[jeffreyH]

This site has some interesting representations of what matter waves may look like.

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-wave-structure/wave-structure-la-freniere.shtml

[JP]

This site has some interesting representations of what matter waves may look like.

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-wave-structure/wave-structure-la-freniere.shtml

Unfortunately, those plots are nonsense.

[jeffreyH]

This site has some interesting representations of what matter waves may look like.

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-wave-structure/wave-structure-la-freniere.shtml

Unfortunately, those plots are nonsense.

I didn't say they were valid. What interests me are inward traveling waves and what effects they would produce. Throughout the universe we have converging gravitational waves. This could be represented by a perfect sphere with a perfect spherical cavity at its centre.

[PmbPhy]

Please comment on the following thoughts.

The strongest positive force field in nature is very next to a proton.

The strongest negative force field is also very next to a proton, composed by negative charged energy/enertron.

Energy is thought to be infinity small negative charged particles each carries a fiction of an electron's charge.

In nature, proton attracts all negative charges, electrons and enertrons compete accelerating to proton. Enertrons win the race, it has more charge to volume ratio. 

Enertrons form a ball around proton, density = 1/r^3 from proton. Electron levitate at atom radius where protons attracting force equals to enertron ball repulsion force.

You already have my thoughts on some of this. I.e. first off you're talking about something that doesn't exist so it's either imaginary, like a unicorn, or it belongs to a New Theory. If it's the later then this is the wrong forum. If indeed it is a new theory and this is a new particle from that theory then you could at least tell us where this notion came from. I.e. what made you start talking about a thing called an "enertron" and then refuse to tell us what it is every time I've asked you what it is? It's hard to help you when you do things like that. And you know me my friend. I do want to help you.

I'll go as far as I can with what I have; you wrote

Please comment on the following thoughts.

The strongest positive force field in nature is very next to a proton.

What is the source of this force? Are you talking about the electric force? If so then that's not the strongest force in nature. The strong force is much stronger. Also since you said that it's the strongest positive force then the sign being positive means that its repulsive. However the strong force is attractive for all nucleons, both protons and neutrons. So you have a contradiction here.

The strongest negative force field is also very next to a proton, composed by negative charged energy/enertron.

Here's where you've lost connection with mainstream science. You're asking about things that don't exist and expecting physics to give you an appropriate and correct answer. Why are you doing this my friend?

[evan_au]

inside nucleus, gravity plays a big deal due to f=m₁m₂/r^2

Newton's theory of gravity states that f=Gm₁m₂/r²

The missing term is G, which is approximately equal to 6.7×10⁻¹¹ N m² kg⁻²

So this comparison between gravity and the electrical field is off by about 11 orders of magnitude.

[chiralSPO]

What's the strongest positive force field? A proton carries 1 positive charge, you put a test charge neat it to measure it. The force f=1/r^2, isn't the strongest positive force field is near the surface of a proton?

Strong force holds protons and neutrons together, therefore it should be negative charged in nature. Agree?

Also, inside nucleus, gravity plays a big deal due to f=m1m2/r^2, compare the radius of the atom and the nucleus.

There is no charge associated with the strong force. Just as with gravity. Charge is irrelevant to these forces. Just as mass is irrelevant to the electrostatic force.

The gravitational field of a hydrogen or helium nucleus is pretty close to nothing as far as their electrons are concerned. However, for much more massive atoms, (where the electrons are also much closer to the nucleus due to electrostatic attraction), like gold or mercury there is actually a significant effect. But it's not the gravitational attraction (electrons are really light), it is from the time dilation near the nucleus.

[PmbPhy]

What's the strongest positive force field?
[/quoplte A proton carries 1 positive charge, you put a test charge neat it to measure it. The force f=1/r^2, isn't the strongest positive force field is near the surface of a proton?

jccc - In my last post asked you several questions. I asked you those questions because I need to know the answer in order to answer your question. In this case I need to know what force you're talking about. When someone uses the term "positive force" they're often referring to a force which is directed away from the source of the force. In this context it means a repulsive force. The strongest repulsive force is the electric force. The closer to the particle the stronger the force.

With those assumptions we can say that the force is the same near any positive charge because all positive charges are the same. The only exception is the quark but they don't appear by themselves outside the nucleon.

However if the particle is an alpha particle (which has two protons in it) then the force is stronger near the surface of the alpha particle. And the force is the same near any positively charged particle. So using the proton is misleading because any positive charge will have the same force pushing it away. And it keeps going up with the number of protons near the nucleus of the atom, so long as electrons aren't screening them.

Strong force holds protons and neutrons together, therefore it should be negative charged in nature. Agree?

No.
In theory the strong force also holds neutrons to neutrons. Just because it holds two charged particles together it doesn't mean that it's doing so by canceling out the positive charge.

Also, inside nucleus, gravity plays a big deal due to f=m1m2/r^2, compare the radius of the atom and the nucleus.

The gravitational force inside the nucleus is so small that it's ignored in nuclear physics.

[JP]

Don't put out books and numbers, if you cannot explain just say it, say we don't know yet is better answer.

On the contrary, its been explained numerous times.  If you can't understand the explanations, just say it and we'll try to explain it in a different way.

[jccc]

Don't put out books and numbers, if you cannot explain just say it, say we don't know yet is better answer.

On the contrary, its been explained numerous times.  If you can't understand the explanations, just say it and we'll try to explain it in a different way.

Yes, please explain it in a way that is logically sound. This is so important! THANKS!

[PmbPhy]

You can say anything you like, but the logic just don't sound. Why is electrons in gold atoms very close to nucleus   not contact with it? Isn't strong attraction force at work?

In order to understand that you need to study quantum mechanics. It's not possible to answer any and all questions about nature to someone who doesn't understand physics. Likewise it's not possible to explain what happens in an atom to someone who has never studied quantum mechanics. The best that can be said to someone who's never studied it is to say that in the microscopic world electrons don't behave like ordinary things in our macroscopic world. I.e. they can't be described as having a particular shape of being at a particular position. What we can also say is that electrons around an atom are in a way somewhat like standing waves and those standing waves can only be so close to the nucleus.

7 pages, no one has an answer to the Op question that is sounding.

Actually it has been explained to the satisfaction of the person who asked the question. Just because you didn't understand it it doesn't mean the description was wrong. And as I said, you need a certain background to be able to grasp it. People don't just walk into a quantum mechanics class, ask a question and can expect to walk out of the class understanding the answer.

What's the mechanism?

We talked about the fact that science is not about providing mechanisms. Did you not listen. Read carefully  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

[jccc]

Electrons move in straight line in cloud chamber. Bent by EM field. I don't see standing wave, cloud or shell. I see a charged particle.

Why in atoms electron becomes wave? Is the wave negative charged? Is it attracted by nucleus? How the wave moves?

In H2O, electrons are bounded in fixed position, how is it a wave?

[lightarrow]

Don't put out books and numbers, if you cannot explain just say it, say we don't know yet is better answer.

On the contrary, its been explained numerous times.  If you can't understand the explanations, just say it and we'll try to explain it in a different way.

Yes, please explain it in a way that is logically sound. This is so important! THANKS!

NO! It's not important at all! Physics *don't have* to be "logically sound", and not even "logical". It have to be consistent with its postulates/theorems/definitions/rules and with the experimental results.

--
lightarrow

[jccc]

Electrons move in straight line in cloud chamber. Bent by EM field. I don't see standing wave, cloud or shell. I see a charged particle.

Why in atoms electron becomes wave? Is the wave negative charged? Is it attracted by nucleus? How the wave moves?

In H2O, electrons are bounded in fixed position, how is it a wave?

No comment? Or as confused as me?

[lightarrow]

NO! It's not important at all! Physics *don't have* to be "logically sound", and not even "logical". It have to be consistent with its postulates/theorems/definitions/rules and with the experimental results.

Please explain the theorems and experiment results about how a hydrogen atom is formed.

You received a lot of answers but you don't believe us...
You only have to study quantum mechanics and when you have seriously done it you come here again and you tell us what's wrong with this theory.
Regards.

--
lightarrow

[PmbPhy]

Electrons move in straight line in cloud chamber.

Actually that's not true. What you're seeing is an approximation of a straight line. At the subatomic level it can't even be said to be a trajectory in the literal sense.

I don't see standing wave, cloud or shell.

Please recall what I wrote, i.e.

The best that can be said to someone who's never studied it is to say that in the microscopic world electrons don't behave like ordinary things in our macroscopic world.

Note: When I use the term microscopic level, I'm being a bit sloppy. To be precise it really applies to the subatomic level.

Notice that I was talking about the subatomic world while you keep thinking about the macroscopic world. Did you ever really believe that if you looked hard or with a strong enough microscope that you'd be able to see electrons orbiting a nucleus? It's down at atomic sizes that this wave size for electrons is apparent. Thompson's double slit experiment used photons to demonstrate the wave nature of photons. So you really can't compare the two when it comes to wavelength.

I see a charged particle.

That too is incorrect. Have you ever studied how a cloud chamber works? If not then please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber#Structure_and_operation

The result is a supersaturated environment. The alcohol vapour condenses around ion trails left behind by the travelling ionizing particles. The result is cloud formation, seen in the cloud chamber by the presence of droplets falling down to the condenser. As particles pass through they leave ionization trails and because the alcohol vapour is supersaturated it condenses onto these trails. Since the tracks are emitted radially out from the source, their point of origin can easily be determined

When you look at "trajectories" in a cloud chamber and you think you see a moving charge, what you're really seeing is a trail of vapour. And this is at the macroscopic level, not the microscopic level.

You can't see things at the subatomic level with your eyes or even with the most powerful microscope that can theoretically be built.

Why in atoms electron becomes wave? Is the wave negative charged? Is it attracted by nucleus? How the wave moves?

Electrons never become waves. They have wave "properties" at some times and particle properties at other times.

In H2O, electrons are bounded in fixed position, how is it a wave?

Again, you didn't read close enough to my last post. I.e.

What we can also say is that electrons around an atom are in a way somewhat like standing waves and those standing waves can only be so close to the nucleus.

Why do you think I added that part that says  in a way somewhat like? It's because it's too difficult to explain the exact nature to someone who hasn't studied the subject. If I told you about eigenfunctions and spherical harmonics would you be able to understand what I was talking about? The functions which describe the probability density of the electron a solution to Schrodinger's equation.

To see what the solutions look like for hydrogen go to Google and search using the phrase "diagrams of the solutions to Schrodinger equation for hydrogen". You'll see that the first result comes up with pictures that look like clouds (which is why they're called "electron clouds"). Take a look at it and study it.

[jccc]

It is raining, I see everything without a leg/support falling down, a little gravity but nothing can escape from it.

What's the leg support 10^34 g attraction force between nucleus and electrons?

QM laws? Seriously my friends.

[chiralSPO]

your "logic" fails on the subatomic scale. Many of your assumptions are based on macroscopic phenomena, and lead to false and paradoxical statements.

On this subatomic scale, it is entirely reasonable, and actually necessary, for something to "be in multiple places at once"
On this subatomic scale, it is entirely impossible for something to stop moving
On this subatomic scale, it is entirely possible for something to go from one place to another without traveling through any points in between.

On a macroscopic scale, these claims sound ridiculous, and anything behaving in this way would certainly seem magical. However this is how really small things are. It has been demonstrated experimentally, we have mathematical models for it, and these models make good predictions that can be tested against experiment (many of them).

Please stop telling the world that it is not behaving the way you think is logical (it won't listen)

[JP]

I've split a few posts off this thread.  jccc, please keep your posts on topic and don't promote new theories here.  If you want to propose alternative explanations to standard quantum mechanics, the place to do so is in the New Theories forum.

Thanks,
The Mods

[Ethos_]

On a macroscopic scale, these claims sound ridiculous, and anything behaving in this way would certainly seem magical. However this is how really small things are. It has been demonstrated experimentally, we have mathematical models for it, and these models make good predictions that can be tested against experiment (many of them).

What experiments and predictions? Please point out, appreciate.

Believe me, if I can understand QM, my sleep will be much sweeter.

To understand QM, I'm sure if you were to take the advice which several members here have offered, you might not only understand QM, you would sleep much sweeter as well as the rest of us.

[jccc]

My great great great grandpa was a scientist. He left a note book, he theorised/ predicted the universe is expending, light speed is constant in all sources and directions, spiral galaxies create magnetic field at center disk.

If he was published his theories/predictions in mainstream science field 100 years ago, would you never forget his name?