[mathew_orman (OP)]

http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=AtomicNuclear_ChadwickNeutron.xml

Geiger counter does not detect electrons then why would it detect protons?
Did Chadwick tried exposing paraffin discreetly to Polonium radiation and comparing the results?
Would Chadwick interpret the results not in favor to Rutherford's hypothetical Nucleus?

[evan_au]

Geiger counter does not detect electrons then why would it detect protons?

The Geiger Counter is built around a gas tube containing a high-voltage wire, which will spark over if a conductive path appears in the gas. The spark produces the familiar "click", and can be used to drive an analog or digital indicator.

This device is able to detect Beta particles (electrons or positrons), alpha particles and protons, as these are electrically charged, and will leave a trail of conductive ions in their tracks.

Neutrons, being neutral, don't leave much of an ionized trail behind them (nor do the neutral gamma rays). So you need some material in between the source and the sensor to generate charged particles that can be detected by the Geiger counter.

Would Chadwick interpret the results not in favor to Rutherford's hypothetical Nucleus?

Rutherford assumed that there were electrons & protons together, making up the observed mass of the nucleus. But electrons and protons were knocked out of a nucleus, the Geiger counter should detect them.

The Geiger counter did not detect protons & electrons directly, so the mass of the nucleus must be made up of a new, neutral particle, which came to be called the neutron.

Note: This sounds a bit like a homework assignment. We are not here to do your homework, but if you post your answer, we can point to some more resources to help you.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

Geiger–Müller tube does not detect electrons then again how would it detect hypothetical protons?

[mathew_orman (OP)]

Also, how would a positive charged hypothetical proton escape sea of valence electrons in paraffin molecular structure of atoms?

[alancalverd]

Geiger–Müller tube does not detect electrons

All but one of mine do. What's wrong with yours? Try using a thinner window.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

Geiger–Müller tube does not detect electrons

All but one of mine do. What's wrong with yours? Try using a thinner window.

What is the source of electrons and how far away from the window?

[alancalverd]

I use a militarised thin-window geiger (RamGene) for detecting surface contamination at about 2 cm separation. It is calibrated for beta radiation from 150 keV to 2 MeV but will indicate the presence of lower energy betas. More sophisticated devices will respond reasonably linearly below 30 keV.

You will have problems at more than 2 m separation because pretty much all electron radiation is absorbed by 2m of air.

Detection of alpha or proton radiation is more of a black art - air and window absorption is very strong. But as far as the geiger-muller mechanism is concerned, any ionising radiation that can get into the chamber will generate a pulse.

The weasel word in the article you quote is "easily". What may have been easy for Irene Curie after a lifetime in the best-equipped laboratory of its time, may not work convincingly on a kitchen table with a eBay geiger counter!

[evan_au]

hypothetical proton

Protons were scientifically accepted by 1920, well before neutrons around 1930.

So protons were not hypothetical in 1930, and certainly are not hypothetical today, since they play a vital role in any chemical reactions involving acids, and many reactions involving water as a solvent, including those that keep you alive.

Also, how would a positive charged hypothetical proton escape sea of valence electrons in paraffin molecular structure of atoms?

The main decay product of Polonium is alpha particles, with an energy of around 5 Million eV.

When these alpha particles ("atomic mass" 4) collided with elements like Beryllium (atomic mass 9) and Lithium (atomic mass 7), they shook loose a previously-unknown form of radiation. Assuming the energy of the collision is shared approximately equally between the products of the collision, you could expect the resulting neutrons would have had an energy frequently exceeding 2 Million eV.

When these neutrons strike a hydrogen nucleus (proton), they have almost the same mass as the proton. Assuming the energy is again roughly shared between the resulting neutron and proton, it would impart around 1 Million eV to the proton.

The energy holding an electron and a proton together is only 13.6 eV, so the neutron has ample energy to knock a proton right out of a hydrogen atom.

escape sea of valence electrons?

The "sea" of electrons is balanced by a "sea" of protons in other hydrogen atoms, so the proton struck by the neutron really only has to escape from 1 electron.

[Colin2B]

I use a militarised thin-window geiger (RamGene) ...

I held off answering this one as it has been a while since I used a Geiger counter and I was sure your info would be more upto date.
Also, I knew we could count on you to give a scintillating response.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

This argumentation share my point of view on the hypothetical nucleus but the author's own theories are ridicules...
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana02.htm

Should I believe in logical reasoning or in what Wiki claims?

[alancalverd]

In this case the observed facts are entirely consistent with the hypothesis that most of the mass of the atom is concentrated in a very small region, to be sure, but they are equally consistent with the hypothesis that all of the mass is concentrated in this region; in other words, that this is the atom, not the nucleus of the atom.

Poppycock.

The electron has mass, and the effective diameter of an atom is a lot bigger than that of the nucleus (otherwise solids would be as dense as their nuclei), so we must conclude that some part of it is not concentrated in the nucleus. The predictability of ionic and covalent bonding supports the orbital wave function model.

Believe only what can be demonstrated by experiment. It's the key to staying alive, sane and happy.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

You are quoting assumptions... Logical analyses of the events returns false... The nuclear model of an atom is unstable and orbital movements of electrons are not possible in such model because the hypothetical strong force...
To this date no simulation of such atom model is possible...

[mathew_orman (OP)]

Most of all based on example of Hydrogen atom one electron will not prevent nucleolus to bind together due to the strong force...
The Hydrogen atoms would collapse up on intersection...

[alancalverd]

Having measured the mass of an electron (it's a classic undergraduate experiment) and the size and shape of many ions and molecules (ah, the joys of x-ray crystallography), I assure you that there are no assumptions in my statement.

If your model of an atom is unstable, abandon the model. Always start with reality, not logic, or you will end up looking as foolish as Aristotle or Pope Urban VIII.

The strong force is mediated by particles that do not operate outsdie the nucleus.

As your original opening statement was demonstrably untrue, I suggest you review all your sources of informaton.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

It is not my model which fails here...
It is fantasy wishful thinking assuming that electron will orbit a nucleus in Hydrogen atom...
Simple simulation shows that even if the electron is placed on a orbit then any external force however small will  make it ether fly away or bind to the hypothetical nucleus...

[PmbPhy]

http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=AtomicNuclear_ChadwickNeutron.xml

Geiger counter does not detect electrons then why would it detect protons?

That's where you're wrong. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger_counter

The Geiger counter, is an instrument used for measuring ionizing radiation used widely in such applications as radiation dosimetry, radiological protection, experimental physics and the nuclear industry.

It detects ionizing radiation such as alpha particles, beta particles and gamma rays using the ionization effect produced in a Geiger–Müller tube; which gives its name to the instrument. [1] In wide and prominent use as a hand-held radiation survey instrument, it is perhaps one of the world's best-known radiation detection instruments.

[chiralSPO]

It is not my model which fails here...
It is fantasy wishful thinking assuming that electron will orbit a nucleus in Hydrogen atom...
Simple simulation shows that even if the electron is placed on a orbit then any external force however small will  make it ether fly away or bind to the hypothetical nucleus...

It sounds like your simulations are too simple then, or your model is built on poor assumptions. Remember that the physics and logic regarding subatomic particles on an atomic scale are very different from what appears to be true on a macroscopic level.

Electrons are effectively the size of the atom, and cannot get any closer to the nucleus (the electrons in an atom are already centered on the nucleus, and only with huge forces can an atom be compressed such that the electrons are more localized closer to the nucleus.

Electrons can be knocked out of their atoms with energies between 1–100000 eV (depending on the nucleus and energy level of the electron involved), but it is not a continuous process (ie electron "orbitals" cannot decay--the electron is in one state or another, and never between.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

and cannot get any closer to the nucleus

What force will prevent that?
Also, there is only one logic of continuity of motion regardless of size scale...

[alancalverd]

It is fantasy wishful thinking assuming that electron will orbit a nucleus in Hydrogen atom...

Which is why nobody has used that model for the last 90 years. The valence shell model, a development of the Bohr atom, is adequate for most inorganic chemistry and for categorising spectra, but the quantum orbital model is necessary for stereochemistry.

Alas, the "logic of continuity of motion" is an intellectual vanity, not an observed property of atomic physics. Vanity is dangerous. 

[mathew_orman (OP)]

It is fantasy wishful thinking assuming that electron will orbit a nucleus in Hydrogen atom...

Which is why nobody has used that model for the last 90 years. The valence shell model, a development of the Bohr atom, is adequate for most inorganic chemistry and for categorising spectra, but the quantum orbital model is necessary for stereochemistry.

Alas, the "logic of continuity of motion" is an intellectual vanity, not an observed property of atomic physics. Vanity is dangerous.

Well, please give an example  where a particle would vanish from current position and appear  in different location or change velocity and or position (jump) instantaneously...

[chiralSPO]

and cannot get any closer to the nucleus

What force will prevent that?
Also, there is only one logic of continuity of motion regardless of size scale...

No force required to prevent it. The nucleus and electrons in an atom all have the same center of mass—it is impossible for them to be any closer.

Then there is the question of the volume of the electron. Because the electron is much less massive than the nucleus (by at least a factor of 1836), it will naturally be more diffuse.

Yes, logic should be the same at any scale, but quantum logic is very complicated, and on large scales most of the complications cancel out, so we have learned a much simpler version of reality based on the observations of the collective motion of "objects" composed of 1000000000000000000000 particles.

For instance: you might say that it is a well-established, even proven, fact that water in a river flows downstream. This is true on average, so on a macroscopic scale you will never see this contradicted. However if one were to zoom in and look at the water on a molecular level, it would be obvious that all the molecules are moving randomly, with essentially a 50/50 chance of moving upstream or downstream (it is really something along the lines of 50.0000000000001/49.999999999999999999 and that slight bias on a molecular level is what accounts for our observations of the river.)

[alancalverd]

Well, please give an example  where a particle would vanish from current position and appear  in different location or change velocity and or position (jump) instantaneously...

The emission and absorption of x-rays are everyday examples of single-quantum phenomena, but your concept of particles jumping around is far too naive to encompass them - though it's sometimes used to explain nuclear magnetic resonance to beginners.

Some of my colleagues use protons and neutrons to treat tumors. Should we tell the patients that they are purely hypothetical particles?

[mathew_orman (OP)]

and cannot get any closer to the nucleus

What force will prevent that?
Also, there is only one logic of continuity of motion regardless of size scale...

No force required to prevent it. The nucleus and electrons in an atom all have the same center of mass—it is impossible for them to be any closer.

Is that a new law of superposition of matter?
If so then unlimited number of assumed subatomic elements can have one common center of mass?...
Also, you need to provide real example not a philosophical one...

[mathew_orman (OP)]

Well, please give an example  where a particle would vanish from current position and appear  in different location or change velocity and or position (jump) instantaneously...

The emission and absorption of x-rays are everyday examples of single-quantum phenomena
Some of my colleagues use protons and neutrons to treat tumors.

Adding a word 'quantum ' is not increasing the volume of knowledge about a phenomena...
Your colleagues ware thought to use names but in reality the cancer cells are disabled by ionizing radiation...

[alancalverd]

True, but some of that radiation is deflected by an electric field, and some isn't. Some is deflected by a magnetic field, and some isn't. Some of it travels at the speed of light and some doesn't. Some is strongly absorbed by lead and some by water (it's a quantum thing, but I'm sure there's a logical explanation too). So we poor deluded morons think there are several different types of ionising radiation, and use them to do different jobs.

Fortunately both the patients and the cancer cells believe in this ridiculous juju. But you know better. 

[mathew_orman (OP)]

True, but some of that radiation is deflected by an electric field, and some isn't. Some is deflected by a magnetic field, and some isn't. Some of it travels at the speed of light and some doesn't. Some is strongly absorbed by lead and some by water (it's a quantum thing, but I'm sure there's a logical explanation too). 

None of those are considered as prove of existence of protons or neutrons...

[alancalverd]

So there's an uncharged particle with mass 1.008 amu that has a halflife of about 10  minutes, decays into a proton and a pion, can travel through steel, but is absorbed by polyethylene, has a magnetic moment, can induce radioactivity in copper and can initiate fission of a uranium nucleus.

You choose a name. Or convince everyone else on the planet that it doesn't exist, and all those phenomena were the work of fairies.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

And what is the setup that proves all that?

[PmbPhy]

And what is the setup that proves all that?

It's a common misconception to believe that science is about "proving" things. It's not. Watch the following video for details

The science of physics is not about "proving" anything by Alan Guth
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/DSC_0002.MOV

[alancalverd]

And what is the setup that proves all that?

The question wasn't about proof, but simply asking you to name a particle whose properties I described. It is of no interest to anyone else if you have never observed the experiments.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

Rephrased question:
And what is the setup that demonstrate all that?

[chiralSPO]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/neutrondis.html

[alancalverd]

Rephrased question:
And what is the setup that demonstrate all that?

There was a pretty good one in the lab next to mine at the National Physical Laboratory, several at Harwell in my undergraduate days, one or two in London hospitals, and very nearly a brilliant new one in Birmingham but I couldn't get any funding for it - the job went to Leiden instead. I'm designing a small neutron rig for a customer in Essex.

I've made a good living out of other people's gullibility, and hopefully one or two patients have absorbed enough of this juju bullshit to have survived for several years (though their tumors were probably imaginary too), but you obviously know better, so I'll revert to a respectful silence on the subject.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

Links to articles and or abstract quotes only but where is the real scientific experiment with outcome which is not crafted to patch the failed model of atomic nucleus but an objective description of reality...

[mathew_orman (OP)]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/neutrondis.html

Chadwick was a student of Rutherford and would not dare to provide an objective interpretation of the experiments results...
You need scientific paper and not page from encyclopedia...

[Bored chemist]

Rephrased question:
And what is the setup that demonstrate all that?

The real world demonstrates it.
You should visit it some time.

[Colin2B]

Chadwick was a student of Rutherford and would not dare to provide an objective interpretation of the experiments results...

Do you have any evidence to support the above statement? By evidence I mean letters to friends, relatives or colleagues; medical or psychological reports.
Without such evidence your statement is logically flawed. You might have evidence that some dogs bite postmen, but to infer that all dogs, or a specific dog, bite postmen is false logic.

Should I believe in logical reasoning or in what Wiki claims?

These 2 statements ("Should I believe in logical reasoning" and "or in what Wiki claims")  are not mutually exclusive, did you decide to deliberately beg the question?.

In general Wiki is reasonably reliable and based on sound logic, particularly for a first introduction to a topic. Sometimes you will need to look to other sources if you wish to study a topic in depth, or pull together a number of separate topics in Wiki.
I assume from your statement that you do not consider Wiki to be logical. However, it is difficult to judge whether you are correct as your responses are usually lacking in depth, as if you are avoiding a detailed discussion.
You have, however, provided a document of which you say "This argumentation share my point of view on the hypothetical nucleus". Not only does this document not follow the format you have prescribed for other people's 'submissions' to you, it is a prime example of poor critical thinking. It shows significant confirmation bias by being very selective in the way it presents information. Take an example from early in the essay.

The author accuses physicists of considering many materials to be incompressible.
It is true we all consider many elements and compounds to be relatively incompressible. After all, we can build bridges from steel and concrete which take considerable loads with minimal compression. However, it is unlikely that any physicist would consider these materials to be incompressible at the 100,000 atm and above as suggested by the author. If this were true the current theories of the sun, neutron stars, and our own earth's core would need to be rewritten. Interestingly the author has to dig back some 50yrs to find a reference which he thinks supports his assertion - why are none of the quoted references more recent than 1960?.
It is also interesting that most of the experiments and discoveries in nuclear physics over the past 50 yrs are either ignored or misrepresented. Eg, sizes of ions compared to mother atoms conflict with his theory; spreading of energy bands in molecules is presented as being ignored by physicists whereas it is well known and an important part of quantum theory.
Strangely, the author when quoting one reference says "..same textbook which gives us, on page 154, this conclusion based on up-to-date evidence .....". I say strangely, because the book giving the up to date evidence is dated 1955. Again, why are no recent texts quoted? We can only assume they do not support the author's preconceived ideas.

If this is an example of your method of argumentation it is not surprising that you are unable to understand the reasoning that lead Chadwick to his conclusions.

Are you going to continue with your blocking tactics, avoiding any meaningful discussion or are you prepared to present your alternative view of the atom, in the format you prescribe, with details of experiments that support your conclusions.
We await your hypothetical theory.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

I am only interested in progress based on discovery of properties of matter...
Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...
Resulting in useless knowledge which fails every time one puts together even the simplest atomic simulator, simulating molecule of Hydrogen...
Means that we need to get back to lab and start from the scratch if we want to make a real progress...

[chiralSPO]

I am only interested in progress based on discovery of properties of matter...
Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...
Resulting in useless knowledge which fails every time one puts together even the simplest atomic simulator, simulating molecule of Hydrogen...
Means that we need to get back to lab and start from the scratch if we want to make a real progress...

In what ways do our atomic simulators fail in modeling hydrogen?

I collaborate with theoretical chemists who use commercially available (very expensive) software that can make very accurate predictions about collections of dozens or even hundreds of atoms using quantum-based algortihms. This can accurately predict not just the preferred molecular structures (which can be verified experimentally using x-ray crystallography or 2-dimesional NMR spectroscopy), but also how molecules vibrate (which can be verified experimentally by infrared and Raman spectroscopy), absorb/emit light (which can be verified experimentally with a UV-vis spectrometer), conduct electricity (guess what? this can also be verified experimentally, using devices that can actually experimentally measure the conductivity of a single molecule!)

They are even working on using computers to predict which molecules will be best at performing some function (the area still needs to make a lot of progress on this, in my opinion, but the fact that it even comes up with good suggestions at all is very promising given the rapid growth of our capabilities in this regard.

It's not easy to simulate these things, and it is not cheap. But saying that it "fails every time" is demonstrably false, and actually very far from the truth, as I see it. The only deliberate misinterpretation must be your own.

[alancalverd]

Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...

It seems that your knowledge of the history of science is no better than your understanding of it.

[mathew_orman (OP)]

I am only interested in progress based on discovery of properties of matter...
Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...
Resulting in useless knowledge which fails every time one puts together even the simplest atomic simulator, simulating molecule of Hydrogen...
Means that we need to get back to lab and start from the scratch if we want to make a real progress...

In what ways do our atomic simulators fail in modeling hydrogen?

I collaborate with theoretical chemists who use commercially available (very expensive) software that can make very accurate predictions about collections of dozens or even hundreds of atoms using quantum-based algortihms. This can accurately predict not just the preferred molecular structures (which can be verified experimentally using x-ray crystallography or 2-dimesional NMR spectroscopy), but also how molecules vibrate (which can be verified experimentally by infrared and Raman spectroscopy), absorb/emit light (which can be verified experimentally with a UV-vis spectrometer), conduct electricity (guess what? this can also be verified experimentally, using devices that can actually experimentally measure the conductivity of a single molecule!)

They are even working on using computers to predict which molecules will be best at performing some function (the area still needs to make a lot of progress on this, in my opinion, but the fact that it even comes up with good suggestions at all is very promising given the rapid growth of our capabilities in this regard.

It's not easy to simulate these things, and it is not cheap. But saying that it "fails every time" is demonstrably false, and actually very far from the truth, as I see it. The only deliberate misinterpretation must be your own.

Fail to show motion of electrons and atoms...

[mathew_orman (OP)]

Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...

It seems that your knowledge of the history of science is no better than your understanding of it.

Please, be specific...

[mathew_orman (OP)]

For example:  http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/vmd/

[chiralSPO]

Fail to show motion of electrons and atoms...

if molecular vibration isn't the motion of atoms, what is it?

if electric current through a molecule isn't the motion of electrons, what is it?

[alancalverd]

Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...

It seems that your knowledge of the history of science is no better than your understanding of it.

Please, be specific...

Apparently K_hs ≈ U_s ≈ 0. I cannot be more specific as I do not have an exhaustive list of the things you do not know or understand. 

[mathew_orman (OP)]

Fail to show motion of electrons and atoms...

if molecular vibration isn't the motion of atoms, what is it?

if electric current through a molecule isn't the motion of electrons, what is it?

Any Hydrogen simulation showing orbiting electrons, collisions?

[chiralSPO]

but electrons don't orbit

please learn it before you trash it.

....I'm out

[alancalverd]

Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...
Resulting in useless knowledge which fails every time

Stop Press! According to Matthew Orman, America does not exist and the world is flat! Orman for Pope!

[mathew_orman (OP)]

but electrons don't orbit

please learn it before you trash it.

....I'm out

So what do they do?

[mathew_orman (OP)]

Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...
Resulting in useless knowledge which fails every time

Stop Press! According to Matthew Orman, America does not exist and the world is flat! Orman for Pope!

You are loosing the argument...