[paul cotter]

I can say there is a pink unicorn in the nucleus of every atom, differing only in size with the respective atomic weight. You cannot prove or disprove this lofty thesis without relevant experiments. Without proposed experimentation your theory is no better or worse than mine and is just wild speculation. A new theory also needs to make predictions that can be tested and hence lead to affirmation or falsification.

[Stemmer (OP)]

A new theory also needs to make predictions that can be tested and hence lead to affirmation or falsification.

Now you are talking more sensibly. Already there are many observations and experimental results that remain poorly explained or unexplained: and true, but which is better explained by the STEM approach. And sure, further experimentation would provide more affirmation evidence, or result in a falsification result; but the latter has not occurred yet.

In terms of predictions and new claims, STEM provides plenty; which future research will ultimately prove or disprove. Let’s have a look at some:
1.   The existence of positive charge carriers within electrical conductors, with chemically generated and induced electric currents consisting of the duplex movement of positive and negative charge carriers.
2.   Positive holes, used to explain positive charge transfer within semiconductor electric current, are fictitious, and that the process of turning static positive ions (cations) on and off does not represent dynamic positive charge transfer.
3.   Positrons generated by colliders and high-energy lasers are positive charge carriers that have been forcedly ejected from a metal by high-energy impact collision.
4.   The only electron orbitals are those outer orbitals referred to as being conduction band orbitals.
5.   The polygonal structure of the atomic nucleus dictates the bonding characteristics of atoms.
6.   Within transparent media, the speed of light is dependent upon the refractive index of the media (this is not a claim unique to STEM).
7.   Light consists of field-energy rings (FERs) that explain the wave-particle nature of light.

Qubit research involving the electromagnetic manipulation of the spin direction of electrons is manipulated Prediction is providing increased insight into the sub-atomic world.

One type of qubit research involves the placement of individual phosphorus atoms within an ultra-pure silicon substrate. For this approach, the University of New South Wales (UNSW) researchers represent a qubit as a single phosphorus anion implanted within a silicon substrate, and use nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) techniques to selectively change the nuclear spin of the atom. The 2018 UNSW video lecture by M Simmons titled ‘The Einstein Lecture: The Quantum Computing Revolution’ describes how phosphorus anions are injected and manipulated, and the 2022 high fidelity qubits video by A Morello provides more detail regarding the development of a qubit logic gate.

The ability to set up and manipulate the orbit of an electron around a phosphorus atom suggests that, at close to absolute zero, the only electron orbitals that exist are ionic electron orbitals, which are conduction band electron. This research provides some pretty good evidence that point 4 above (the only electron orbitals are those outer orbitals referred to as being conduction band orbitals) might very well be correct.

The attached 1-page pdf contains links to the videos referenced above.

The qubit research represents some of the more recent experiments. The three STEM position papers listed in the original posting in this stream provide a detail as to how the STEM approach explains a whole host of experiments and observed phenomena. It represents a body of evidence supporting the validity of the STEM hypothesis and model. However, as for any theory,  one experiment might prove it invalid tomorrow.

[paul cotter]

You can retro-fit known experimental results to your theory but what experiments can you suggest that would validate or falsify it? Basing a theory on a whole family of particles that have never been observed is not a good foundation.

[Origin]

In terms of predictions and new claims, STEM provides plenty; which future research will ultimately prove or disprove. Let’s have a look at some:
1.   The existence of positive charge carriers within electrical conductors

There is no indication that there positive charge carriers in conductors.  All experimentation indicates there are not positive charge carriers in conductors.
 

3.   Positrons generated by colliders and high-energy lasers are positive charge carriers that have been forcedly ejected from a metal by high-energy impact collision.

Positrons are not positive charge carries in conductors.  Positrons are anti-electrons and any positron in a conductor would encounter an electron and annihilate.

4.   The only electron orbitals are those outer orbitals referred to as being conduction band orbitals.

This is obviously wrong because atoms are electrically neutral which would not be the case if there was only electrons in the conduction band.

5.   The polygonal structure of the atomic nucleus dictates the bonding characteristics of atoms.

There is no indication that there is this type of structure in the nucleus, it is not possible according to QM.

7.   Light consists of field-energy rings (FERs) that explain the wave-particle nature of light.

Your made up term explains nothing.

You have essentially falsified your WAG.

You don't have a model, a theory or even a hypothesis.  You have a WAG (guess).  There is no evidence or mathematics to back any of this up and your predictions have been disproved already.  It is time to go 'back to the drawing board' and try a different WAG.

[Bored chemist]

What is meaningless and totally non-sensical is your statement that 'you can't prove that it's true or false'.

It's your statement.

I do not know what experiments could possibly disprove the concepts.

[Bored chemist]

I can think of a test of your model.

5.   The polygonal structure of the atomic nucleus dictates the bonding characteristics of atoms.

We can change the nucleus- by isotopic substitution.
if your ideas are correct then that will change the bonding characteristics of the atoms.

But, in fact it has virtually no effect.
So we know that your idea is, at best, on very shaky ground.

On the other hand, things like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory
do a very good job of explaining the bonds in molecules without needing your angels dancing on pinheads

STEM electron consists of a torus-shaped energy-core of concentrated energen, and an outer torus of less concentrated energen that is called field-energy.

[alancalverd]

There is no indication that there positive charge carriers in conductors.  All experimentation indicates there are not positive charge carriers in conductors.

Beg to differ. That's how pn junctions work, and the reason that Hall coefficients can be positive or negative depending on the temperature and composition of alloys.

But you are half right - holes are not positrons.

[Bored chemist]

There is no indication that there positive charge carriers in conductors.  All experimentation indicates there are not positive charge carriers in conductors.

Beg to differ. That's how pn junctions work, and the reason that Hall coefficients can be positive or negative depending on the temperature and composition of alloys.

But you are half right - holes are not positrons.

You seem to have fallen into the trap that you usually berate others for landing in.
While it's true that you can model holes as if they are moving positive charge carriers they are not real.
The only charge carrier that moves is the electron.


Unless you are talking about gas filled thermionic valves or electrolytic cells and the like.
(And I'm not sure how you would make  pn junction in those.)

[Origin]

Beg to differ. That's how pn junctions work, and the reason that Hall coefficients can be positive or negative depending on the temperature and composition of alloys

Why are yo.u discussing semi-conductors?  I specifically stated I was addressing the OPs comments about conductors

[Stemmer (OP)]

We can change the nucleus- by isotopic substitution.
if your ideas are correct then that will change the bonding characteristics of the atoms.

But, in fact it has virtually no effect.
So we know that your idea is, at best, on very shaky ground.

On the other hand, things like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory [nofollow]
do a very good job of explaining the bonds in molecules without needing your angels dancing on pinheads

Isotopes have the same nuclear structure - they just vary in the number of  neutrons they have attached. So  isotopic substitution is perfectly acceptable under the STEM approach.

Allotropes, such as C-12 diamond and graphite, have a different nuclear structure and are thus not amenable to isotopic substitution.

So, unfortunately, no  ; your supposition in no way disproves STEM.

VSEPR theory is only one (not so simple) bond theory that lines up with other competitors such as hybridization, Valence Bond Theory (VBT), Molecular Orbital Theory (MOT), Bent's rule (effect of ligand electronegativity), Linear combination of atomic orbitals, Molecular geometry and modelling (which are closer to STEM), and Valency interaction formula. All these different approaches simply underline how inadequate the ONAM approach is when it comes to explaining bonding angles, lengths and preferences.

P.S. Love your dancing angels reference

[Kryptid]

Allotropes, such as C-12 diamond and graphite, have a different nuclear structure

No, they don't. Here's an example that demonstrates this: phosphorus. Nearly 100% of natural phosphorus is the isotope phosphorus-31. It's the only stable isotope, as all of the others have half-lives ranging from a few weeks to a matter of nanoseconds. Despite this, many different allotropes of phosphorus are known (white, red, black and violet, for example). Red phosphorus can be produced by heating white phosphorus in the absence of oxygen. So that's an example of an easy conversion between two allotropes. That, of course, doesn't make the resulting red phosphorus radioactive. That would have been easily noticed if it was true.

Then we have hydrogen. Heavy water is water where the hydrogen isotope used is deuterium instead of the normal protium. Despite being a different isotope, it bonds in the same way as protium does (it can only form a single sigma bond). Ditto for tritium.

Isotopic substitution is critical for radioactive tracing. Biomolecules have one of their atoms replaced with a radioactive isotope of the same type so that the resulting radiation can be used to track where it goes in an organism. Obviously, the bonding can't be different or the resulting molecular structure would also be different.

[Stemmer (OP)]

In terms of predictions and new claims, STEM provides plenty; which future research will ultimately prove or disprove. Let’s have a look at some:
1.   The existence of positive charge carriers within electrical conductors
There is no indication that there positive charge carriers in conductors.  All experimentation indicates there are not positive charge carriers in conductors.
 
Quote from: Stemmer on 19/10/2022 11:25:43
3.   Positrons generated by colliders and high-energy lasers are positive charge carriers that have been forcedly ejected from a metal by high-energy impact collision.
Positrons are not positive charge carries in conductors.  Positrons are anti-electrons and any positron in a conductor would encounter an electron and annihilate.
Quote from: Stemmer on 19/10/2022 11:25:43
4.   The only electron orbitals are those outer orbitals referred to as being conduction band orbitals.
This is obviously wrong because atoms are electrically neutral which would not be the case if there was only electrons in the conduction band.
Quote from: Stemmer on 19/10/2022 11:25:43
5.   The polygonal structure of the atomic nucleus dictates the bonding characteristics of atoms.
There is no indication that there is this type of structure in the nucleus, it is not possible according to QM.
Quote from: Stemmer on 19/10/2022 11:25:43
7.   Light consists of field-energy rings (FERs) that explain the wave-particle nature of light.
Your made up term explains nothing.

You have essentially falsified your WAG.

You don't have a model, a theory or even a hypothesis.  You have a WAG (guess).

Dealing with these comments piecemeal...

There is no indication that there positive charge carriers in conductors.  All experimentation indicates there are not positive charge carriers in conductors.

Semiconductor theory and explanations of Halls Effect need positive charge carriers. Positive holes are a nonsense explanation invented because ONAM has no source of positive charge within matter except for protons in the nucleus.

A positive-hole is a temporal cation created by the removal of an electron from a neutral atom, typically a silicon atom within the semiconductor substrate. It is termed ‘temporal’ because, at any stage, the cation (or hole) can acquire an electron to convert back into the neutral atomic state. Although holes can be turned ON and OFF, they cannot move: they are static cations locked into a rigid crystalline structure. The static nature of positive-holes creates distinct problems for the claim that they take on the role of being positive CCs, and to be as mobile as negative CCs (the electrons) within a semiconductor substrate and, by extension, within connected circuitry.

Having a positive charge carrying electron also provides more energy balance across an electric circuit as explained in detail in ‘the Duplicit Electron’ paper referenced earlier in this post.

Semiconductor theory and explanations of Halls Effect need positive charge carriers. Positive holes are a nonsense explanation invented because ONAM has no source of positive charge within matter except for protons in the nucleus.

A positive-hole is a temporal cation created by the removal of an electron from a neutral atom, typically a silicon atom within the semiconductor substrate. It is termed ‘temporal’ because, at any stage, the cation (or hole) can acquire an electron to convert back into the neutral atomic state. Although holes can be turned ON and OFF, they cannot move: they are static cations locked into a rigid crystalline structure. The static nature of positive-holes creates distinct problems for the claim that they take on the role of being positive CCs, and to be as mobile as negative CCs (the electrons) within a semiconductor substrate and, by extension, within connected circuitry.

Having a positive charge carrying electron also provides more energy balance across an electric circuit as explained in detail in ‘the Duplicit Electron’ paper referenced earlier in this post.

Positrons are not positive charge carries in conductors.  Positrons are anti-electrons and any positron in a conductor would encounter an electron and annihilate.

Physicists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California have used a short, ultra-intense laser to irradiate a millimetre-thick gold target and produce more than 100 billion positrons and can produce significant lab production of 5 MeV positron-electron beams. So, although left to their own means positrons will find and electron and annihilate to produce EMR, negative and positive (positron) electrons and are easily controlled by magnetic fields.

Within a metal the negative and positive (positron) electrons are controlled by being kept in an orbital or by moving within a same-type strand under the influence of an applied or induced emf. They rarely, if at all, meet so as to annihilate each other.

Another indication that electron/positron annihilation is not inevitable is the unusually high numbers of positrons arriving within cosmic radiation: here the electrons and positrons have travelled tremendous distances without annihilating each other.

This is obviously wrong because atoms are electrically neutral which would not be the case if there was only electrons in the conduction band

.

A lot depends upon the how positive and negative charge is viewed. STEM electric charge depends upon the flow pattern of the energy-field of fundamental particles. As composite structure consisting of nucleons, atoms have an imperfectly formed composite energy field. Neutral atoms have a close field that is positive or negative depending on structure, orientation and presence or absence of ionic orbital electrons, but its far field is predominantly that of a positive field pattern.

And, yes, STEM considers that conduction band electrons are the only orbital electrons, and they can be positive and/or negative electron charge carriers by virtue of the chiral flow of their energy-fields.

There is no indication that there is this type of structure in the nucleus, it is not possible according to QM.

ONAM provides no structure for the nucleus whereas STEM does. The bonding patterns are an indication or reflection of such structure.

Light consists of field-energy rings (FERs) that explain the wave-particle nature of light. Your made up term explains nothing.

Every term and name in any language is a made-up term. FERs are small concentrations of field-energy, the same stuff that electric and magnetic fields are made from, but are considered to have a doughnut (or donut if you live in the USA) ring structure not unlike a smoke ring. A pretty appropriate descriptive name I would have thought.

If you have read the provided references, you would have to admit that they pretty well describe PPL, CPL, EPL and OVL, and the generation of photoelectrons by light on metal surfaces.

You have essentially falsified your WAG. You don't have a model, a theory or even a hypothesis.  You have a WAG (guess).

A hypothesis is simply an intuitive or reasoned guess that needs to be able to explain something about its target subject, and can stand until it is disproven. A hypothesis can be used or referenced within a developing theory but is not itself a theory. And theory-dogs are always happy with a bit of a tail-WAG. So, what has been your contribution to Science, essentially?

[Bored chemist]

Isotopes have the same nuclear structure

No, they do not.
I grew up near this landmark
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1730906/files/vol23-issue4-p134-e.pdf

Where they checked.

Allotropes, such as C-12 diamond and graphite, have a different nuclear structure and are thus not amenable to isotopic substitution.

Again, no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopically_pure_diamond

So, unfortunately, no  ; your supposition in no way disproves STEM.

Adding two more errors to something which was wrong does not make it right.

[Bored chemist]

A hypothesis is simply an intuitive or reasoned guess that needs to be able to explain something about its target subject, and can stand until it is disproven

So, if your idea ever was a hypothesis, it stopped being one.

[Stemmer (OP)]

Nearly 100% of natural phosphorus is the isotope phosphorus-31. It's the only stable isotope, as all of the others have half-lives ranging from a few weeks to a matter of nanoseconds. Despite this, many different allotropes of phosphorus are known (white, red, black and violet, for example). Red phosphorus can be produced by heating white phosphorus in the absence of oxygen. So that's an example of an easy conversion between two allotropes. That, of course, doesn't make the resulting red phosphorus radioactive. That would have been easily noticed if it was true.

I was not intentionally suggesting that all allotropic forms have a different nuclear geometry: I was using carbon-12 as an example.

The STEM atomic model for phosphorous-31 consists of six full octagonal nucleon layers made up of three double pairs of I-form proton/neutron layers, and containing an embedded lithium-7 form, which comfortably accommodates its body-centred cubic (bcc) form.

And, yes, phosphorous can change its crystal form (and thus have different allotropic forms) by the application of heat and pressure without changing its nuclear structure.

Heavy water is water where the hydrogen isotope used is deuterium instead of the normal protium. Despite being a different isotope, it bonds in the same way as protium does (it can only form a single sigma bond). Ditto for tritium.

I am not sure of your point here. You may be interested in STEM’s take on the 3 hydrogen isotopes and for para and ortho-hydrogen in pages 24 to 30 of the SDG Atomic Structure paper referenced earlier.

Biomolecules have one of their atoms replaced with a radioactive isotope of the same type so that the resulting radiation can be used to track where it goes in an organism. Obviously, the bonding can't be different or the resulting molecular structure would also be different

Agreed, but none of this suggests that different atoms cannot have different nuclear structures, or that different allotropic forms of an atom such as C-12 cannot have different nuclear structures. ONAM provides no nuclear structure for any atom other than hydrogen, despite the Standard Model suggesting a triangular structure for nucleons!

And by the way, I am not claiming that everything about STEM will be correct. I am not fully happy with all aspects of the STEM approach, and  some aspects will be proven to be wrong, and others will, hopefully, stand and be beneficial to our understanding of Science. No theory is set in concrete and I have no idea what the final cut will be for STEM. It remains a work in progress.

[Bored chemist]

And, yes, phosphorous can change its crystal form (and thus have different allotropic forms) by the application of heat and pressure without changing its nuclear structure

Which proves that the molecular structure is not derived from the nuclear structure.

Arsenic, which is also monoisotopic also has at least 3 isotopes; manganese has 4, so it's not just phosphorus.

Your idea that molecular structure derives from nuclear structure is clearly wrong.

[alancalverd]

Our friend seems to think that isotope and allotrope are somehow associated, even though the words have different roots and spellings.

 Iso - same, topos - place. Atoms having  identical chemical properties and thus the same position in the periodic table, but different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus

Allo - different, tropos - form. Bulk materials having the same chemical properties but different crystalline structures and hence mechanical properties.

[alancalverd]

Apropos holes, the problem with aluminum (which is most definitely a metallic conductor - it's used for power transmission) is that its Hall voltage at room temperature cannot be derived from a moving electron model.

[Bored chemist]

Apropos holes, the problem with aluminum (which is most definitely a metallic conductor - it's used for power transmission) is that its Hall voltage at room temperature cannot be derived from a moving electron model.

And, once again, I remind you of the danger of muddling models with reality.

[alancalverd]

If an electron is real (and you won't find much quantum behavior in the conduction band of a metal) then the absence of an electron is equally real, surely? Fleming's left-hand rule seems to work for everything else in the universe, so if a Hall experiment shows that the moving thing has a positive charge, how else can you interpret it?