.

> 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.

Quite.

> 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?

Been there. Done that. There was an international collaboration who
speciality was the calculation of the atomic wavefunctions of all the atoms
up to Iron. The calculations took about twenty physicists about a decade,
using the most powerful computers available at all stages of the work. They
now know the electronic configurations of all the electrons in all those
atoms for all the most important excited states, and have predicted the
frequencies and the relative intensities of the major spectral lines as
functions of temperature for all those atoms. Their work is in daily use by
astrophysicists who are concerned with studying the structures of stars.

Quantum mechanics has provided answers to *all* the problems to which it has
been put, and it has never turned out an incorrect answer.

> Why do
> they have such a geometric sequence?

Why don't you learn some physics?

> 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?

Molecular structure is an extremely difficult study. Even at the
macroscopic level, the three-body problem does not have an analytical
solution. Having said that, there are groups of physicists who spend their
time doing the tedious computations necessary to solve for the wavefunctions
of molecules. They can in practice handle only two and three atom molecules
because of the extreme computational difficulties.

> 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.

See what I said above.

> Although I
> suspect the answer to all of these questions is No.

Your suspicions are quite unfounded and exist only because of your total
lack of knowledge.

> But then again,
> I'm an uneducated Newbie, and need the help from you folks who know
> better.

We cannot actually help you much, both because of the time which would be
involved and the difficulties associated with writing any serious
mathematics in ASCII.

If you are really interested, you would stop wasting your time trying to
reinvent the wheel, and acquire some really elementary modern physics books
to start your studies.

Franz


Franz Heymann

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 2:56:22 PM1/16/04
to

"FrankH" <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com...

[snip]

I am an MIT graduate, so I am more educated than most

On the contrary, your writings make you appear to be both singularly
ignorant and singularly arrogant.

[snip]

Franz

Franz Heymann

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 2:56:21 PM1/16/04
to

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:4007CCD2...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

Remember that the Lamb shift is a very small difference in frequency between
two very large frequencies. What Uncle Al meant was that the limit on the
computational accuracy of the *difference* is in the region of 10^-14 of the
frequency of one of the lines.


> Wasn't
> this the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron instead?

No. That has been computed and compared with experiment to something like 1
part in 10^8 or threreabouts.

FrankH

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 4:29:24 PM1/16/04
to
Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<4007C535...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...

> > 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???
Just to make sure we're on the same page, the picture I am looking at
is the high resolution picture of 6a. What I want you to specifically
look at is the spaces between the atoms. There is a distinct dropoff
between each atom such that there is an actual physical separation
between the atoms. Each atom looks suspiciously like a Duplo brick
which is basically a cube with a round nub at the top. A green arrow
in the picture shows an atomic defect where an atom is missing and you
can see the edges go all the way down. How can QM explain such sharp
dropoffs and edges between atoms? The picture you have pointed out as
6d, is not an STM image, it is the predicted shape of the atom based
on QM. So of course, this is a fuzzy cloud. You are supposed to look
at the real image in 6c and compare it with the theoretical shape in
6d and then conclude they are the same. Personally, I don't think it
is a good fit. You can almost seem to make out some substructure in 6c
like the front of the atom is made out of 2 lobes.

Thanks for providing such detailed posts, it is giving me a lot of
areas to look at - what fun!

FrankH

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 4:56:04 PM1/16/04
to
o.ch...@rhul.ac.uk (OC) wrote in message news:<aea4c614.04011...@posting.google.com>...

>
> Could it be that they are showing the surface of a Si crystal?
>
Yes, this is absolutely the surface of an Si crystal, does that make a
difference?

>
> Do you think that modern physics would work if the atomic model was
> completly wrong? You cannot build a house on bad foundations.
>

This reminds me of the situation before we figured out the planets
revolve around the sun: From: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AddingEpicycles

If you have a bad design (such as trying to work out the motion of
planets on paper while constrained by dogma to pretend that the sun
moves more than the earth), and if you then find you keep having to
add more bad design to add features to that design, then you are
"AddingEpicycles".

As Renaissance astronomers got better at recording the exact locations
of planets (relative to the surface of the earth at given times), they
kept trying to plot these locations back to presumed coordinates (and
offsets) on traditionally decreed "celestial spheres" that carried the
planets. But the more precise they got, the more complicated their
offsets were as they added epicycles. These eventually became
celestial spheres bearing epicycles bearing epicycles bearing
epicycles bearing planets. Obscured within the numbers, the planets
were - of course - really going around the Sun.

The cure, of course, is to fix the root bad design. If you get it
right, the change will ripple thru all the subsidiary designs and
simplify them, possibly by making them go poof.

The fact that lots of scientists believe a theory for a long time,
does not prove it is correct. Yes, the atomic model could be totally
wrong, yet still make predictions, especially if you try to build the
model to specifically fit the observations instead of starting with a
model and seeing if it matches observations.

Tnlockyer

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 5:31:40 PM1/16/04
to
>: frank...@yahoo.com (FrankH)
>Date: 1/15/2004 10:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Wrote in:
>Message-id: <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. 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.

Frank, well said: The sad fact is that physics does not have the answers after
100 years of theory and experiment. If you were to, as they suggest, go back
and see what has been proposed, you could spend (waste) your whole life, as
they have, and be no closer to the truth.

> 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?

Frank, you make the mistake of all the previous theorists in trying to reverse
engineer or to invent models to try and explain the experimental evidence.

What you want is a model that goes straight forward and that puts itself
together, more or less automatically and precisely, and is supported by prior
experimental results.

The atom model must explain, as a minimum, known atomic spin states, binding
energy, beta decay sequences, and nuclear magnetic moments.

The standard model can do none of those things, because the SM does not have
the correct models for the nucleon structures. If the SM nucleon models were
correct, SM would give us the value for the (n-1H) neutrino energy so important
in beta decay calculations.

Don't be misled into thinking the Schroedinger equation does anything it was
not put up to by the act of inserted boundary conditions to beg the results.

Heisenberg could not understand why the proton and neutron were apparently
equally effected by the "nuclear strong force" so he invented "isotopic spin
space". So anytime you read isotopic spin is those physics textbooks, it is
pure BS.

The strong force is not "special". The strong force proves to be purely
electromagnetic in nature. No one previously realized that the near field
nucleon magnetic moments are superior to the nuclear electric moments.

Being an engineer gives you a distinct advantage because you insist on
explaining the physical world in particle terms. Unfortunately, particle
physics seems satisfied with just abstract jargon.

Hey, jargon pays their rent, and may get them elected for the Nobel for some
theory that perpetuates the business. (i.e. if the theory invents some
particle that requires building the next round of larger accelerators, all the
better.).

Case in point, the electroweak theory that was elected for and given the Nobel
before anyone had attempted to prove it.

This guaranteed an accelerator would be built and a Nobel awarded to the
experimenters, on any far fetched claims to have "found" the particle.

The particle physics business has spawned many educated charlatans and
mountebanks, that will try to defend the SM and, as you have seen , some of
them frequent these newsgroups.

Regards: Tom:


Thomas Lockyer (77 and retired)
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers,
you know something about it. Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)

Edward Green

unread,
Jan 16, 2004, 6:21:06 PM1/16/04
to
frank...@yahoo.com (FrankH) wrote in message news:<46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com>...

...

> 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. <...> 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?

Are you a recent MIT graduate or a centenarian? If you graduated from
MIT when QM was first being developed then your ignorance of the most
elementary facts of quantum chemstry, which I think are at least
alluded to today in HS chemistry, might be understandable, if you are
a recent graudate, then
it is inexplicable.

Y.Porat

unread,
Jan 17, 2004, 3:12:54 AM1/17/04
to
Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<4007C797...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>-=------------------
Bjoern
please tell them that there is
'The Porat model of the Atom and the nucleus'............
in which among the others
a heavier than Florine nucleus is a sort of
a hectagonal pipe ? (8 sides)(if you whant it more simplified and tangible
it is a 'rectangular pipe' (with 8 free edges 4 at the front
and 4 at the back pole ) etc etc etc
and tell them that this Model goes all along the periodic table
not just the light elements etc etc etc.....
TIA
-----------------
all the best
Y.Porat
>

Franz Heymann

unread,
Jan 17, 2004, 5:36:08 AM1/17/04
to

"Edward Green" <null...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2a0cceff.04011...@posting.google.com...

Not really. The examination procedure is not 100% foolproof.

Franz


OC

unread,
Jan 17, 2004, 9:21:29 AM1/17/04
to
frank...@yahoo.com (FrankH) wrote in message news:<46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com>...
> o.ch...@rhul.ac.uk (OC) wrote in message news:<aea4c614.04011...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Could it be that they are showing the surface of a Si crystal?
> >
> Yes, this is absolutely the surface of an Si crystal, does that make a
> difference?


From your post, you seem to infer the electronic structure of a single
Si atom using STM images of a Si crystal, where there are a lot of Si
atoms bound together. I do not think that this is a correct way to
proceed.


From the experiments there is no indication that there is a "bad
design" at the base of the atomic model.
Physicists have no reason to think that the atomic model is
fundamentally wrong, that is why they trust it.

By the way, why should your model be better?


OC

rsm...@york.ac.uk

unread,
Jan 17, 2004, 10:51:42 AM1/17/04
to
frank...@yahoo.com (FrankH) wrote in message news:<46484c9f.0401...@posting.google.com>...

> 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?

The periodicity of the electron shells is one of the most famous
successes of the quantum-mechanical atomic model. It predicts a
periodic arrangement of the shells exactly like the one we observe.

> > 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?

That's exactly what this theory does say. The mathematics is required
to obtain meaningful predictions of the atom's behaviour, predictions
which are in very close agreement with experiment.

If you're serious about going anywhere in physics or any related
field, I'd suggest you get used to maths. You'll see it a *lot*.

OC

unread,
Jan 17, 2004, 12:23:46 PM1/17/04
to
frank...@yahoo.com (FrankH) wrote in message news:<46484c9f.04011...@posting.google.com>...
> o.ch...@rhul.ac.uk (OC) wrote in message news:<aea4c614.04011...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Could it be that they are showing the surface of a Si crystal?
> >
> Yes, this is absolutely the surface of an Si crystal, does that make a
> difference?


From your post, it seems that you infer the electronic structure of a
single atom from the STM images. But these are images of many Si atoms
bound together in the crystal. Why should this way to proceed correct?


So, do you think that physicists have made the atomic model more and
more complicated over time by "adding epicycles"? That the atomic
model is fundamentally flawed, but physicists do not want to give it
up because it is established by dogma?

Isn't it possible instead that all the experiments done in the last
hundred years do not give any indication that the atomic model is
basically wrong?

On what is your conclusion based?

OC

Edward Green

unread,
Jan 17, 2004, 4:29:53 PM1/17/04
to
rsm...@york.ac.uk (rsm...@york.ac.uk) wrote in message news:<d93e0055.04011...@posting.google.com>...

> frank...@yahoo.com (FrankH) wrote in message news:<46484c9f.0401...@posting.google.com>...
...

> > 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?
>
> That's exactly what this theory does say. The mathematics is required
> to obtain meaningful predictions of the atom's behaviour, predictions
> which are in very close agreement with experiment.
>
> If you're serious about going anywhere in physics or any related
> field, I'd suggest you get used to maths. You'll see it a *lot*.

He claims to be a graduate of MIT. Perhaps that's "Massachusetts
Interstate Trucking" school? (Feynman graduated from the other one).

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Jan 19, 2004, 5:12:50 AM1/19/04
to
Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> "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.

Yes, I know - I merely tried to be generous... ;-)


> Such a radial dependence is
> incapable of supporting a stable orbit.

Even worse: it's contradicted by observations. ;-)


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Jan 19, 2004, 5:25:17 AM1/19/04
to
Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:4007CCD2...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> > FrankH wrote:
> > >
> > > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:<4006E079...@hate.spam.net>...

[snip]


> > > 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.
>
> Remember that the Lamb shift is a very small difference in frequency between
> two very large frequencies. What Uncle Al meant was that the limit on the
> computational accuracy of the *difference* is in the region of 10^-14 of the
> frequency of one of the lines.

The "two very large frequencies" should be the frequencies corresponding
to the 2s and 2p - orbitals of hydrogen. The corresponding frequency is
around 10^15 Hz. Hence the Lamb shift has been calculated to a precision
of around 10 Hz? Again, that's new to me. I remember only that it has
been calculated to a precision of around 1000 or even 10 000 Hz. (I read
about it in chapter 14 of
Weinberg's book on QFT, but admittedly that was about a year ago...)


> > Wasn't
> > this the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron instead?
>
> No. That has been computed and compared with experiment to something like 1
> part in 10^8 or threreabouts.

Well, in the table of the Particle Data Group, 11 digits are given.

[snip rest]

Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Jan 19, 2004, 5:15:26 AM1/19/04
to
"Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<4007C797...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> > FrankH wrote:

[snip]

> Bjoern
> please tell them that there is
> 'The Porat model of the Atom and the nucleus'............

I already mentioned this to FrankH in another post.


> in which among the others
> a heavier than Florine nucleus is a sort of
> a hectagonal pipe ? (8 sides)(if you whant it more simplified and tangible
> it is a 'rectangular pipe' (with 8 free edges 4 at the front
> and 4 at the back pole ) etc etc etc

I'm still waiting for an explanation *why* nuclei should have this
structure...


> and tell them that this Model goes all along the periodic table
> not just the light elements etc etc etc.....

Your model essentially "predicts" the masses of nuclei. Hint: formulas
in standard theories (Weizsaecker's formula, for example) can do this,
too. Also for *all* elements. Not just the light ones.


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Jan 19, 2004, 5:44:33 AM1/19/04
to
Please mark your snips!


FrankH wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<4007C535...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> > > 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???
>
> Just to make sure we're on the same page, the picture I am looking at
> is the high resolution picture of 6a.

And on that picture, the "clouds" don't look fuzzy to you? Say, have you
got some problems with you eyes?


> What I want you to specifically
> look at is the spaces between the atoms. There is a distinct dropoff
> between each atom such that there is an actual physical separation
> between the atoms.

Again: are you *sure* we are looking at the same picture? Even if I
magnify the picture, I am unable to find any spot on it which is
*completely* black. A little red or yellow is essentially *everywhere*.
I don't see any clear physical separations, I see "clouds" which get
thinner and thinner as one moves away from the centers of the atoms, but
don't disappear completely anywhere.

And even if they *would* completely disappear on this picture - BFD!
There is only a limited amount of colors available for this picture; a
black spot doesn't mean that the electron density at that place is zero,
only that it is below a certain level!


> Each atom looks suspiciously like a Duplo brick
> which is basically a cube with a round nub at the top.

Please go to the nearest oculist. I don't think the picture looks
anything like that!

> A green arrow
> in the picture shows an atomic defect where an atom is missing and you
> can see the edges go all the way down.

I can see the green arrow, but I can't see "edges" there. All I'm seeing
there is the color getting ***gradually*** blacker and blacker, but
never getting *totally* black - there is always a little red left (a
very dark red, admittedly, but nevertheless red).


> How can QM explain such sharp
> dropoffs and edges between atoms?

Where on earth do you see a *SHARP* dropoff in this picture??? The
dropoff at the green arrow is gradual and smooth!


> The picture you have pointed out as
> 6d, is not an STM image, it is the predicted shape of the atom based
> on QM.

Yes, sorry, I noticed this in the meantime.


> So of course, this is a fuzzy cloud. You are supposed to look
> at the real image in 6c and compare it with the theoretical shape in
> 6d and then conclude they are the same.

No. You are to conclude they are sufficiently similar that the remaining
discrepancies could be due to instrumental limitations.

But, BTW, do you agree that picture 6c is *more* fuzzy than picture 6d?
(if no, then there is really a serious problem with your eyes; if yes,
then you agree that the *prediction* of Quantum Mechanics is a picture
which is *less* fuzzy than the actual observation - contrary to your
previous assertions...)

> Personally, I don't think it is a good fit.

Personally, I think they look quite similar, but I'm not entirely
convinced - and as mentioned elsewhere, IIRC, these results were
disputed by some other scientists. So one shouldn't rely too deeply on
them.


> You can almost seem to make out some substructure in 6c
> like the front of the atom is made out of 2 lobes.

Sorry, I can't see anything like that in the picture.


> Thanks for providing such detailed posts, it is giving me a lot of
> areas to look at - what fun!

Well, I hope you will *learn* something!


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Jan 19, 2004, 5:52:34 AM1/19/04
to
FrankH wrote:
>
> o.ch...@rhul.ac.uk (OC) wrote in message news:<aea4c614.04011...@posting.google.com>...

[snip]


> > Do you think that modern physics would work if the atomic model was
> > completly wrong? You cannot build a house on bad foundations.
> >
> This reminds me of the situation before we figured out the planets
> revolve around the sun: From: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AddingEpicycles

Completely false analogy. 1) There were *far* less scientists back then
(one could argue that there even there *no* scientists back then). 2) As
far as I know, no other (working!) scientific theory was ever built on
the geocentric
model of Ptolemy (sp?).


> If you have a bad design (such as trying to work out the motion of
> planets on paper while constrained by dogma to pretend that the sun
> moves more than the earth), and if you then find you keep having to
> add more bad design to add features to that design, then you are
> "AddingEpicycles".
>
> As Renaissance astronomers got better at recording the exact locations
> of planets (relative to the surface of the earth at given times), they
> kept trying to plot these locations back to presumed coordinates (and
> offsets) on traditionally decreed "celestial spheres" that carried the
> planets. But the more precise they got, the more complicated their
> offsets were as they added epicycles. These eventually became
> celestial spheres bearing epicycles bearing epicycles bearing
> epicycles bearing planets. Obscured within the numbers, the planets
> were - of course - really going around the Sun.

Again, false analogy. The epicycles were added back then for only one
reason: to make the observations consistent with the description. It
wasn't
possible to make any *new* predictions based on the supposed epicycles.
Essentially, they were untestable. The situation today is completely
different: every new hypothesis in particle physics is thoroughly tested
before it is accepted, even if it makes a lot of sense at face value and
solves a lot of long-standing problems.

> The cure, of course, is to fix the root bad design.

Fine. Now all that remains to show for you is that Quantum Mechanics is
a "root bad design". Good luck!


> If you get it
> right, the change will ripple thru all the subsidiary designs and
> simplify them, possibly by making them go poof.

Again, good luck! So far, you haven't even reproduced the most *basic*
predictions of QM, like atomic spectra and Rutherford's scattering cross
section.


> The fact that lots of scientists believe a theory for a long time,
> does not prove it is correct.

Completely right.

But, OTOH, the fact that someone who knows practically nothing about QM
and particle physics thinks that it has to be wrong because he doesn't
like all the abstract mathematics, does not prove it isn't correct.


> Yes, the atomic model could be totally
> wrong, yet still make predictions,

Yes, this is a possibility. But considering the *thousands* of tested
predictions, this isn't too likely...


> especially if you try to build the
> model to specifically fit the observations instead of starting with a
> model and seeing if it matches observations.

In general, science uses *both* of these approaches. One should use a
mixture of them.


Bye,
Bjoern

FrankH

unread,
Jan 21, 2004, 12:15:05 AM1/21/04
to
null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote in message
[snip]

> He claims to be a graduate of MIT. Perhaps that's "Massachusetts
> Interstate Trucking" school? (Feynman graduated from the other one).

Yes, that would be Mens Institude of Typewriting - Well actually, I
graduated in 1986 with a batchelors in computer science from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I have the brass rat to prove
it. Quantum physics was not a required course for CS and not everybody
at MIT is a physics nut. That explains why I don't know much about
quantum mechanics - but I'm reading more every day! But I don't want
this discussion to be about me, tell me why my atomic model is wrong
or old or whatever - lets talk science.

FrankH

unread,
Jan 21, 2004, 12:42:20 AM1/21/04
to
tnlo...@aol.com (Tnlockyer) wrote in message >
[snip]

> Frank, you make the mistake of all the previous theorists in trying to reverse
> engineer or to invent models to try and explain the experimental evidence.
>
> What you want is a model that goes straight forward and that puts itself
> together, more or less automatically and precisely, and is supported by prior
> experimental results.

Actually, as has been noted by the other posters, I am quite ignorant
of the experimental evidence and built my model starting with a
thought experiment of what would be the most simplest way for
electrons/protons to assemble. Please take another look at my website.
My model's advantage is that it does go together straight forward with
a predicatable geometric sequence which you can do almost blindly, and
it would put itself together automatically. So far, I have seen that
this model can explain the observed electron shell structure with the
main quantum number representing the electrons in the vertical core
and you can see why we get the number of electrons in the outer shells
due to the geometric progression of the outer electrons fitting into
the vertical core. I am working on understanding the spectrum and
scattering experiments and I think it may be possible to explain the
results in terms of my atomic model. Spin appears to be due to the
fact that the atom assembles a mirror image of itself about the axes,
and the reversed electron/proton may explain the difference states. I
would like to learn more about decay and nuclear fission, since my
model with its four arms would tend to favor fission which would knock
off arms and you might think that there would be more products which
represent a quarter/half/3-quarter of the atom - or maybe not. My
models do show a pretty pattern of electron/proton pairs (looks like
an X viewed from the top). This may give it predictable magnetic
properties. I have also found that the most stable elements are built
out of mostly helium nuclei. I couldn't figure out why the noble gases
were not totally symmetric until I realized that the atom favors being
built out of helium nuclei. You can directly see this in my model.

> The strong force is not "special". The strong force proves to be purely
> electromagnetic in nature. No one previously realized that the near field
> nucleon magnetic moments are superior to the nuclear electric moments.
>

The strong force is required to keep a compact nucleus which contains
all of the protons/neutrons together. My model may eliminate the need
since the protons/electrons/neutrons are evenly spread across the
entire atom in a neutral matrix. I have some theories on the
scattering experiments which would allow an atomic model like mine.

FrankH

unread,
Jan 21, 2004, 1:48:38 AM1/21/04
to
Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
[snip]

>
> 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>)
This is an article on Baryons - did I miss something? Sure
electron/proton charges appear equal, but I have theorized that the
electron can get far enough away from the proton to leave it
unsheilded part of the time. Of course, this is a wild theory, but it
could also just be due to an imbalance of charges. Have we measured
what the average electric charge is on the average object you find on
the Earth?

> 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.

Actually, we have noticed this. The Earth has an electric field
measuring about 120v/m at sea level. I believe the total charge if
concentrated at a point in the center the Earth has been estimated at
10^6 C. We also have the Earth's magnetic field to contended with
which appears to play the major factor in solar wind trajectories.

> 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.
>

Ah yes, this does seem to be an interesting objection, although the
formula for this sort of force is basically dialectric constant *
volume * E^2. I think that would make the force drop off with 1/r^4
which is definitely not gravity. Back to the drawing board for this
one. But I did make some interesting calculations on what the force
would be on a 1 kg cube of carbon based on a 120v/M field (see my
other gravity posts).

F = (1.6 * .000681 * 120^2)/2 = 7.8 Newtons

This is saying that about 80% of the force on a 1kg sample of carbon
is due to the electrostatic force acting on dipoles. Now this seem
screwy because electrostatic fields appear to be easily sheilded by a
Faraday cage, but I don't think my block of carbon would suddenly
loose 80% of it weight if I put it in a metal cage. Yet, the
electrostatic force is there and it should have some effect. So how
can we account for the fact that the electrostatic field of the earth
seemingly doesn't have any effect on the weight of things, when it
should?

I have also been doing some simple experiments with a charged balloon.
I have notice rather strange behavior that if I bring a strongly
charged balloon near a piece of styrofoam, it initially attracts, but
ocassionally a charge gets transferred and they repel, but if you
force them together again, they attract. The seemly repel at large
distances, yet attract at close. Very strange behavior.

I also tried to see if the electrostatic force on an object depended
on what it was made of. I got an equal weight of iron, aluminum and
paper. I hung them on a pendulum and measured how far I could deflect
each with my balloon. All appeared to deflect the same (within my
experimental error which could have been quite large). This does give
me some confirmation that an electrostatic gravity would at least
treat all masses the same and not be dependent on the dilectric
constant (which would be the other bust with the theory that uses
dipole attraction). So I would be inclined to believe that if gravity
is caused by the electrostatic force, that we are dealing with normal
charge interactions. I made a calculation that 1 atom out of 182
million would have an extra electron to account for the gravity on a
1kg sample of Carbon 12. As you mention, you'd think there'd be just
as good a chance that there'd be one missing, so there would have to
be some bias in the system favoring one charge state over another. I
don't know what that might be, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There might be something in the strange behavior of the styrofoam and
balloon. Although there would still be the problem with sheilding -
Faraday cages have no effect on gravity. But as I said, if sheilding
works the way it should, why don't we see the affect in a 120v/m
field?

[snip]

FrankH

unread,
Jan 21, 2004, 2:56:43 AM1/21/04
to
Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message > How does your model explain the spectra of the atoms, and the results
> of the Rutherford scattering experiments?
>
OK, I'm going to take a wild-ass stab at these questions. I've only
gotten the barest of understanding from the hyper-physics site
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/rutsca2.html.
Basically, the experiments assume right off the bat that the charge is
concentrated in a point charge which may not be true. The other
problem is the assumption that only hitting a heavy nuclei would
result in a scattering of greater than 90 degrees. The gold atoms are
supported by a sheet of glass which supports the gold atoms which help
it deflect any bombardment. If you hit a tennis ball glued to a wall
with a much heavier billiard ball, you would certaily get a
backscatter of greater than 90% even though the tennis ball isn't very
dense at all. The experiments appear to assume the gold atom is in
free space. I haven't done any math and can't say much about the
Rutherford formula matching observations. My model could potential
explain the results because the particles apparently pass right
through the glass made up of silicon and oxygen atoms without any
scattering. I would think that at least some of them would be hit.
Since none of them are, I presume that the particles can pass right
through them without interaction. The average cross-section of an atom
in my model doesn't have a cross section much larger than a silicon or
oxygen atom. The arms are only the thickness of an electron/proton
pair. I would expect most particles to fly straight through without
interaction, just like they do for the glass. The only area where the
atom is dense, is if you hit it straight on going through the vertical
core of the atom. There you would be hitting a stack 10 deep. I would
think the chance of hitting it in the manner to be very remote. This
matches the experimental result that very little gets backscattered.
It might also have to be backed up by the glass atoms, so it doesn't
have to rely on Columb force alone to repel the collision. I have no
idea what the math would say about my model, but that is my initial
guess on scattering.

The spectra of atoms can be largely explained by the Bohr model. My
model has shells like Bohr which you can predict spectra and I am
guessing it should work the same way. The spectra of hydrogen is
special because we're not talking about atoms here. We just have a
free electron bouncing back and forth. An extension to my model is
that space is quantizized, meaning a particle can't occupy just any
space. I read of an experiment trying to measure the effect of a
neutron dropping in a gravity field and they found that it fell in
discrete steps - not a continuous drop. I theorize an electron also
follows these rules and must therefore take measured steps away from
the proton. Space could be thought of as being a matrix of cubes where
a particle can only be in one cube at a time. The spectral lines are
generated by the electron moving between these cubes. These cube
locations would also correspond to the electron configurations in
fully populated atoms. Each cube represents one quantum number away
from the proton. Generally, the distance from one quantum shell to the
next is very much the same, although you could see that either an
electron could drop straight down perpendicular to the proton which
would produce the shortest path, or it might take a 45 degree angle
path to an adjacent cube which would make its path slightly larger.
This may explain some of the fine spectra lines and Lamb shift due to
the slightly different paths an electron could take through the cubic
structure to get to another quantum shell. One would expect the direct
path to be much brighter than the indirect path, producing a very
bright and a very faint line (is that what we see?) I couldn't figure
out if the distance between the electron shells was the same or
increasing exponentially. My model would favor them being the same.
But that's my guess on spectra based on the little bit of research
I've done so far. Please feel free to rip it apart. Thanks for bearing
with me. This is loads of fun!

rsm...@york.ac.uk

unread,
Jan 21, 2004, 5:06:06 AM1/21/04
to
frank...@yahoo.com (FrankH) 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. 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.

That's strange, because I am unaware of any physics filled to the brim
with miles of nonsensical maths.[1] However, I do know of the physics
filled to the brim with miles of sensible and logical mathematical
deductions from a simple set of postulates, producing predictions in
amazing agreement with experiment. You should try studying it
sometime. You may even enjoy it.

Robert


[1] Some of the fringe theories that get posted to sci.physics
notwithstanding.

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Jan 21, 2004, 7:26:26 AM1/21/04
to
FrankH wrote:
>
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> [snip]
> >
> > 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>)
> This is an article on Baryons - did I miss something?

Perhaps that the proton *is* a baryon? Hey, it's the very first entry
in this table of particle properties!


> Sure electron/proton charges appear equal, but I have theorized that the
> electron can get far enough away from the proton to leave it
> unsheilded part of the time.

What do you mean by "unshielded", specifically?


> Of course, this is a wild theory, but it
> could also just be due to an imbalance of charges. Have we measured
> what the average electric charge is on the average object you find on
> the Earth?

Well, I have pointed out that the *total* electric charge of the earth
is close to zero (see cosmic rays). Why do you want to know the charge
of the "average" object on earth?


> > 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.
>
> Actually, we have noticed this. The Earth has an electric field
> measuring about 120v/m at sea level. I believe the total charge if
> concentrated at a point in the center the Earth has been estimated at
> 10^6 C.

References, please.


> We also have the Earth's magnetic field to contended with
> which appears to play the major factor in solar wind trajectories.

Yes, it play a major factor - but nevertheless, effects of an additional
electric field of the magnitude you propose should be observable, I
would think.


> > 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.
> >
> Ah yes, this does seem to be an interesting objection,

And as Frank Heymann pointed out, I'm even generous to you here, because
I don't take into account that your dipoles are formed by polarization.


> although the
> formula for this sort of force is basically dialectric constant *
> volume * E^2.

Huh??? This formula gives the *energy* in the field. It has *nothing* to
do with the force between a dipole and a point charge!


> I think that would make the force drop off with 1/r^4
> which is definitely not gravity.

Sorry, but where did you get this from?


> Back to the drawing board for this one.

Nice to see that you can admit that you have been wrong!


> But I did make some interesting calculations on what the force
> would be on a 1 kg cube of carbon based on a 120v/M field (see my
> other gravity posts).
>
> F = (1.6 * .000681 * 120^2)/2 = 7.8 Newtons

You seem to be using the wrong formula here - again the one for energy
instead of the one for force. Why don't you write the units behind your
numbers? If you would do this, your error would become obvious.


> This is saying that about 80% of the force on a 1kg sample of carbon
> is due to the electrostatic force acting on dipoles. Now this seem
> screwy because electrostatic fields appear to be easily sheilded by a
> Faraday cage, but I don't think my block of carbon would suddenly
> loose 80% of it weight if I put it in a metal cage.

Well, the explanation is easy: you used the wrong formula!


> Yet, the
> electrostatic force is there and it should have some effect.

Yes, but much smaller than the one you calculated above.


> So how
> can we account for the fact that the electrostatic field of the earth
> seemingly doesn't have any effect on the weight of things, when it
> should?

Wrong formula.


> I have also been doing some simple experiments with a charged balloon.
> I have notice rather strange behavior that if I bring a strongly
> charged balloon near a piece of styrofoam, it initially attracts, but
> ocassionally a charge gets transferred and they repel, but if you
> force them together again, they attract. The seemly repel at large
> distances, yet attract at close. Very strange behavior.

I don't know what's going on exactly there, but my guess would be that
this has something to do with polarization.


> I also tried to see if the electrostatic force on an object depended
> on what it was made of. I got an equal weight of iron, aluminum and
> paper.

Did they have the same shape, too? If not, the moment of inertia could
have an influence on your results!


> I hung them on a pendulum and measured how far I could deflect
> each with my balloon. All appeared to deflect the same (within my
> experimental error which could have been quite large).

Nice.


> This does give
> me some confirmation that an electrostatic gravity would at least
> treat all masses the same and not be dependent on the dilectric
> constant (which would be the other bust with the theory that uses
> dipole attraction). So I would be inclined to believe that if gravity
> is caused by the electrostatic force, that we are dealing with normal
> charge interactions.

In other words: all objects would have to be charged, and their charge
would have to be proportional to their masses. Hint: this isn't
observed.


> I made a calculation that 1 atom out of 182
> million would have an extra electron to account for the gravity on a
> 1kg sample of Carbon 12. As you mention, you'd think there'd be just
> as good a chance that there'd be one missing, so there would have to
> be some bias in the system favoring one charge state over another.

Right. Where is the evidence for such a bias, and why should it exist?


> I don't know what that might be, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But why on earth
should we try to find a new theory of gravity, although the existing one
is very well tested and shows no problems so far? Just because you don't
like it, or what?


> There might be something in the strange behavior of the styrofoam and
> balloon.

See above.


> Although there would still be the problem with sheilding -
> Faraday cages have no effect on gravity. But as I said, if sheilding
> works the way it should, why don't we see the affect in a 120v/m
> field?

See above, too.


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Jan 21, 2004, 11:36:16 AM1/21/04
to
FrankH wrote:
>
> null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote in message
> [snip]
> > He claims to be a graduate of MIT. Perhaps that's "Massachusetts
> > Interstate Trucking" school? (Feynman graduated from the other one).
>
> Yes, that would be Mens Institude of Typewriting - Well actually, I
> graduated in 1986 with a batchelors in computer science from the
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I have the brass rat to prove
> it. Quantum physics was not a required course for CS

Oh, that explains a bit why you know so little about physics!

But if you are interested in QM, why didn't you take the course anyway?


> and not everybody
> at MIT is a physics nut. That explains why I don't know much about
> quantum mechanics - but I'm reading more every day! But I don't want
> this discussion to be about me, tell me why my atomic model is wrong
> or old or whatever - lets talk science.

Well, as already mentioned: you seem to picture electrons as little
marbles or "lego blocks". This contradicts observations.

I would recommend the following book to you:
D. Styer, "The strange world of Quantum Mechanics"


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher

unread,
Jan 21, 2004, 11:34:02 AM1/21/04