[Ethos_]

I'll never believe anything not logical to my mind.

Unless you start believing in experimental results, you'll never be practicing good science either!

[PmbPhy]

I'll never believe anything not logical to my mind.

That's your problem. You seem to think that we want too convince you that something is logical. There will never ever be a reason to assume that you'll ever understand the logic. That simply might be beyond your understanding. The only thing that we're going to do, and that physics can do is to formulate laws of physics whose results can be tested and which we can use to make predictions which are also testable, the results being consistent with what's observed.

Those who believe orbiting atom structure should also believe magic.

Not at all. Especially since this sentence is quite meaningless.

Still think about photon? Particle wavelength? There's no such thing beside foolish minds.

Actually it's you who is the fool because you talk about things that you don't understand.

The wavelength associated with photons is the wavelength that a wave would have in order to describe things like interference patterns and to determine probability distributions.

This is what we've been telling you for years now and you refuse to read to really understand it. That's why you remain ignorant and make foolish comments. If you actually studied quantum mechanics you'd then learn what all of these things mean and what led physicists to these laws. Since you refuse to learn then you'll keep making silly comments like this.

[jeffreyH]

A free neutron decays in less than 15 minutes. Being the combination of a proton and electron this shows that this is unstable and the natural state is for them to be separate. This is experimentally verified. What does this tell you? Think about it for fifteen minutes.

[PmbPhy]

The 'orbit' of an electron must be distributed in all directions. It is still an orbit however.

Wrong. You've still got a way to go Jeff. It this was true then the electron would radiate. Since it doesn't then we know that the electron doesn't even move on a classical trajectory, regardless of its shape. Don't confuse orbits with orbitals.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

Notice all the diagrams in that page and notice that there's nothing there that looks like an orbit. There are even orbitals where the electron is found in the nucleus.

[jccc]

Lit a candle, say it produces N photons per second. 

Those photons fly away at every direction at c speed.

At N meters away, you have a detector, its lens is 1 meter wide.

How many photons will you detect per second?

[Bill S]

We may suck as physics and maths and the likes,
But we husband our erudite goals.
We’d all do much better to get on our bikes
Than to stick around here feeding trolls!

[jeffreyH]

The 'orbit' of an electron must be distributed in all directions. It is still an orbit however.

Wrong. You've still got a way to go Jeff. It this was true then the electron would radiate. Since it doesn't then we know that the electron doesn't even move on a classical trajectory, regardless of its shape. Don't confuse orbits with orbitals.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

Notice all the diagrams in that page and notice that there's nothing there that looks like an orbit. There are even orbitals where the electron is found in the nucleus.

We can consider these orbitals as standing waves. These standing waves do not revolve around the equator of a proton. They must be distributed all around the proton. There is no way in which an equator can be said to exist anyway as proton spin can not be viewed as in the rotation of a planet. It is more complex than that. The uncertainty involves the direction of this standing wave as well as the direction of the electron spin in the z direction. This can be spin up or spin down. The whole reason we say there is no radiation is the quantization of angular momentum. Do you think jccc understands ANY of this. Is it going to help him by making it so complicated straight away?

[jeffreyH]

Just to make this clear.

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Quantum_Mechanics/09._The_Hydrogen_Atom/Atomic_Theory/Electrons_in_Atoms/Electronic_Orbitals

"Visualizing Electron Orbitals

As discussed in the previous section, the magnetic quantum number (ml ) can range from –l to +l. The number of possible values is the number of lobes (orbitals) there are in the s, p, d, and f subshells. As shown in the chart above, the s subshell has one lobe, the p subshell has three lobes, the d subshell has five lobes, and the f subshell has seven lobes. Each of these lobes is labeled differently and is named depending on which plane the lobe is resting in. If the lobe lies along the x plane, then it is labeled with an x, as in 3px. If the lobe lies along the xy plane, then it is labeled with an x and a y such as dxy. Electrons are found within the lobes. The plane (or planes) that the orbitals do not fill are called nodes. These are regions in which there is a 0 probability density of finding electrons. For example, in the dyx orbital, there are nodes on planes xz and yz. This can be seen in the diagrams below."

You can see from the illustration that the s orbital is considered spherical. Being so the distribution is spherical. Other orbitals have lobes. This is complicated further by valence bonding and conduction bands.

[PmbPhy]

We can consider these orbitals as standing waves.

You're thinking about the Bohr model, aren't you? In the Bohr model, yes. You can view them as such. See
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ewav.html

However the Bohr model is not a truly valid model. For example; it gives the impression that no matter what the wavelength of the electron there will always be orbital angular momentum and that's not true. In the completed version of quantum mechanics the ground state allows for zero angular momentum.

[jeffreyH]

We can consider these orbitals as standing waves.

You're thinking about the Bohr model, aren't you? In the Bohr model, yes. You can view them as such. See
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ewav.html

However the Bohr model is not a truly valid model. For example; it gives the impression that no matter what the wavelength of the electron there will always be orbital angular momentum and that's not true. In the completed version of quantum mechanics the ground state allows for zero angular momentum.

That's very interesting. Do you have any links or reading material on the subject.

[PmbPhy]

That's very interesting. Do you have any links or reading material on the subject.

You can read all about in the very text; Quantum Mechanics by A.P. French and E.F. Taylor, pages 43-44.

I scanned it in and put it on my website for you. See
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/Science_Literature/Journal_Articles/other.htm

The part you want is Quantum Mechanics by A.P. French and E.F. Taylor, pages 43-44 and 2025-226

[chiralSPO]

Lit a candle, say it produces N photons per second. 

Those photons fly away at every direction at c speed.

At N meters away, you have a detector, its lens is 1 meter wide.

How many photons will you detect per second?

Still counting?

Assuming that no photons are blocked by the candle itself, the number of photons leaving the flame per second should be the same as the number passing through the sphere around the candle of radius N (did you mean for N photons per second and distance N to be the same N?) I will call this radius "R"

N photons per second equally distributed through a sphere of radius R meters means N/(4πR²)  photons per second per square meter. A circular lens with a diameter of 1 meter has an area of π/4 square meters, so it would capture N/(16R²) photons per second. (if this number is not a whole number, that does not imply that fractions of photons are involved, it is just an average rate--one half photon per second means one photon every two seconds)

What did this have to do with anything???

[jccc]

1. If there's only one positive change and 10 negative charges in the universe, will the negative charges gather around the positive charge?  Heavier nucleus have more positive charge, form denser space fluid balls, electrons are float at atom radius.

2.Who told you that the universe has same amount positive and negative charges?

3. Could be all wrong, they don't understand that the ether is charged, light speed is not constant, temperature and medium density involved.


1.

2. ??

3. Electron is a charged particle. It turns in EM field. It has mass. EM wave/light is moving force, no mass, no charge.

Still waiting for your feedback, chiralSPO.

[Colin2B]

[^2=1/16N photons per second. That means every 16N seconds detect 1 photon. I'll never able to take a picture of the flame. Does that gives you doubt that light is not particle but wave of energy?

Forget the photograph, patent the control mechanism.
You genuinely have a means of controlling the candle output so that when the detector is 1 meter away you can reduce the candle output to 1photon/sec?
Wow, respect.
Or am I missing something?

[jccc]

[^2=1/16N photons per second. That means every 16N seconds detect 1 photon. I'll never able to take a picture of the flame. Does that gives you doubt that light is not particle but wave of energy?

Forget the photograph, patent the control mechanism.
You genuinely have a means of controlling the candle output so that when the detector is 1 meter away you can reduce the candle output to 1photon/sec?
Wow, respect.
Or am I missing something?

There is no photon particle. Maybe. I hope your comment on my ideas about atomic structure, gravity and magnetism.

[Ethos_]

There is no photon particle. Maybe.

The photon can represent itself in either manner, wave or particle. Traveling thru space the photon is transmitted as a wave but becomes a particle when the wave function collapses. If you are suggesting that the photon can't become a particle, give us your source as evidence.

[jccc]

There is no photon particle. Maybe.

The photon can represent itself in either manner, wave or particle. Traveling thru space the photon is transmitted as a wave but becomes a particle when the wave function collapses. If you are suggesting that the photon can't become a particle, give us your source as evidence.

How the photon transmitted to wave and become a particle? What's the mechanism? How electron emits photon? By imagination?

[Ethos_]

There is no photon particle. Maybe.

The photon can represent itself in either manner, wave or particle. Traveling thru space the photon is transmitted as a wave but becomes a particle when the wave function collapses. If you are suggesting that the photon can't become a particle, give us your source as evidence.

How the photon transmitted to wave and become a particle? What's the mechanism? How electron emits photon? By imagination?

You will never have any luck answering a question with another question my friend. If you have no evidence, just say so and we can choose to contribute to this thread or simply ignore it.

[jccc]

There is no photon particle. Maybe.

The photon can represent itself in either manner, wave or particle. Traveling thru space the photon is transmitted as a wave but becomes a particle when the wave function collapses. If you are suggesting that the photon can't become a particle, give us your source as evidence.

How the photon transmitted to wave and become a particle? What's the mechanism? How electron emits photon? By imagination?

You will never have any luck answering a question with another question my friend. If you have no evidence, just say so and we can choose to contribute to this thread or simply ignore it.

You want truth or win an argument? 

[Ethos_]

There is no photon particle. Maybe.

The photon can represent itself in either manner, wave or particle. Traveling thru space the photon is transmitted as a wave but becomes a particle when the wave function collapses. If you are suggesting that the photon can't become a particle, give us your source as evidence.

How the photon transmitted to wave and become a particle? What's the mechanism? How electron emits photon? By imagination?

You will never have any luck answering a question with another question my friend. If you have no evidence, just say so and we can choose to contribute to this thread or simply ignore it.

You want truth or win an argument?

I haven't heard any truth yet, but I'm still waiting.