Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: AtomNo, the plum pudding did not predict large empty volumes.


    Conceded. But I'm not sure where you are going with this. Nobody says the electrons in orbitals "move". All we know is that we don't know where they are to some degree of accuracy. What you are objecting to sounds a bit like the original Planck model, now.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009 edited
     
    Also a differential model neutron in free space is not stable (as is the case with neutrons) and will decay if it encounters a roaming positron.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    [quote][cite]Posted By: Angus[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Atom[/cite]No, the plum pudding did not predict large empty volumes.[/quote]

    Conceded. But I'm not sure where you are going with this. Nobody says the electrons in orbitals "move". All we know is that we don't know where they are to some degree of accuracy. What you are objecting to sounds a bit like the original Planck model, now.[/quote]

    I am just pointing out to Frank that the space in an atom can be created by any one of a number of theoretical models. The basis for much of modern particle physics is the need to explain the atom structure and why an electron does not crash into a positive charged nucleus.

    Against Dirac and such there are always going to be the possibility of challenging models.

    The fact that QM has problems has led many to conclude that QM is good for now but may turn out to be wrong when we understand a bit more.
  1.  
    Posted By: AtomIf you arrange charges in a sort of geodesic sphere structure with electrons prominent to the outside and positrons slightly sunk (sort of like the dimples in a golf ball), and you add one more positive charge to the sphere, then an external electron in space (all of this in a simulation of course) will be held at a distance somewhat like the electron in a Hydrogen atom, this means that it (the external electron) is at an orbit height but it does not need to move and that it is held by the sphere (if it gets further away it sees a positive charge more than the differential repulsive charge and so is drawn back to the orbit height).


    There exists a very interesting field of study called "quantum chemistry". You should check it out sometime.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    [quote][cite]Posted By: alsetalokin[/cite]quantum chemistry[/quote]

    Thanks for that, I will read some.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    I get it now.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    For some more intrigue to a wild model, if you try and construct an electron positron geodesic sphere you end up with a number of pucker points (because you cannot cover a sphere with balls perfectly) and these pucker points can become sort of anchor points for a positron electron spike (sort of like the prongs on a sea mine). These can be either positive at the tip or negative at the tip and 3,6 or 9 particle long. Now here is the cute bit, they can then link to other protons or neutrons and the repulsive forces are just a bit less than the link forces. Accordingly the predicted stable atoms are in fairly good agreement with reality.
  2.  
    Posted By: AngusI get it now.


    ;)
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    Posted By: AtomFor some more intrigue to a wild model, if you try and construct an electron positron geodesic sphere you end up with a number of pucker points (because you cannot cover a sphere with balls perfectly) and these pucker points can become sort of anchor points for a positron electron spike (sort of like the prongs on a sea mine). These can be either positive at the tip or negative at the tip and 3,6 or 9 particle long. Now here is the cute bit, they can then link to other protons or neutrons and the repulsive forces are just a bit less than the link forces. Accordingly the predicted stable atoms are in fairly good agreement with reality.


    Once again - how do you square it with the uncertainty principle?
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    Using this model you can even predict particle emissions for Li isotopes that agree with reality and atomic masses can be calculated with better agreement to reality than any other model, though there is if i remember 1 exception.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    [quote][cite]Posted By: Angus[/cite]Once again - how do you square it with the uncertainty principle?[/quote]

    I do not have an issue with uncertainty (I think the 2 slit experiment proved it beyond any reasonable doubt - as later did quantum entanglement), I am just pointing out that there is an arguable alternative atomic model that some have argued does a better job than the accepted one.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009 edited
     
    What I found intriguing was the idea that if the big bang only produced positrons and electrons then they could self form structures (initially hexagons) just like carbon can form fullerene and cnt.

    The only condition is to assume that electrons and positrons can sit next to each other without annihilating (the energy of attraction initially becoming an extreme rotation of a pair).
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    Posted By: AtomWhat I found intriguing was the idea that if the big bang only produced positrons and electrons then they could self form structures (initially hexagons) just like carbon can form fullerene and cnt.

    The only condition is to assume that electrons and positrons can sit next to each other without annihilating.


    Fun. This is how progress is made, I suppose. Eventually somebody comes up with a new theory that doesn't have worse holes than the current one.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    Some University in the UK did an atomic mass plot using the theory and the fit was astounding compared to the other known models.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: AtomSome University in the UK did an atomic mass plot using the theory and the fit was astounding compared to the other known models.


    Right, but if I have to assume positrons and electrons don't annihilate I need a new sort of exclusion principle, and so on and so on ... Where do we wind up?

    Don't forget - the Ptolemaic cosmology was pretty good, if you didn't mind doing all the calculations, and assuming crystal spheres on epicyclic spheres.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    [quote][cite]Posted By: Angus[/cite]Right, but if I have to assume positrons and electrons don't annihilate I need a new sort of exclusion principle, and so on and so on ... Where do we wind up.
    [/quote]

    Well that is the real root of the issue.

    The thing with a positron electron pair that are in contact is that they are undetectable being neutral charge.

    The idea of a balanced universe equation suggests that if they were in contact then if they were ever so slightly squeezed together they would simply vanish with no energy release. If they can vanish then they can also appear and that is an idea not alien to modern science.

    I do not know enough to defend the theory but it is interesting that it is the only model that predicts accurately NN PP scattering and N mag moment.

    Perhaps most importantly it suggests that any model or theory is only good for a while.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    Posted By: AtomPerhaps most importantly it suggests that any model or theory is only good for a while.


    Absolutely!!
    And its an interesting philosophical point whether there will eventually come a model that nobody can understand.
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    I recall that there is some inflation notion that the EP pair come from a point and as they separate they inflate and if they get to some point they become individual particles fully grown. This led to a notion that an electron is like the outer surface of a balloon and the positron is like the inner surface of a balloon. Theoretically speaking the electron is bigger than the positron by the thickness of the skin and that mass is an illusion and energy is the tension in a surface of zero mass. Weird!
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    [quote][cite]Posted By: Angus[/cite]Absolutely!!
    And its an interesting philosophical point whether there will eventually come a model that nobody can understand.[/quote]

    God Knows. LOL
    • CommentAuthorAtom
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2009
     
    The notion of inner and outer surface leads to an idea that the Universe is a blank piece of paper and that if you cut a circle out of the paper you call it a positron and the hole is an electron. Then to go back to a blank universe simply put the circle back into the hole. Cosmic accountancy of getting something from nothing hence to overcome the "where from" issue.

    Philosophically the only meaningful thing becomes the idea of possibility rather than probability. Distilled it suggests that there is only one flavor in alternate universes.