A new atom model （static electron configuration model )

[John Ye]

 A new atom model 

Abstract: This paper presents a new microscopic extension to the Coulomb’s law－a formula that describes how electron and nucleus interact each other within atom world. Based on this Coulomb’s law extension, a new atom model is proposed. Compared with current electron-cloud model and with old Bohr model, this model is most like atom’s real physical structure. Using this new model and basic integral calculation, the spectrum of hydrogen gas and the spectrum of ionized helium gas are successfully derived.

Key words: Energy levels, Microscopic, Coulomb’s law extension, Balance point, Balance sphere.

 

New atom model.pdf

[swansont]

I see no mention of angular momentum, or other details, like the Lamb shift. We already know the Bohr model is incorrect; predicting the energy levels is not sufficient to replace the quantum-mechanical model, which encompasses much more.

[John Ye]

Angular momentum is the concept of Bohr model.  Quantum model doesn’t know how the electron moves, only randomly appearing in somewhere have no angular momentum

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Quantum model doesn’t know how the electron moves, only randomly appearing in somewhere have no angular momentum

It does have angular momentum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_quantum_number

Does your model explain why the angular momentum is quantised?

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, John Ye said:

Angular momentum is the concept of Bohr model.  Quantum model doesn’t know how the electron moves, only randomly appearing in somewhere have no angular momentum

The Bohr model gets the angular momentum wrong.

[John Ye]

On 2017/9/11 at 3:26 PM, Strange said:

It does have angular momentum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_quantum_number

Does your model explain why the angular momentum is quantised?

 

angular momentum comes from circular motion. The electrton's movement is unknown in Quantum model, the angular momentum is not solid, and it's only conceived concept.

why is it  quantised? because the number of electrons is quantised. Any conceived concept is quantised for the same reason.

 

On 2017/9/11 at 5:42 PM, swansont said:

The Bohr model gets the angular momentum wrong.

Yes, but the Bohr model can reasonably support angular momentum, the electron is circling nuclear.

Quantum electron have no fixed track, it's randomly appearing at somewhere like a ghost. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

why is it  quantised? because the number of electrons is quantised. Any conceived concept is quantised for the same reason.

I don't know what you mean by "conceived concept". But the angular momentum is measured. And measured to be quantised.

Not all such "concepts" are quantised. The energy of a free electron is not quantised. 

All you have done is make a few criticisms of quantum theory (apparently based on lack of understanding). You have done nothing to justify your own ideas. So let's start with this: What would prove your idea wrong?

[swansont]

3 hours ago, John Ye said:

 Yes, but the Bohr model can reasonably support angular momentum, the electron is circling nuclear.

Quantum electron have no fixed track, it's randomly appearing at somewhere like a ghost. 

Since the model gets it wrong, it's more like it unreasonably supports angular momentum.

3 hours ago, John Ye said:

angular momentum comes from circular motion. The electrton's movement is unknown in Quantum model, the angular momentum is not solid, and it's only conceived concept.

why is it  quantised? because the number of electrons is quantised. Any conceived concept is quantised for the same reason.

Quantization stems from solutions of the Schrödinger equation. It doesn't follow from the application of classical physics, but this isn't classical physics.

[John Ye]

On 2017/9/11 at 3:26 PM, Strange said:

It does have angular momentum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_quantum_number

Does your model explain why the angular momentum is quantised?

 

Because the number of electrons attached to atom varies,  many parameters are quantized, including  angular momentum

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Because the number of electrons attached to atom varies,  many parameters are quantized, including  angular momentum

Angular momentum is quantized in all atoms, even hydrogen, which has only one electron.  

If you think it's because of a variable number of electrons, let's see the model that predicts this. Give us the math.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

Because the number of electrons attached to atom varies,  many parameters are quantized, including  angular momentum

That doesn't explain anything. Why should the fact that atoms have different numbers of electrons make the values (for each electron) quantised?

[Sensei]

You're using the same equation ([math]F(r) = (1-\frac{R}{r}) k_e \frac{q_1 q_2}{r^2}[/math] ) for either force and energy (page 3).. But they have different units..

You need to address it first. It's obvious omission.

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Sensei

[studiot]

OK so you want to modify Coulomb's Law.

But you have shown no rational for your modification, just introduced it ebcause it appears to fit some of the facts.

 

Are you aware that Coulomb's Law has already been modified - It is called the Biot-Savart Law?

This is because Coulomb strictly only applies to a stationary charge and does not take into account the effects of motion of that charge.

Yet tiyou describe your charges as moving.

 

Why is this?

 

Some have called for mathematics from you and this is a tad unfair as your pdf does indeed posit the following formula

[math]F = \left( {1 - \frac{R}{r}} \right)k\frac{{{q_1}{q_2}}}{{{r^2}}}[/math]

 

So let us take a look at this formula which you claim describes the force acting on an electron at distance r from a proton.

This formula creates three regions.

1) Where r < R , F is repulsive.

2) Where r > R, F is attractive.

 

But the interesting one is

3) Where r = R, F is exactly zero and this is where you claim you will find the electron.

 

Now consider the fate of an electron at distance R from the proton of the atom it belongs to.
It suffers an attractive force from any proton at a distance greater than R (ie outside its own atom) but is subject to no opposing force from its 'own' proton.

So can you tell me why we do not see external protons, whether located in an atom or not, stealing the electron from its atom?
As this is the inevitable consequence of your formula.

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by studiot

[John Ye]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

OK so you want to modify Coulomb's Law.

But you have shown no rational for your modification, just introduced it ebcause it appears to fit some of the facts.

 

Are you aware that Coulomb's Law has already been modified - It is called the Biot-Savart Law?

This is because Coulomb strictly only applies to a stationary charge and does not take into account the effects of motion of that charge.

Yet tiyou describe your charges as moving.

 

Why is this?

 

Some have called for mathematics from you and this is a tad unfair as your pdf does indeed posit the following formula

F=(1−Rr)kq1q2r2

 

So let us take a look at this formula which you claim describes the force acting on an electron at distance r from a proton.

This formula creates three regions.

1) Where r < R , F is repulsive.

2) Where r > R, F is attractive.

 

But the interesting one is

3) Where r = R, F is exactly zero and this is where you claim you will find the electron.

 

Now consider the fate of an electron at distance R from the proton of the atom it belongs to.
It suffers an attractive force from any proton at a distance greater than R (ie outside its own atom) but is subject to no opposing force from its 'own' proton.

So can you tell me why we do not see external protons, whether located in an atom or not, stealing the electron from its atom?
As this is the inevitable consequence of your formula.

 

I understand your question.

If an electron is only within one atom, R is the balanced point(sphere) it stays at. If the atom is near another atom, for example, in the case of the molecule H2 or OH2, the balanced sphere will NOT be R, it will be shifting to another value due to the attraction force of other outside proton. 

In fact, molecule is constructed by the shared electrons that stays in the new balanced sphere, which is the nature of chemical bond 

On 2017/11/8 at 4:33 PM, Strange said:

I don't know what you mean by "conceived concept". But the angular momentum is measured. And measured to be quantised.

Not all such "concepts" are quantised. The energy of a free electron is not quantised. 

All you have done is make a few criticisms of quantum theory (apparently based on lack of understanding). You have done nothing to justify your own ideas. So let's start with this: What would prove your idea wrong?

by "conceived concept" I means it's a concept people thought, which does not exist physically. 

for example, angular momentum.

quantum model does not know how a single electron is moving in atom, it only describes it's appearing probability. how does the angular momentum exist?

angular momentum is only for something that is moving in circular manner with a real physical track.

 

7 hours ago, Sensei said:

You're using the same equation (F(r)=(1−Rr)keq1q2r2 ) for either force and energy (page 3).. But they have different units..

You need to address it first. It's obvious omission.

 

Thanks. I missed dr in the integration for the  energy  in page 3. Revised version corrected it.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Angular momentum is quantized in all atoms, even hydrogen, which has only one electron.  

If you think it's because of a variable number of electrons, let's see the model that predicts this. Give us the math.

The key point is:

a H atom can temporarily  have more than one electron. the electrons value from 0 to 8.

in normal case, it has one. in the  excited H gas, the number of electron varies from 0 to 8

[John Ye]

8 hours ago, Strange said:

That doesn't explain anything. Why should the fact that atoms have different numbers of electrons make the values (for each electron) quantised?

take an university's classroom as example:

in any time, the consumed oxygen gas is quantised if you see all the classrooms.

because the number of persons in them varies

for the same reason, many other parameters relating to person are quantised . 

Edited August 29, 2018 by John Ye

[John Ye]

Let us assume all people in New York are adult

When extraterrestrial scientists are watching all building rooms in New York city, they will see quantised oxygen consumed by each room.  

0, A, 2A, 3A, ........ 100A, to 1000A.

Where A is the amount of oxygen taken by one adult's breathing.

The same reason for H atom. the rooms are like each H atom in hydrogen gas.

1 minute ago, John Ye said:

Let us assume all people in New York are adult

When extraterrestrial scientists are watching all building rooms in New York city, they will see quantised oxygen consumed by each room.  

0, A, 2A, 3A, ........ 100A, to 1000A.

Where A is the amount of oxygen taken by one adult's breathing.

The same reason for H atom. the rooms are like each H atom in hydrogen gas. The gas is like New York city.

The quantised wave-length of H atom spectrum is NOT emitted by ONE H atom, but by different H atoms.

Likely, the quantised oxygen is NOT produced by one room, but by different rooms in the city, 

 

[studiot]

6 hours ago, John Ye said:

I understand your question.

If an electron is only within one atom, R is the balanced point(sphere) it stays at. If the atom is near another atom, for example, in the case of the molecule H2 or OH2, the balanced sphere will NOT be R, it will be shifting to another value due to the attraction force of other outside proton. 

In fact, molecule is constructed by the shared electrons that stays in the new balanced sphere, which is the nature of chemical bond 

 

If you understood my question, why did you not answer it instead of answering a different one I did not ask?

 

I also asked for the rationale behind your modification factor, although I apologize for mispelling the word.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, John Ye said:

Let us assume all people in New York are adult

When extraterrestrial scientists are watching all building rooms in New York city, they will see quantised oxygen consumed by each room.  

0, A, 2A, 3A, ........ 100A, to 1000A.

Where A is the amount of oxygen taken by one adult's breathing.

The same reason for H atom. the rooms are like each H atom in hydrogen gas.

 

You seem to think angular momentum is proportional to the number of electrons. Obviously not true. 

8 hours ago, John Ye said:

The key point is:

a H atom can temporarily  have more than one electron. the electrons value from 0 to 8.

in normal case, it has one. in the  excited H gas, the number of electron varies from 0 to 8

Wha!?

How does an atom excited by a photon gain extra electrons? Where do they come from? 

[John Ye]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You seem to think angular momentum is proportional to the number of electrons. Obviously not true. 

Wha!?

How does an atom excited by a photon gain extra electrons? Where do they come from? 

see my paper, there is illustration in the paper.

extra electrons come from other ionized atoms. in  excited gas, a lot atoms lost electrons.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

If you understood my question, why did you not answer it instead of answering a different one I did not ask?

 

I also asked for the rationale behind your modification factor, although I apologize for mispelling the word.

it's OK. I am not good at English, might have misspelled a lot

Angular momentum is quantized in all atoms, even hydrogen, which has only one electron.  

If you think it's because of a variable number of electrons, let's see the model that predicts this. Give us the math.

------------------------------------

I answered this.

In excited hydrogen gas, not all H atom has one electron. some H atoms have more than one electrons.

the "Angular momentum" is quantized due to the different number of electrons, form 0, 1, 2, ... to 8

 

all other quantized parameters are due to the same reason. including the spectrum.

My paper can not give the math of "angular momentum".

It can only calculate the spectrum of H gas, and the ionized helium gas.

 

 

the spectrum of H atom include so many wavelengths light.

they are emitted by many H atoms, not by a single one H atom!

or we should say, they are emitted by the one bottle of H gas, not by one H atom.

if we can detect the spectrum of a single one H atom, then, we can't  see the spectrum(only can see one wavelength light).

Spectrum is a group effect of mass atoms, not the effect of a H atom.

Edited August 29, 2018 by John Ye

[swansont]

11 hours ago, John Ye said:

 

The key point is:

a H atom can temporarily  have more than one electron. the electrons value from 0 to 8.

in normal case, it has one. in the  excited H gas, the number of electron varies from 0 to 8

How does that lead to quantization? i.e. where is your model?

 

And do you have a citation for observation of H^7-?

[John Ye]

56 minutes ago, swansont said:

How does that lead to quantization? i.e. where is your model?

 

And do you have a citation for observation of H^7-?

First, read my paper, I explained how the spectrum quantization happens. I tried my best to explain it. 

[studiot]

In your modified coulomb equation you have the term

[math]\left( {1 - \frac{R}{r}} \right)[/math]

 

Would you agree that this is zero when R = r or is your equation wrong?

[John Ye]

We don't have any means to detect the light produced by one hydrogen atom.

The light we detected is emitted by the H gas in glass bottle.

We incorrectly thought it was emitted from one single atom.

This leads to all later tragedies in atom theory.

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

In your modified coulomb equation you have the term

(1−Rr)

 

Would you agree that this is zero when R = r or is your equation wrong?

Yes, when r = R, the force is 0. 

but this formula is only for ONE electron with ONE proton, the case of normal H atom.

the value R is called balanced point in my paper.

if electrons or protons are more than one, the formula is no longer applicable.

to deal with this case, I have another extended formula, formula (2)

20 minutes ago, John Ye said:

We don't have any means to detect the light produced by one hydrogen atom.

The light we detected is emitted by the H gas in glass bottle.

We incorrectly thought it was emitted from one single atom.

This leads to all later tragedies in atom theory.

Yes, when r = R, the force is 0. 

but this formula is only for ONE electron with ONE proton, the case of normal H atom.

the value R is called balanced point in my paper.

if electrons or protons are more than one, the formula is no longer applicable.

to deal with this case, I have another extended formula, formula (2)

------------------

from my paper, you can see that big atoms ( other than H, He ) are unable to calculate.

The extended Coulumb's law is only applicable to the simplest case which I called "Equal opportunity electron configuration:.

This is why so far this is no atom theory which can give an accurate math other than H atom.

my paper is the same. It gives accurate math for H atom, and for haft He atom. The other half spectrum of He atom is not calculable.

We don't have any means to detect the light produced by one single hydrogen atom.

What we detected is is the light emitted by the H gas in glass bottle.

We incorrectly thought it was emitted from one single H atom.

This leads to all later tragedies in various atom theory.

If, only if, we can hold one electron and one proton in a glass bottle, give energy from outside, detect the emitted light.

What we can detect?

we can see only 92nm wavelength light.

no other light at all.

One single H atom has no quantum effect.

Quantum effect is produced by mass atoms in the H gas bottle.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by John Ye

[John Ye]

On 2017/9/8 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

I see no mention of angular momentum, or other details, like the Lamb shift. We already know the Bohr model is incorrect; predicting the energy levels is not sufficient to replace the quantum-mechanical model, which encompasses much more.

This paper does not mention atom's fine structure. The angular momentum is for the quantum theory to explain the fine structure.

the quantum theory has not defined a circle track motion of electron, the momentum is not applicable.

my model is "static electron model", so I don't mention the angular momentum.

To explain the spectrum's fine structure in magnetic field, other work and test is needed, which is beyond my capability.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by John Ye

[studiot]

2 hours ago, John Ye said:

Yes, when r = R, the force is 0. 

but this formula is only for ONE electron with ONE proton, the case of normal H atom.

the value R is called balanced point in my paper.

if electrons or protons are more than one, the formula is no longer applicable.

to deal with this case, I have another extended formula, formula (2)

 

Once again, you are telling me things I didn't ask for and in this case specifically excluded.

Why do you expect me to read your script if you persistently ignore mine?

I have taken pains to be fair and take notice of what you are proposing specifically I asked if a certain term in one of your equations was zero under certain conditions.