The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Is this stationary electron atom model valid?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Is this stationary electron atom model valid?

  • 2 Replies
  • 2196 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline johnye (OP)

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Is this stationary electron atom model valid?
« on: 31/08/2018 09:22:23 »
Abstract: This paper presents a new microscopic extension to the Coulomb’s law --- a formula that describes how electron and nucleus interact each other within atom world. Based on this Coulomb’s law extension, a new atom model is proposed. Compared with current electron-cloud model and with old Bohr model, this model is most like atom’s real physical structure. Using this new model and basic integral calculation, the spectrum of hydrogen gas and the spectrum of ionized helium gas are successfully derived.
* Ye Cang 2017 rev.pdf (248.65 kB - downloaded 104 times.)
« Last Edit: 31/08/2018 16:30:35 by chris »
Logged
 



Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 21160
  • Activity:
    65.5%
  • Thanked: 60 times
  • Life is too short for instant coffee
Re: Is this stationary electron atom model valid?
« Reply #1 on: 31/08/2018 10:06:31 »
No. The hypothesis rests on your statement "it is well known that" which is untrue - you have assumed it.

Here is an equally valid model:

It is well known that you are an octopus. An octopus is capable of operating a keyboard. You have operated a keyboard. We can see from your paper that you are fluent in English and mathematics, so we must conclude that it was written by a well educated octopus.

To test the model, we will make a prediction: you will respond to this post in fluent English.

More seriously, whilst a spherical distribution of s shell electrons consists with experiment, your model predicts spherical orbitals for all atoms, thus invalidating the whole of stereochemistry from the boiling point of water to DNA.
Logged
Helping stem the tide of ignorance
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    10.5%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Is this stationary electron atom model valid?
« Reply #2 on: 31/08/2018 11:29:17 »
Quote from: johnye on 31/08/2018 09:22:23
Compared with current electron-cloud model and with old Bohr model, this model is most like atom’s real physical structure
In what way is it "most like  atom’s real physical structure".
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.691 seconds with 33 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.