0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
maybe proton carries 900+, attracted 899- fluid to form nucleus, add 1 electron to form hydrogen.
alash. a hydrogen is neutral, by all means. yet you cannot say it contains no charge. you say its net charge is 0.if proton carries the fluid with it, net charge is +1, will test show +1 charge?
certainly all your questions helped me to think better and deeper, never can be forgotten.
did you asked yourself why electron and proton not stick together?
why matter is not compressible?
did you asked yourself why electron and proton not stick together? why no discharge? why matter is not compressible? how electron waving around proton? what is energy level? how is n p s shell carry electrons? what's the mechanism?
is book gives you the correct answers? you are satisfied 100% or 20%?
a more logically sounding theory of atomic structure is discussed in the last 6 pages, 20k new viewers.i kind disappointed to see some of the comments.question is, am i the only one?
Quote from: jccc on 19/03/2015 12:37:15a more logically sounding theory of atomic structure is discussed in the last 6 pages, 20k new viewers.i kind disappointed to see some of the comments.question is, am i the only one?Your theory is NOT more logical, and don't think that the number of views this thread gets is any confirmation of your theory. It is probably the result of the title being a commonly held question, coming up in google searches, and forum members interested in hearing/shooting down the next crazy thing you throw up into the thread.
We have said multiple times that an electron stuck to proton is a hydrogen atom!an atom's radius is way bigger than a proton, which part of the electron is stuck to a proton? how they stuck? if they stuck why there is atom radius?
Matter is compressible! It takes a lot of force.1/10^10 is compreessible? isn't atomis mostly empty space between proton and electron?
How could an electron discharge if the smallest charge carrier is an electron?electron always discharge into positive charge, what else particle is more dischargeable?
Energy levels can be thought of as the different harmonics of the electron wave in the atom.who though so? what wave? how a particle waves? what's the mechanism?
The mechanism is that that's the way the universe works. We are just describing it.you see n, s, p shells? see electrons there? count them? how?
you mean you cannot point out what part of my theory is NOT logical?
maybe proton carries 900+, attracted 899- fluid to form nucleus, add 1 electron to form hydrogen.the rest fluid maybe the source of dm/de?atomic structure has to be 100% correct, otherwise whole science is doubtful. any thoughts?
Quote from: jccc on 15/03/2015 08:31:27maybe proton carries 900+, attracted 899- fluid to form nucleus, add 1 electron to form hydrogen.the rest fluid maybe the source of dm/de?atomic structure has to be 100% correct, otherwise whole science is doubtful. any thoughts?this 1?
How can a neutron (which is comprised of two down-quarks and an up-quark) turn into an electron (which is itself a fundamental particle)?
How can a soup of silly things be considered a theory? Or you are kidding us all? You are doing it, say the truth...But I can't understand those who keep ansering you losing their time ...--lightarrow
Antiparticle has positive energy. Dirac was mistaken.
We cannot discount the ``negative energy'' solutions since the positive energy solutions alone do not form a complete set. An electron which is localized in space, will have components of its wave function which are ``negative energy''. ...The idea of an infinite sea of ``negative energy'' electrons is a strange one. What about all that charge and negative energy? Why is there an asymmetry in the vacuum between negative and positive energy when Dirac's equation is symmetric? (We could also have said that positrons have positive energy and there is an infinite sea of electrons in negative energy states.) This is probably not the right answer but it has many elements of truth in it. It also gives the right result for some simple calculations. When the Dirac field is quantized, we will no longer need the infinite ``negative energy'' sea, but electrons and positrons will behave as if it were there.
am i the only 1 so confused?
jccc, I have thought of another way of describing the hydrogen atom pictorially. It's not a completely accurate model, just an analogy that might help.Think of the electric potential produced by the proton as a surface--essentially like the gravity wells represented in curved space-time. The proton is very small, so it can essentially be treated as a point particle, or we can use a nonzero radius for the cutoff of the well (finite depth of the well), either way it doesn't matter.The electron can be thought of as a marble that is free to roll around on this surface. It will naturally roll down into the potential well created by the proton, and it will eventually get stuck in the well. It is centered at the same x-y coordinates as the proton (center of the marble is directly over the center of the well), but because it has a determined diameter, the marble can only go so far down into the well.I have illustrated a 1-dimensional version of this (two including potential, but only one spatial coordinate: x). The size of the "marble" is determined by how massive the particle is (more massive means smaller marble) (the size of this marble represents the de Broglie wavelength λ = h/p, where p is momentum and h is Planck's constant).Thus when a negative particle heavier than the electron is modeled, we get a smaller marble. For instance, the muon has the same charge as an electron, but is about 200 times more massive. The exotic atom formed by the interaction of a muon and a proton is exactly the same as a normal hydrogen atom, except the muon is distributed much closer to the proton (this is how muons catalyze fusion). Going even further, an antiproton (1832 times heavier than an electron) would be extremely close to the proton. The antiproton and proton would also interact via the strong force (which the electron and muon would not do) and would fairly quickly annihilate with the proton.
why atoms are not compressible as theory predicted? 99.99% empty space within atom right?why electron not discharge into proton? any other em field is stronger? any other voltage is higher?how neutral charged atoms able to form into group?all legit questions, agree?
only you and any others who can't let go of the intuition of classical physics...
Quote from: jccc on 22/06/2015 20:35:17why atoms are not compressible as theory predicted? 99.99% empty space within atom right?why electron not discharge into proton? any other em field is stronger? any other voltage is higher?how neutral charged atoms able to form into group?all legit questions, agree?all legit questions, all with legit answers.For instance: neutral atoms form into groups because it is usually energetically favorable for the electrons to be shared between multiple nuclei.
ok. then if atoms are apart, the same energetically favorable should be for the atoms to share the outer electrons and attract each other that causes gravitation.am i have a point?
Quote from: chiralSPO on 23/06/2015 00:05:05https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bondhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_orbital_theoryif i believe/understand those theory, i won't be here.if you understand, please explain in your words. those wiki knowledge to me not like science.
Quote from: jccc on 27/02/2015 15:43:14Quote from: PmbPhy on 27/02/2015 15:21:28Quote from: jcccwe need to start from the light source. if atoms are like qm suggested, 99% empty space, why is water/matter not compressible? It is compressible. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Compressibilitywater's compressibility is about 10 ^-10, sounds like 99% empty space to you? how about the discharge? is the empty space such a good insulator?what's your answer?Modify messageReport to moderator 126.96.36.199PmbPhyHero Member<snipped garbage>
you don't remember what you said earlier in this thread?
you do remember your science knowledge right?you can read right?do you have answers now?