The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Alternative description of atomic structure  (Read 3838 times)

Offline greeniemax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Alternative description of atomic structure
« on: 12/03/2012 11:35:16 »
Alternative description of atomic structure.

Current description of atom is bit overwhelming, it has lots of components starting with some basic particles Proton, Neutron and Electron. The structure answers lots of things from very basic thing like periodic table to complex things like how molecules are formed, it doesnít seem wrong but problem is as soon as you step into complication like Quantum Mechanics it has dual nature of electron, standard model says it is made up of simpler particles like quarks, it simply gets confusing when you apply a mathematical theory behind it that has so many constants that you could change anything and get any answer. People who work with this theory might feel bad when I say this but seriously it doesnít make sense as a theory where you could plug in your numbers and get an answer, unless we are missing something. Well the point goes against me as well when I say its complex and doesnít make sense because they could say, ďYou do not understand itĒ. Maybe they are right, I donít understand it this is why I find it complex and insensible.

But I am giving my simpler explanation of things, Iím a simple person and I understand things in simpler way or maybe its just time, Bohr understood electrons like particles going around the proton (in case of hydrogen) and I understand it as a different thing. This is just another explanation of how things could be in reality as we havenít figured out any right way yet, I have a chance of putting my 2 cents in it.

First thing that doesnít make sense is consistency, what do I mean by that? It means the size of proton, neutron and electron are same, their charges are same, but nature does not give integers, a rock is not same as another rock, if you pick up two stones they look different have different shapes and are nothing alike. Than why on Quantum level things change that only 3 quarks make up proton? It doesnít even make sense, that means all quarks are same size, that is not what nature is habituated in giving us integers or numbers. So I canít understand why 3 quarks would make up a proton or 1 proton would make up hydrogen, it simply doesnít make sense.

So what do I propose? Lets not confuse ourselves over this and propose that protons (word proton is only use for our understanding) are made up of smaller particles that have no minimum size, they could be as small as they could get and they are everywhere, lets call it dark matter for reference or actually. I call them matter particles because I like to call them something that make sense matter particles make up matter, sounds good enough.

But there is a problem, if matter particle (Dark matter) could form higher particles (like protons), why in the world they are free in the middle of no where and not forming particles? Hmm true, so lets add another thing, energy. Well I thought energy was matter, we know that E=MC2, that is perfectly fine the formula is true but its talking about amount of energy that could reside in a given amount of atom multiplied by speed of light raise to two, it doesnít need to say that energy equals to mass. Thus energy is separate from mass, they are totally different things, yes mass or matter particles in our case need energy to form higher level particles but energy cannot be formed or created in the universe that is filled up with dark matter as it would not convert to energy, i.e. energy and matter are two separate things.

So fine if we take energy and matter as two different form, how does that help?

First of all we got ride of integers and secondly now we could imagine atom in a totally different way. So lets put the rules here first, matter + energy = atom.

But that really doesnít explain electron are electrons energy? No, electron is a field, its neither wave or particle, itís a simple field of charge created when matter particles and energy comes together. Let me try to give you whatís in my mind, energy is like water that is able to attract matter (which is like dust), thus forming clay, more dust you put onto it, it will accept but at a point itíll not be able to hold the dust and atom would decay.

So if M>E than we have decay.

In case you put more water on this dust it has to lose the extra water (now for sure water example doesnít do it any justice but it has to do) to surrounding balls of clay, but in case you still put more water it will radiate as some kind of energy.

Thus, if E>M than we have radiation.

So basically we got ride of not only Integers but also of strong and weak forces as decay could easily be explained.

Prediction: At 0 Deg K, everything will decay much faster, increasing the temperature should slow down its decay, because more energy you put in more particles like dust could it hold, that means at point of radiation things would not decay or decay very slowly.

Now for sure above prediction is not in line with current theories but it says what it says, Iím sure you people have google and could find the right answer.

So what is electron? Electron is a field generated by the amount of energy in an atom, so if you increase the amount of energy the negative field would get larger and if you decrease the amount of energy it would get lower.

Thus formation of light (waves), yes I do not consider light as particle or photon not only because it doesnít make sense but there is no method to show its production, i.e. there is no mechanism that shows how light could be produced as photon if electron field jumps from higher to lower orbit. But yes if same electron field moves from higher level to lower level it would radiate light as a wave.

Thus this is how atom in my theory looks like, you people are first of all the smart people I have put my theory across, till now I talked about this to people who donít understand anything about science and I want people to hear me and tell me if Iím wrong.

Though I was writing about ďatomic charge timeĒ a concept in my theory that explains why we have ďphoto electric effectĒ and explaining the same with wave phenomenon, I stopped writing it and wrote this because people Iím going to talk to first should understand what Iím talking about before my assumptions and why I assume like that.

You are welcome to question me on this, I know I could be totally wrong but for the time being this is what makes sense to me and if I could learn from my mistakes than great.

This surely is a big paper and Iím expecting your comments on it even though Iím scared to read them because I still have to get used to the fact of being rejected.


 

Offline greeniemax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative description of atomic structure
« Reply #1 on: 13/03/2012 06:47:59 »
Come on I need your input on this people, please tell me where am wrong ask me questions or if you agree with something please acknowledge.

I'm not putting this in front of smart people like you just to be ignored.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative description of atomic structure
« Reply #2 on: 13/03/2012 10:23:29 »
Greenie - it makes little sense.  Light is particulate, electrons are not same size as protons, neutrons are uncharged, electrons are all identical, quarks and quantum chromo dynamics works, your understanding of e=mc^2 is incorrect....

You cannot just make this stuff up - there needs to be connections with empirical observations, previous theory, and maths
 

Offline greeniemax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative description of atomic structure
« Reply #3 on: 13/03/2012 12:53:50 »
Hi Imatfaal,

I never said electrons are same size protons, in fact I'm saying electrons aren't even particles and no they are not waves they are fields, electron is a field around the atom that increases in size if you add more energy to it and reduces in size if energy is removed from it. Like electron jumping to higher orbit and lower orbit, its a same concept but different outlook because if you take electron as particle it does not answer the mechanism to produce light, Logically, now I know we have to keep our logic on side if we want to believe in Quantum Mechanics.

Neutrons are just proton with electron, its actually a hydrogen atom.

If anything would work with 20 constants like standard model, than we wouldn't have string theory trying to explain how it really works, Quantum theory does not go with General Relativity because GR simply can't explain where gravity comes from and its a same problem with QM. Unable to explain the origin of gravity.

I'm sorry if e=mc^2 doesn't mean that amount of energy could be produced by matter x speed of light ^ 2, but I this is what I understand that its a formula to give energy output of mass is converted to energy. If I'm wrong please give me a link so I could correct myself.

Light might be particle, I'm not saying that is wrong but in my theory that is something that is simply not needed and there is a reason for that, in case light is a particle we wouldn't have cosmic background radiation because in my theory its a totally different reason (not big bang) why it exists.

As far as observations are concerned I am unable to find issues, problem is that everyone says temperature doesn't effect decay rate but there are some experiments done that shows that as you increase temperature the decay slows down. Now current theories simply says its not possible. When I talk about this theory its one of the main understanding that it would happen.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24307/

Again, sir I'm not saying I'm smarter than these people who did great achievement and I'm not saying I'm better, but empirical observations completely gives what this theory a say, secondly they always talk about summitry and they haven't found a single evidence for it. Maybe tomorrow they might discover something but in my opinion these are simply parts of atom that you smash up, some with energy others without energy, giving feeling of electron or proton, because we look at this computer screen see atoms smashed to small pieces and we say... ah this is electron and that is a quark, we have no proof of it.

As far as math is concerned, I'm working on it still might take me 2-3 years just to learn higher math but lets see where it takes me, because as of right now, I can only do calculus at the most.
« Last Edit: 13/03/2012 12:56:07 by greeniemax »
 

Offline greeniemax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative description of atomic structure
« Reply #4 on: 29/03/2012 08:40:34 »
As soon as you go into calculation everything falls apart  :-[

Stupid data doesn't even make logical sense, its just random, I'm sure we're missing something... but what?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Alternative description of atomic structure
« Reply #4 on: 29/03/2012 08:40:34 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums