The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Physics does a good job of informing but does it do enough listening?  (Read 3734 times)

Offline alysdexia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Thanks Jeffrey H I am much indebted. I hadn't realized (shows my inexperience ) that I had theorized the elusive monopole, but I had noticed how I had arrived at a similar type of structure to string theory but with one crucial difference my string has three dimensions not two, even if the third dimension is the minimum possible. Can you now see why I need access to physics brains. There are several questions in my mind. My treatment and ideas about nuclear charge are a bit of a fudge and I need some help with the nature of it.  The Rydberg constant in my model comes from a smoothing adjustment of rotating fields. the beads need to reduce their orbits slightly from the empirical calculated orbits to allow for the null areas between the circular fields. In two dimensions at the centre this gives Rb=1.15, Three dimensions will reduce this to some where close to 1.09 but the maths is horrible. The field is a three dimensional doughnut shaped parabola,over lapping these and balancing moments is a nightmare. The other area is to calculate how many beads there are. We know that Hydrogen has a mass of 1.66kg Χ 10‾24. So it should be possible to calculate the number by comparing Newton's gravitational constant with the binding force. All this is of course conjecture I am expecting you to find an error or at least no way of substantiation, but if it makes just one physicist think that maybe I am worth talking to, I'm happy.

Inverse laws mean the smaller the mote the heavier.

You may want to look at Rydberg atoms, how orbitals behave towards the classic limit when they break sımmetry.  Despite the orbitals' shape I model the s orbital as a 1D harmonic superposed in 3D and the p orbital as three loops superposed in 2D; the other blocks make compound loops.  Of course I believe in the standard motes but interpret QM as at least a two-body interaction to emulate the wavefunction.  I don't believe in superstrings.

Offline dhjdhj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Thanks once I worked out what a mote was ( we use particle this side of the pond ) and I have had a quick look at Rydberg atoms, but I need to oil my brain a bit before I can comment. I do however have a built-in unease with string theory without having sufficient knowledge to understand why. My modest hypothesis has string like features in the atom model, but I was at pains to stress that the atom model was a maybe and not essential to the idea as a whole, it did however give a possible alternative structure to Bohr's model for Rydberg's mathematics. 

The Naked Scientists Forum


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