[jccc]

if they stick together, atom will be so small, the universe will be a little ball with all charges sleep together.

you can say the negative charged elastic fluid condensed over proton and form a solid ball and electron stick to that ball to from hydrogen atom.

it all end up add a basic building block to the atomic structure to explain why atoms are not compressible, no discharge, no electron proton marriage.

[chiralSPO]

if they stick together, atom will be so small, the universe will be a little ball with all charges sleep together.

you can say the negative charged elastic fluid condensed over proton and form a solid ball and electron stick to that ball to from hydrogen atom.

it all end up add a basic building block to the atomic structure to explain why atoms are not compressible, no discharge, no electron proton marriage.

I really don't see what we gain from having an additional negative substance.

Why doesn't this imaginary negative liquid stick so close to the proton that the whole universe is a "small ball"?

How does this negative fluid behave differently from electrons?

And why wouldn't enough negative fluid surround the nucleus that it wouldn't also need to attract electrons?

[jccc]

the fluid is charged, so it attracted by proton. it is elastic, so its density around proton decay as 1/r^3, under the attraction force f=1/r^2.

if you split electron to zillion pieces, that could be the fluid itself.

electron's charge strength at atom radius is equal to the fluid balls charge strength. 

[chiralSPO]

if you split electron to zillion pieces, that could be the fluid itself.

electron's charge strength at atom radius is equal to the fluid balls charge strength.

So you agree that one proton surrounded by a zillion pieces of one electron is a reasonable solution to the question?

[jccc]

if you split electron to zillion pieces, that could be the fluid itself.

electron's charge strength at atom radius is equal to the fluid balls charge strength.

So you agree that one proton surrounded by a zillion pieces of one electron is a reasonable solution to the question?

not at all.

i think proton carries 900+ charges, attracted 899 fluid and 1 electron to form hydrogen atom. see above few postings.

[chiralSPO]

i think proton carries 900+ charges, attracted 899 fluid and 1 electron to form hydrogen atom. see above few postings.

Interesting theory. Can you cite any experimental evidence to back it up? Or make any testable predictions?

If one proton did carry such a charge, and were surrounded by enough negative fluid to cancel out all but one electron's worth of charge I have a few questions:

1) Does it make sense that a helium nucleus would attract just enough negative charge that it still required exactly 2 electrons? And a bismuth nucleus would attract just enough negative fluid that it needs exactly 83 electrons? (still one electron for one proton)

2) Is there ever a way to separate any of this negative fluid from the proton? The hydride anion (H^–), for example, has two electrons and one proton. Why doesn't it leak negative fluid? If the attraction between the fluid and the proton is purely electrostatic, it should be possible to rip it off using a sufficiently strong electric field. Why
have we never observed a "proton" with any charge greater than +1, even when exposed to millions of volts? What powerful force prevents this discharge?

3) If every proton attracts exactly the same amount of this negative fluid under all circumstances, and the negative fluid cannot be separated from the proton under any circumstances, can we consider the fluid part of the proton?

[jccc]

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/PeriodicTable.html

see if you have any questions on that page?

[evan_au]

what wave? how electron waves? standing wave?

You can think of an electron as having wave-like properties.

The Frenchman Louis de Broglie got a Nobel Prize for the wave-particle duality model in 1929 after his some of his predictions were demonstrated in the laboratory.

One of the properties of a wave is that it's position is a bit vague (especially if you speak French...). It is not possible to confine this wave within the diameter of a nucleus, and still have an electron. A wave (and an electron) are not single-point particles.

De Broglie's model of the atom is now a little dated. Later mathematical models of the atom by Erwin Shroedinger are now considered an even more useful model of the electrons around a proton.

is the waving electron still carry negative charge?

Yes

if so why is it not stick to the proton?

It does stick to the proton - we call it a Hydrogen atom.
You can free an electron from the proton by hitting it with energy in the form of an ultraviolet photon.
This would not be possible if an electron was physically inside the nucleus - the energy to free the electron from the electrostatic field would be much higher than the ultraviolet wavelength we observe. It would require a gamma ray (much higher energy) to free the electron.

If an electron approaches another proton, it may stick to that proton, by emitting an ultraviolet photon (or several photons in the visible range, with the same total energy as the ultraviolet photon).

[chiralSPO]

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/PeriodicTable.html

see if you have any questions on that page?

This page states pretty standard stuff. I don't necessarily like the way it's all presented, but I accept it is generally true.

How about you try answering some of my questions?

If one proton did carry such a charge, and were surrounded by enough negative fluid to cancel out all but one electron's worth of charge I have a few questions:

1) Does it make sense that a helium nucleus would attract just enough negative charge that it still required exactly 2 electrons? And a bismuth nucleus would attract just enough negative fluid that it needs exactly 83 electrons? (still one electron for one proton)

2) Is there ever a way to separate any of this negative fluid from the proton? The hydride anion (H^–), for example, has two electrons and one proton. Why doesn't it leak negative fluid? If the attraction between the fluid and the proton is purely electrostatic, it should be possible to rip it off using a sufficiently strong electric field. Why
have we never observed a "proton" with any charge greater than +1, even when exposed to millions of volts? What powerful force prevents this discharge?

3) If every proton attracts exactly the same amount of this negative fluid under all circumstances, and the negative fluid cannot be separated from the proton under any circumstances, can we consider the fluid part of the proton?

[chiralSPO]

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.

[jccc]

chiralSPO, thank you for everything and the diagram!

my idea about atom is on going, nothing to support. haven't thought ways to test it yet.

1) Does it make sense that a helium nucleus would attract just enough negative charge that it still required exactly 2 electrons? And a bismuth nucleus would attract just enough negative fluid that it needs exactly 83 electrons? (still one electron for one proton)

without the fluid, isn't helium just get 2 and bismuth just get 83?

2) Is there ever a way to separate any of this negative fluid from the proton? The hydride anion (H–), for example, has two electrons and one proton. Why doesn't it leak negative fluid? If the attraction between the fluid and the proton is purely electrostatic, it should be possible to rip it off using a sufficiently strong electric field. Why
have we never observed a "proton" with any charge greater than +1, even when exposed to millions of volts? What powerful force prevents this discharge?

try to separate the fluid and proton is like try to pump water out ocean. a proton's force field is much bigger than atom's radius, you can give an hydrogen atom more than 1 electron, as long no other atoms near by to fight for the electron, more electrons can stable with 1 proton.  the voltage between proton and electron is higher than any voltage man made, yet there is no discharge, sound like empty space?

3) If every proton attracts exactly the same amount of this negative fluid under all circumstances, and the negative fluid cannot be separated from the proton under any circumstances, can we consider the fluid part of the proton?

of cause we can think so, but maybe call it nucleus is more likely.

[alancalverd]

maybe proton carries 900+, attracted 899- fluid to form nucleus, add 1 electron to form hydrogen.

Alas, an isolated proton has a charge of +1, by experiment.

[jccc]

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?

[Ethos_]

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?

Experiment shows that a proton consists of two up quarks with a charge of +2/3 each. And one down quark with a charge of -1/3. Taking 2 times +2/3 equals +4/3 and adding the -1/3 charges leaves us with +3/3 simplified to +1 charge. I really don't know where you are getting some of your figures jccc, they sure aren't coming form a physics book. Where did you ever come up with the proton having 900+ charges?

[jccc]

experiment shows photon knocks out electron, is photon a real thing?

i assume proton carries 900+, because i believe real mass is the ratio of force act on charge.

think about, when charge doubled, its force doubled. push 1 charge particle to accelerate at a, need force f, push 3 charges need 3 f to get same a.

test shows hydrogen weights 1800 electron weight, that's why i believe proton carries 900+, plus 899- and 1 electron to become neutral atom.

[chiralSPO]

I think a hydrogen atom has a mass about 1837 times that of an electron.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the mass and charge scale together. Protons are hadrons and electrons are leptons, so there is no reason to think that their mass to charge ratio should be equal...

And didn't you claim that this negative fluid had no mass before? Now it has the same mass to charge ratio as electrons?

[jccc]

i believe without charge, there is no force, therefore no mass.

why don't you use the same attitude to question standard atom models?

why don't you answer my questions on the photon thread? 

[chiralSPO]

I have spent years learning about and questioning the standard atomic theories. Most of my questions on the subject have been answered to my satisfaction or acknowledged as current limitations of our understanding.

Your theory is much newer to me and inconsistent with much of what I have learned, and sometimes inconsistent with itself.

Mostly I am asking questions to make you think hard about your theory and how it fits (or doesn't) with our current understanding of the world--hopefully my questions help you refine and communicate your ideas.

[jccc]

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 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%?   

[PmbPhy]

certainly all your questions helped me to think better and deeper, never can be forgotten.

And yet you show no signs of that because you ask the same exact questions.

did you asked yourself why electron and proton not stick together?

Most of us here know why. You're alone in this except for a few people with no understanding of quantum mechanics.

why matter is not compressible?

False claim since matter is compressible. You've been told this countless times now and like other questions you still act like nobody's explained it to you. Again you're attempting to irritate members of this forum with that childish game of yours.