Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jccc on 07/06/2015 00:45:19
-
i asked this question many times, please help me to understand.
1 proton and 1 electron, how they become a hydrogen atom?
why positive and negative charges not attract together?
is the electron orbiting the proton? on which plane? what's the angular speed? what's the radius/attitude?
does the orbiting electron giving off em wave?
how the atom emits photon?
-
i asked this question many times, please help me to understand.
1 proton and 1 electron, how they become a hydrogen atom?
why positive and negative charges not attract together?
is the electron orbiting the proton? on which plane? what's the angular speed? what's the radius/attitude?
does the orbiting electron giving off em wave?
how the atom emits photon?
The proton and electron were created by the compression of the electromagnetic field at big bang. Both had the same charge and the proton looks like a sun and the electron a planet. The Bohr model shows that the electron revolves around the proton at a speed of C/137.036. It does not radiate because at this speed and distance it is a exact wavelength. The orbit is stable because at that speed the Einsteinian energy exactly equals its binding energy. In order to produce a neutron, you would have to bring the speed up to 0.9186C which give it an Einsteinian energy equal to the neutrino. Therefore only a compressive force could cause the electron to flow toward the proton.The Einsteinian mass increase stabilizes the electron in orbit.
In my "Cosmology of God and the Universe" book I discuss this in more detail with the equations. Evidently Bohr did not realize the Einsteinian effect and Einstein never applied his formula to the electron in Bohr's orbit.
-
did you see those happen in your dreams?
electron and proton should attract each other and stick together according to coulomb's law.
why is electron able to orbit forever never touch down? is the nucleus push electron away or attract it closer?
-
did you see those happen in your dreams?
electron and proton should attract each other and stick together according to coulomb's law.
why is electron able to orbit forever never touch down? is the nucleus push electron away or attract it closer?
No I did not dream of the Einsteinian effect. When I went to school at Brooklyn Polytechnic I would always correct my textbooks as I studied them. The Einsteinian effect was clear to me as lo as I accepted Einsteins equations as valid. I prefer my Doppler Space Time. this is just part of my training as an Electrical engineer from Polytechnic Institute (summa cum laude). My dreams involved the dot-wave structure of the universe and the basic equations such as the mass to charge equations where the electrical constant G = 16 pi e Uo/137.036 meters squared/coulomb seconds. My engineering training was quite standard but my dreams show we live within an electromagnetic field. Thus kilograms is really coulomb meters per second. Of course that is not taught on this planet for we are not as advanced as man on other planets and there are over one million Earths with man in the universe according to my dreams.
In standard theory there are two forces which prevent the sticking together of the proton and electron. There is the electrical force which pulls the electron toward the proton and the mechanical force or centrifugal force which pushes the electron outward. Take a small weight on a string and you will feel both forces. The only thing that was self evident to me was the Einsteinian effect. As the electron tries to move closer to the proton, the speed increases and the centrifugal forces increases. Once we add Einsteins increased mass will speed, it is impossible for the electron to reach the proton. Only strong forces such as a star imploding will produce the neutrons and other heavy atoms.
-
so coulomb's law failed in atoms? newton's law still working?
atoms are constantly vibrate, how could electron orbital stable?
even in explosion? even in nucleus reaction?
hydrogen atom has 1 electron, how 1 electron able to orbit 3 d space?
-
any answers at all?
this is very important question, agree?
-
i asked this question many times, please help me to understand.
You've already been given the answer and regardless of that fact you keep repeating the question. The reason you keep repeating the question is that you don't have the ability to understand the answer. You never will until you either just accept what we tell you or you learn quantum mechanics.
why positive and negative charges not attract together?
They do and you know that they do because we keep telling you that.
is the electron orbiting the proton? on which plane? what's the angular speed? what's the radius/attitude?
We've told you that countless times. Why should we repeat ourselves and expect that this time you'll finally understand the answer we give you? Besides, I just told you that in the physics forum. I.e. see the first two figures in the following article
http://mightylib.mit.edu/Course%20Materials/22.01/Fall%202001/why%20nuclei%20decay.pdf
does the orbiting electron giving off em wave?
Oy! Of course not. That was the problem with the classical mechanics and one of the reasons a new mechanics was needed to explain the stability of the atom.
how the atom emits photon?
Yet another question you know the answer to because we've explained it many times. The atom undergoes a change in energy levels from one level to a lower level which corresponds to an electron changing from one orbital to another. This is known as a quantum jump. A photon is emitted in the process.
-
is electron circling, orbiting, clouding or standing waving around the proton?
is the cloud able to change orbitals? is the standing wave stable?
how 1 electron moves around the proton?
-
so coulomb's law failed in atoms? newton's law still working?
atoms are constantly vibrate, how could electron orbital stable?
even in explosion? even in nucleus reaction?
hydrogen atom has 1 electron, how 1 electron able to orbit 3 d space?
no clue? no wiki?
-
no patience left
-
any logic left?
-
any logic left?
Of course. And it's all been given to you. You just never understood it so we all gave up on you as being unteachable.
-
where is the logic?
how come atoms are not compressible as 99.99% empty space within as standard model suggested?
how come electron not discharge into proton as Coulomb's law predicted?
what the logic for 1 electron able to orbit/cloud/wave 3d space?
-
where is the logic?
how come atoms are not compressible as 99.99% empty space within as standard model suggested?
how come electron not discharge into proton as Coulomb's law predicted?
what the logic for 1 electron able to orbit/cloud/wave 3d space?
From repetitions like this I hope you don't wonder why chiralSPO and myself have lost patience with you. Once again you post the same questions en we've already answered and to really understand it several of us have already told you that you need to learn quantum mechanics first. Now please stop repeating yourself. You already look pretty pathetic.
-
does qm has logic?
-
Logic is a human invention. Atoms are not. Quantum mechanics is a human description of the behaviour of very small things. There is no primal requirement that the statements of quantum mechanics are logically consistent with anything other than observation, but it would be a surprise if we could not discern some internal logic in the mathematics of QM.
-
what about mathmetic?
Logic is a human invention. Atoms are not. Quantum mechanics is a human description of the behaviour of very small things. There is no primal requirement that the statements of quantum mechanics are logically consistent with anything other than observation, but it would be a surprise if we could not discern some internal logic in the mathematics of QM.
logically consistent with what observation?
observed electron movement? energy level? electron cloud? observed atoms emit photons?
-
Logic is a human invention. Atoms are not. Quantum mechanics is a human description of the behaviour of very small things. There is no primal requirement that the statements of quantum mechanics are logically consistent with anything other than observation, but it would be a surprise if we could not discern some internal logic in the mathematics of QM.
Don't waste your breath with him, Alan. He doesn't even know what logic is. He's been confusing it with "makes sense to me." As I'm sure you know that's nothing about what logic is about. Recall: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
Typically, a logic consists of a formal or informal language together with a deductive system and/or a model-theoretic semantics. The language has components that correspond to a part of a natural language like English or Greek. The deductive system is to capture, codify, or simply record arguments that are valid for the given language, and the semantics is to capture, codify, or record the meanings, or truth-conditions for at least part of the language.
Simply put, logic is about constructing cogent arguments. A simple proposition can't be considered to be either logical or illogical unless the conclusion of a cogent argument based on axioms which are more accepted than the proposition contradicts it.
That is something way over his head.
-
let's see, if you have 1 electron and 1 proton, how to make an atom.
if they are stick together in the beginning, no one can separate them. atom will become 2 tiny dots.
if they are apart in the beginning, they will attract each other and accelerating.
so every electron is precisely lucky to fall into orbit? no 1 is missing a bit? 100% success rate?
-
let's see, if you have 1 electron and 1 proton, how to make an atom.
if they are stick together in the beginning, no one can separate them. atom will become 2 tiny dots.
if they are apart in the beginning, they will attract each other and accelerating.
so every electron is precisely lucky to fall into orbit? no 1 is missing a bit? 100% success rate?
You're right. It couldn't just be luck that generates this 100% success rate. Obviously there is a reason that this happens. Perhaps there is a fundamental reason that atoms do not collapse into "2 tiny dots" ... (hint, there is no need to invoke other particles, it comes from the inherent nature of electrons)
-
Advice to anyone considering joining this thread:
jccc insists that you can derive quantum mechanics from classical mechanics, and will not accept the obvious fact that you can't. It is a waste of time arguing with him.
-
Advice to anyone considering joining this thread:
jccc insists that you can derive quantum mechanics from classical mechanics, and will not accept the obvious fact that you can't. It is a waste of time arguing with him.
Agreed alan, he refuses to accept the limitations of the classical model.
And a word of advice for you Mr. jccc:
Before you assume yourself capable of debating with the likes of our astute members here at TNS, it would be wise of you to learn how to speak and write proper English first. Trust me on this one jccc, Physics is going to be much more difficult than learning a language. Think about it, if you can't communicate properly with those with whom you're debating, how in the world can you expect to ever learn something as complex as Physics?
-
Here's an idea. I take an oath never to respond to any post written by jccc or attempt to answer any question that he asks. Let's see who follows my lead. [:)]
-
let's see, if you have 1 electron and 1 proton, how to make an atom.
if they are stick together in the beginning, no one can separate them. atom will become 2 tiny dots.
if they are apart in the beginning, they will attract each other and accelerating.
so every electron is precisely lucky to fall into orbit? no 1 is missing a bit? 100% success rate?
You're right. It couldn't just be luck that generates this 100% success rate. Obviously there is a reason that this happens. Perhaps there is a fundamental reason that atoms do not collapse into "2 tiny dots" ... (hint, there is no need to invoke other particles, it comes from the inherent nature of electrons)
isn't qm invoked many new particles? if i invented qm earlier, will you guys say look the source that's impossible?
just like you did when i told you guys light is gravity wave from atoms?
-
let's see, if you have 1 electron and 1 proton, how to make an atom.
if they are stick together in the beginning, no one can separate them. atom will become 2 tiny dots.
if they are apart in the beginning, they will attract each other and accelerating.
so every electron is precisely lucky to fall into orbit? no 1 is missing a bit? 100% success rate?
You're right. It couldn't just be luck that generates this 100% success rate. Obviously there is a reason that this happens. Perhaps there is a fundamental reason that atoms do not collapse into "2 tiny dots" ... (hint, there is no need to invoke other particles, it comes from the inherent nature of electrons)
perhaps electron is just electron, but there is tiny negative charged enertron filled up the space between proton and electron as i suggested?
-
nope. as discussed many times before, your "enerton" does not solve any of the problems you identify, and brings it's own set of problems...
EDIT: and, I might add, there is no observation that supports the existence of your "enerton"
-
such as what?
please point it out. thanks and sweet night!
-
nope. as discussed many times before, your "enerton" does not solve any of the problems you identify, and brings it's own set of problems...
EDIT: and, I might add, there is no observation that supports the existence of your "enerton"
among all against my ides you are the 1 showed me some rational thinking.
did you observed graviton and photon? observed gluons? observed strong and weak forces?
you do observe all atom are not compressible as model suggested lot empty space within them, observed no discharge within atoms, what do you say? you say qm is correct.
am i have a point?
-
such as (as I've pointed out before):
-If there are negatively charged enertons, why haven't we ever observed one by itself, or a proton that is neutralized by being surrounded by enertons, and has no electron?
-If there are negatively charged enertons, why is it that we measure the charge of a proton to be exactly 1, and the charge of an electron as exactly –1? Where is there room for extra negatively charged particles in a neutral H atom?
-If protons have many times the positive charge that we measure, and are surrounded by enertons to the extent that they only have an effective charge of 1, why is there only one charge available for a proton to have? We have never observed protons with charge any greater or less than 1, even when subjected to the incredible energies required to smash them into smaller subatomic particles--surely this would dislodge some enertons?
-How do enertons fit in with other particles we have observed, like quarks?
-Why can we remove electrons from an atom to form a positively charged ion, and interact those ions with negatively charged ions (atoms with more electrons than protons), and only electrons are transfered--never any other type of negative particle?
-
as i said earlier in my theory, 3 building blocks make up atoms.
proton carries 900 positive charges, electron carries 1 negative charge, enertron carries tiny negative charge, but it has more charge to volume ratio than electron.
a proton can never be observed by itself, proton is deep hidden within a dense enertron ball, density d=900/r^3. electron is float/balance within the enertron ball at atom radius.
atom is like earth, proton is the core, enertron is the dirt, electron is giant beach ball.
electron can never get inside of atom radius, that's why atoms are not compressible, no discharge within atom.
proton attracts -899 energtron and 1 electron to become neutral charged.
we can not detect enertron because it is too small and attracted by proton more strongly than electron.
when proton beams impact, in fact is proton/enertron balls impact, enertron balls explode, produce all kinds of em phenomena.
without charges, there is no force, there is no mass. cus you cannot measure mass without using force.
1 atomic mass equals to 1800 total charges, no matter the sign of the charge, that's why proton weight 1800 times electron weight but only carries 1 positive charge, the rest 899 positive charge is used up to balance 899 enertron.
fair enough?
-
Well, this doesn't address any of my questions, and it also begs the question: in your model, why don't the "enertrons" stick to the proton to form a point charge, and how do they keep the electron from sticking to the proton?
as i said earlier in my theory, 3 building blocks make up atoms.
proton carries 900 positive charges, electron carries 1 negative charge, enertron carries tiny negative charge, but it has more charge to volume ratio than electron.
...
1 atomic mass equals to 1800 total charges, no matter the sign of the charge, that's why proton weight 1800 times electron weight but only carries 1 positive charge, the rest 899 positive charge is used up to balance 899 enertron.
so do "enertrons" have a tiny negative charge, or a negative charge of 1? if "enertrons" have the same charge as an electron, and the same mass as an electron, why do they behave differently?
-
enerton has tiny charge, maybe 1/10^21 of an electron.
think it as negative charged elastic fluid.
appreciate your open minded discussing! at least you gave my ideas the benefit of doubt.
i think the hydrogen atom is like a water earth, proton is the core, water the enertron ball, electron is like giant beach ball.
-
I'm glad you appreciate my willingness to discuss your theory. But you still need to answer some of my questions.
-
sure. please list all your questions. are uk people ever sleep? i know they laugh for no reasons on the train.
-
such as (as I've pointed out before):
-If there are negatively charged enertons, why haven't we ever observed one by itself, or a proton that is neutralized by being surrounded by enertons, and has no electron?
-If there are negatively charged enertons, why is it that we measure the charge of a proton to be exactly 1, and the charge of an electron as exactly –1? Where is there room for extra negatively charged particles in a neutral H atom?
-If protons have many times the positive charge that we measure, and are surrounded by enertons to the extent that they only have an effective charge of 1, why is there only one charge available for a proton to have? We have never observed protons with charge any greater or less than 1, even when subjected to the incredible energies required to smash them into smaller subatomic particles--surely this would dislodge some enertons?
-How do enertons fit in with other particles we have observed, like quarks?
-Why can we remove electrons from an atom to form a positively charged ion, and interact those ions with negatively charged ions (atoms with more electrons than protons), and only electrons are transfered--never any other type of negative particle?
-
are uk people ever sleep? i know they laugh for no reasons on the train.
They are remembering one of your posts, LOL, can't stop, hysterical.
-
a hydrogen atom is made of +900 charged proton surrounded by -899 charged enertron ball, add 1 electron on the outer sphere.
the atom has 2 force fields, positive field fp=ke x 900/r^2, negative field fe=ke x -900/r^2.
those positive and negative fields between atoms/matters interact/induction becomes bounding/gravitation.
-
in fact, because the electron is on 1 side of the atom, the negative field of the atom is unbalanced, 1 side is fe=ke x -900/r^2, the other side is fe=ke x -899/r^2. that;s atoms polarity.
-
How sad that there is no evidence for your hypothesis.
I suggest you post it on a religious forum instead.
-
ALAS
what's the purpose of new theory forum?
why atoms are not compressible as standard model suggested contain 99.99% empty space?
why electrons are not discharge into protons as coulomb's law predicted?
if you think my theory is religion, what do you think standard model is?
New Theories
Got a new theory on something? Post your hypotheses here...
your comment is conflict with fact, why should i trust your anything else?
-
The standard model is a self-consistent theory that is backed up by decades of hard-won evidence. There are very few relevant experimental data that are unexplained by the theory and none that I know of that call the theory into question.
-
can standard model explain the above 2 questions?
-
Yes.
As has been stated many times before, you cannot derive quantum mechanics from classical mechanics. That is the entire, complete, and accurate answer to your two questions. Your refusal to accept this obvious truth must be an embarrassment to all who know you.
Religion has been defined as any action that is solemnly repeated despite the lack of evidence for its effect. Your questions, and indeed your hypotheses regarding atomic structure, fit that category very precisely.
-
Yes.
I disagree. That's not how the standard model is defined. It's defined as a theory of particle physics. That's what quantum mechanics does. I.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
Religion has been defined as any action that is solemnly repeated despite the lack of evidence for its effect.
There isn't a lack of evidence in religion. Scientific evidence is defined as information in the form of experimental or observational results that's consistent with a theory. It's merely that the evidence is insufficient to take religion seriously.