[alancalverd]

Pete, have you not been warned about p***ing into the wind? jccc has his own beliefs about the structure of the hydrogen atom and no amount of observation or commonsense will change his mind, possibly because we are all capitalist lickspittles, commie atheists, or evil alien lizardpeople dedicated to obscuring the Truth that has been Revealed to jccc alone.

[jccc]

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?

[chiralSPO]

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?

Are you not listening? We have said multiple times that an electron stuck to proton is a hydrogen atom!

How could an electron discharge if the smallest charge carrier is an electron?

Matter is compressible! It takes a lot of force, but densities of crystals increase at increased pressure. With crazy amounts of force (neutron star) the electrons can be forced into the nucleus, forming a neutrons.

An electron behaves in a wavelike manner and it is around the proton--this has been shown experimentally in many different ways.

Energy levels can be thought of as the different harmonics of the electron wave in the atom (or molecule).

n is the way we denote energy level. It is one of the principle quantum numbers we use to describe electrons in an atom (like an address for each electron) the others are l (azimuthal quantum number, relates to magnitude of angular momentum), m_l (magnetic quantum number, relates to direction of angular momentum) and m_s (spin). These are hard concepts to grasp, but essentially, there are only so many ways an electron wave can be stable around a nucleus, and these four numbers are used to describe the different stable solutions.

For n = 1, there are no solutions with angular momentum (l = 0 and m_l = 0)
For n = 2, l can be 0 or 1, and when l = 1 m_l can be –1, 0 or 1
overall for any n, l can have integer values of 0, 1, 2, .... all the way up to n–1
for any l, m_l can have any integer value between –l and l

any orbital with l = 0 is called an s orbital; any orbital with l = 1 is called a p orbital (and remember when l = 1 m_l can be –1, 0 or 1) so there are three types of orthogonal p orbitals
any orbital with l = 2 is called a d orbital (there are 5 types of orthogonal d orbitals) etc. etc. etc. this is all just our naming system, the actual equation that I'm dancing around is called the Schrödinger equation, which is used to calculate the possible wavefunctions of electrons in an atom (or molecule).

The mechanism is that that's the way the universe works. We are just describing it.

is book gives you the correct answers? you are satisfied 100% or 20%?

I am about 90% satisfied with book answers. The remaining 10% represents the combination of my own lack of understanding and what scientists everywhere don't yet have good explanations for.

[chiralSPO]

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?

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.

[jccc]

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?

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.

which part is not logical? did i answered every question you asked for?

please point, thank you.

[jccc]

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?

[jccc]

think about it, a building, an earth quake can damage it, a bomb can destroy it. if atoms are as science said, electrons are waving around the nucleus, all perfectly balanced, why is compressibility is 10^-10? why is during fission reaction, not even damage any part of it?

can we build anything similar? not in imagination?

[chiralSPO]

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?

The atom's radius is set by the electron, not the proton. They are stuck by electrostatic attraction.

Matter is compressible! It takes a lot of force.

1/10^10 is compreessible? isn't atomis mostly empty space between proton and electron?

I don't know where you're getting that number (and no units, so it's not very meaningful...), but since it's not zero, I would say it probably means that matter is compressible. There isn't really empty space in the atom. The electron(s) is (are) there.

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?

Not sure what you mean here. The electron is already "at" the proton, so it can't move closer.

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?

Louis de Broglie formalized the concept of wave-particle duality. The electron wave (or electron probability density wave, if you prefer)

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?

I can't see s, p, d shells. But I can measure them, and I can model them.

[jccc]

seriously, your above statement is no better than your crashing bird 1.

[chiralSPO]

At this point, you're on your own. The answers are all in this thread. If you are actually a truth seeker, you will read more about quantum mechanics. I recommend you look at the history of it, rather than the mathematics of it. You will see how people made their discoveries, how they defended their theories against criticism, and how inventors were able to take advantage of our new-found understanding of atomic and molecular systems.

If you would rather make up your own reality, and you don't care how representative it is of the universe, have fun.

[jccc]

you mean you cannot point out what part of my theory is NOT logical?

[Ethos_]

you mean you cannot point out what part of my theory is NOT logical?

How about your post #329? Makes absolutely no sense!

[jccc]

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?

this 1?

[Ethos_]

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?

this 1?

Yep...................

[jccc]

please see 353, thanks!

[corrupt]

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)?

[lightarrow]

you mean you cannot point out what part of my theory is NOT logical?

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

[chiralSPO]

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)?

I'm not exactly sure of the mechanism, but neutrons are know to decompose into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. If you crunch the numbers, I bet the mass-energy, charge (this one's easy) and spin (angular momentum) are all conserved.

Any QED experts want to shed light on this one?

[guest39538]

Because the electron field is produced by the Proton?

or by simply being so small the electron is relatively fell into the Proton, how big do you imagine this atom to be?

[Ethos_]

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

I agree with you lightarrow, I think these fellows have come here with the single agenda, to sow discourse and cause confusion.