A new atom model （static electron configuration model )

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Yes, I see. That is not atom spectrum. To get atom spectrum, gasification is needed.

Chapter 5. Hydrogen Atom Spectrum 5 Spectrum of the ...

Excited hydrogen atoms are produced in an electric discharge which not only dissociates hydrogen molecules, ...

 

In a electric discharge tube

Helium has been magneto-optically trapped. No ionization involved, no discharge tubes. (Hydrogen is difficult because of that 10.2 eV transition) Again, absorption spectroscopy is one of several tests which falsifies your idea.

[John Ye]

26 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I used to work as a spectroscopist. I really don't need to browse the subject.

You, on the other hand, have no idea what you are talking about.

You have rehashed the bits of Bohr's work that gave the "right" answers for hydrogen, and ignored the problems where it gives the wrong answers.

The "lines" in the hydrogen spectrum are actually split by spin- orbit coupling, and as far as I can see your idea doesn't deal with that.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hydfin.html

 

 

Yes, my work doesn't deal with fine structure things. It only works on basic spectrum.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Yes, my work doesn't deal with fine structure things. It only works on basic spectrum.

And it only works with hydrogen (and partly with helium). Not very useful then is it. It looks like your attempt to tweak the Bohr model hasn't really worked.

Unlike, oh let's just say ... quantum theory.

[John Ye]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

And it only works with hydrogen (and partly with helium). Not very useful then is it. It looks like your attempt to tweak the Bohr model hasn't really worked.

Unlike, oh let's just say ... quantum theory.

It's not a tweak of Bohr model. 

Bohr model is a satellite model,  electron MUST be circling the proton, 

Quantum model is the same. Electron must be moving according to the probability outside proton. Because  it moves like a ghost, we can call quantum model "ghost model".

In both models, electron must move. If it stopped,  atom would vanish because electron would crash into proton.

In my model, electron does NOT need to move. It can be stationary.

In fact,  if the temperature is low enough ( near absolute 0K ), all electrons in any atom will stop moving.

In normal temperature, my model's electron has only random thermal movement.

So I called the model "static electron configuration model"

 

Edited August 31, 2018 by John Ye

[Strange]

1 minute ago, John Ye said:

Quantum model is the same. Electron must be moving according to the probability outside proton. Because  it moves like a ghost, we can call quantum model "ghost model".

You can call it what you like. It still works.

1 minute ago, John Ye said:

In both models, electron must move. If it stopped,  atom would vanish because electron would crash into proton.

This is not true of the quantum model. You don't appear to know what you are taking about.

2 minutes ago, John Ye said:

In my model, electron does NOT need to move. It can be stationary.

But, as you have said, your model is no more useful that the Bohr model.

 

[John Ye]

20 minutes ago, John Ye said:

It's not a tweak of Bohr model. 

Bohr model is a satellite model,  electron MUST be circling the proton, 

Quantum model is the same. Electron must be moving according to the probability outside proton. Because  it moves like a ghost, we can call quantum model "ghost model".

In both models, electron must move. If it stopped,  atom would vanish because electron would crash into proton.

In my model, electron does NOT need to move. It can be stationary.

In fact,  if the temperature is low enough ( near absolute 0K ), all electrons in any atom will stop moving.

In normal temperature, my model's electron has only random thermal movement.

So I called the model "static electron configuration model"

 

Totally different models. 

Electron must move, or electron can be stationary.

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can call it what you like. It still works.

This is not true of the quantum model. You don't appear to know what you are taking about.

But, as you have said, your model is no more useful that the Bohr model.

 

When you have one proton in left hand and one electron in right hand, and you put them on an absolute smooth table.

Electron will be attracted by proton and will be running toward proton.

What is the electron's moving line? is it a straight line. right? according to Coulomb's law, it's a straight line. 

Can you imagine at what distance, does electron become a quantum ghost?

Or can you imagine at what distance, does electron start to change the straight line into a circle?

Why is it not crash into proton? According Coulomb's law, it must be crashing into proton.  how to explain these？ 

 

Edited August 31, 2018 by John Ye

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, John Ye said:

When you have one proton in left hand and one electron in right hand, and you put them on an absolute smooth table.

Electron will be attracted by proton and will be running toward proton.

What is the electron's moving line? is it a straight line. right? according to Coulomb's law, it's a straight line. 

How is this relevant. We are, I thought, talking about electrons bound in atoms.

Are you just trying to change the subject now you have admitted that your model is no more useful than the Bohr model?

[John Ye]

26 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Totally different models. 

Electron must move, or electron can be stationary.

When you have one proton in left hand and one electron in right hand, and you put them on an absolute smooth table.

Electron will be attracted by proton and will be running toward proton.

What is the electron's moving line? is it a straight line. right? according to Coulomb's law, it's a straight line. 

Can you imagine at what distance, does electron become a quantum ghost?

Or can you imagine at what distance, does electron start to change the straight line into a circle?

Why is it not crash into proton? According Coulomb's law, it must be crashing into proton.  how to explain these？ 

 

We have been believing in some ridiculous things, for so long time.

Edited August 31, 2018 by John Ye

[Strange]

1 minute ago, John Ye said:

We have been believed in some ridiculous things, for so long time.

Do you realise you quoted yourself and then said that? 

You are the only one who seems to be arguing on the basis of "belief". 

Meanwhile, scientists create models and set them. If the models work, they use them. Your model doesn't work, as you admit, therefore it is useless however much you like it.

[John Ye]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Do you realise you quoted yourself and then said that? 

You are the only one who seems to be arguing on the basis of "belief". 

Meanwhile, scientists create models and set them. If the models work, they use them. Your model doesn't work, as you admit, therefore it is useless however much you like it.

I know what you said. It's hard to change people's mind. I am just playing for fun.

[John Cuthber]

44 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Because  it moves like a ghost,

Please show the experiments that tell us how ghosts move.

Like I said, you are so wrong, it's funny.

41 minutes ago, John Ye said:

When you have one proton in left hand and one electron in right hand,...

...you have broken the uncertainty principle.

 

 

43 minutes ago, John Ye said:

According Coulomb's law, it must be crashing into proton.

And according to the uncertainty principle, it can't.

So, it doesn't.

We have two "laws" which give contradictory results. The way to find out which gets broken is to do the experiment.

We did.

Coulomb "lost".
 

22 minutes ago, John Ye said:

We have been believing in some ridiculous things, for so long time.

Not many of those things were as ridiculous as your idea.
 

[John Ye]

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Please show the experiments that tell us how ghosts move.

Like I said, you are so wrong, it's funny.

...you have broken the uncertainty principle.

 

 

And according to the uncertainty principle, it can't.

So, it doesn't.

We have two "laws" which give contradictory results. The way to find out which gets broken is to do the experiment.

We did.

Coulomb "lost".
 

Not many of those things were as ridiculous as your idea.
 

in old TV's display tube, electrons has certainty. Or else, we would not be able to watch TV program.

In synchrotron, electrons have certainty.

Previously certain.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

It's not a tweak of Bohr model. 

Bohr model is a satellite model,  electron MUST be circling the proton, 

Quantum model is the same. Electron must be moving according to the probability outside proton. Because  it moves like a ghost, we can call quantum model "ghost model".

In both models, electron must move. If it stopped,  atom would vanish because electron would crash into proton.

In my model, electron does NOT need to move. It can be stationary.

In fact,  if the temperature is low enough ( near absolute 0K ), all electrons in any atom will stop moving.

In normal temperature, my model's electron has only random thermal movement.

So I called the model "static electron configuration model"

 

Which must have an electric dipole (or other mulitpoles, depending on how many electrons you have), which has never been measured, even though it should be simple to do.

21 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

We have two "laws" which give contradictory results. The way to find out which gets broken is to do the experiment.

We did.

Coulomb "lost".
 

Not so much that Coulomb lost (the Coulomb potential is still part of the QM model) as we discovered that the electron is also a wave, and that we have quantized energy levels, and all of this needs to be considered when discussing atomic structure.

Any purely classical approach will have things that are wrong, and things that are missing; examples of both have been shown in this thread.

11 minutes ago, John Ye said:

in old TV's display tube, electrons has certainty. Or else, we would not be able to watch TV program.

In synchrotron, electrons have certainty.

Previously certain.

Just because the uncertainty is small compared to the required precision does not mean there is no uncertainty.

[John Ye]

6 minutes ago, John Ye said:

in old TV's display tube, electrons has certainty. Or else, we would not be able to watch TV program.

In synchrotron, electrons have certainty.

Previously certain.

Coulomb's law tells us that an electron near a proton has  certainty. right?

And to get H atom's spectrum solution, Schrodinger's equation uses Coulomb's law, right?

Then quantum solution says electron is uncertain.

We used A,  we get B by A,  then we said A does not exist.  

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which must have an electric dipole (or other mulitpoles, depending on how many electrons you have), which has never been measured, even though it should be simple to do.

Not so much that Coulomb lost (the Coulomb potential is still part of the QM model) as we discovered that the electron is also a wave, and that we have quantized energy levels, and all of this needs to be considered when discussing atomic structure.

Any purely classical approach will have things that are wrong, and things that are missing; examples of both have been shown in this thread.

Just because the uncertainty is small compared to the required precision does not mean there is no uncertainty.

In electron's double slit experiment, what is the distance between 2 slit?  

and what is the size of a single  pixel in the display tube screen?

How much do they differ?

48 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Please show the experiments that tell us how ghosts move.

Like I said, you are so wrong, it's funny.

...you have broken the uncertainty principle.

 

 

And according to the uncertainty principle, it can't.

So, it doesn't.

We have two "laws" which give contradictory results. The way to find out which gets broken is to do the experiment.

We did.

Coulomb "lost".
 

Not many of those things were as ridiculous as your idea.
 

Can you use quantum model to calculate the Helium spectrum? 

[Strange]

35 minutes ago, John Ye said:

in old TV's display tube, electrons has certainty. Or else, we would not be able to watch TV program.

Have you calculated the uncertainty in position compared to the size of a phosphor dot? (Hint: Planck's constant is a very small number.)

With every post, you demonstrate a more impressive lack of understanding.

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Coulomb's law tells us that an electron near a proton has  certainty. right?

No. Coulomb's law doesn't address this in any way. 

21 minutes ago, John Ye said:

And to get H atom's spectrum solution, Schrodinger's equation uses Coulomb's law, right?

Yes.

21 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Then quantum solution says electron is uncertain.

Yes.

21 minutes ago, John Ye said:

We used A,  we get B by A,  then we said A does not exist.  

Nobody is saying Coulomb's law doesn't exist, or doesn't apply. 

 

[John Ye]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

No. Coulomb's law doesn't address this in any way. 

Yes.

Yes.

Nobody is saying Coulomb's law doesn't exist, or doesn't apply. 

 

You may  recall how to solve H atom's Schrodinger equation.

Coulomb's law is used and applicable in the beginning of the equation solving  process,  Am I correct?

Why do you say it become not applicable after the equation was solved?

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

in old TV's display tube, electrons has certainty. Or else, we would not be able to watch TV program.

In synchrotron, electrons have certainty.

Previously certain.

You would have been nearer to making a point if you had cited the scanning tunneling electron microscope.

But you would still have been wrong.

The uncertainty principle wins.

23 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Why do you say it become not applicable after the equation was solved?

Because it gives the wrong answer.

Pretty much the whole of classical physics fails at this scale.

Learn to live with that fact.

[John Ye]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You would have been nearer to making a point if you had cited the scanning tunneling electron microscope.

But you would still have been wrong.

The uncertainty principle wins.

Because it gives the wrong answer.

Pretty much the whole of classical physics fails at this scale.

Learn to live with that fact.

You use Coulomb law to solve equation,

You deny Coulomb law , claim it inapplicable after equation was solved.

You changed mind in less than one minute.

Is this behavior logical? And OK?

 

This is what quantum model does.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, John Ye said:

You deny Coulomb law , claim it inapplicable after equation was solved.

No one is saying that. Grow up.

[studiot]

3 hours ago, John Ye said:

Bohr model is a satellite model,  electron MUST be circling the proton, 

Quantum model is the same. Electron must be moving according to the probability outside proton. Because  it moves like a ghost, we can call quantum model "ghost model".

In both models, electron must move. If it stopped,  atom would vanish because electron would crash into proton.

I see that you are still not listening.

Pity for you.

 

I will try one last time to lay out the logic as to where you are right (yes in some places you are indeed right) and where you are just plain wrong.

 

First of all, classical electrostatics forbids you to have a static system of electric charges, under coulomb forces alone.

In particular Earnshaw's Theorem say

Quote

Earnshaw's theorem - Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem

Earnshaw's theorem states that a collection of point charges cannot be maintained in a stable stationary equilibrium configuration solely by the electrostatic interaction of the charges. This was first proven by British mathematician Samuel Earnshaw in 1842.

‎Explanation · ‎Loopholes · ‎Effect on physics · ‎Proofs for magnetic dipoles

OK so if we have a system of two or more charges, the charges must be moving. Period.

In this case the proton is approximately 1800 times as massive as the elctron so we take the proton reference frame as the basis and refer the electron's motion to it.

So the electron is moving relative to the proton.

 

Now an electron in motion is the definition of an electric current.

And an electric current has an associated magnetic field.

So there is an associated magnetic field, hence the Biot Savart Law is applicable.

Note by 'stationary' Wiki means steady.

Quote

Biot–Savart law - Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot–Savart_law

Biot–Savart law. In physics, specifically electromagnetism, the Biot–Savart law (/ˈbiːoʊ səˈvɑːr/ or /ˈbjoʊ səˈvɑːr/) is an equation describing the magnetic field generated by a stationary electric current. It relates the magnetic field to the magnitude, direction, length, and proximity of the electric current.

‎Equation · ‎Aerodynamics applications · ‎The Biot–Savart law ...

 

So you have said that the electron would crash into the proton under coulomb forces.

Why?

For the same reason the Earth does not crash into the Sun under classical gravitational forces.

Because it is in motion.

So gravitational attraction provides the centripetal force to accelerate the Earth's trajectory into the path of a closed curve.

Similarly the coulombic attraction accelerates the electron's trajectory into the path of a closed curve.

 

That is essentially Bohr's satellite theory, as you have called it.

 

However the problem (acknowledged by Bohr and his contempories) is that an accelerating charge must interfere with its own magnetic field (Biot Savart or Lorentz) to generate electromagnetic waves.

But the electron in an atom does not do that. An electron in a cathode ray definitely does emit EM radiation.

There is no classical explanation for this.

The why is where the Quantum Theory enters but I will not pursue that here and now, since this is a completely classical analysis (like yours).

 

Now you have taken empirical measurements and calculated (with your proposal)  the simple hydrogen first spectra, as Bohr did, and got pretty good agreement with observation, as Bohr did.

 

Does this graph look familiar?

It is the Lennard Jones Potential I mentioned earlier.

And it is very similar to your proposal, although the formula is more complicated.

Quote

 

Wikipedia

The Lennard-Jones potential (also termed the L-J potential, 6-12 potential, or 12-6 potential) is a mathematically simple model that approximates the interaction between a pair of neutral atoms or molecules. A form of this interatomic potential was first proposed in 1924 by John Lennard-Jones.^[1] The most common expressions of the L-J potential are

 

VLJ=4ε[(σr)12−(σr)6]=ε[(rmr)12−2(rmr)6],{\displaystyle V_{\text{LJ}}=4\varepsilon \left[\left({\frac {\sigma }{r}}\right)^{12}-\left({\frac {\sigma }{r}}\right)^{6}\right]=\varepsilon \left[\left({\frac {r_{\text{m}}}{r}}\right)^{12}-2\left({\frac {r_{\text{m}}}{r}}\right)^{6}\right],}

where ε is the depth of the potential well, σ is the finite distance at which the inter-particle potential is zero, r is the distance between the particles, and r_m is the distance at which the potential reaches its minimum. At r_m, the potential function has the value −ε. The distances are related as r_m = 2^1/6σ ≈ 1.122σ. These parameters can be fitted to reproduce experimental data or accurate quantum chemistry calculations. Due to its computational simplicity, the Lennard-Jones potential is used extensively in computer simulations even though more accurate potentials exist.

This is also empirical.

Finally I asked you to look at one more thing.

The Madelung constan.

Quote

Wikipedia

The Madelung constant allows for the calculation of the electric potential V_i of all ions of the lattice felt by the ion at position r_i

Vi=e4πϵ0∑j≠izjrij{\displaystyle V_{i}={\frac {e}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}}}\sum _{j\neq i}{\frac {z_{j}}{r_{ij}}}\,\!}

where r_ij =|r_i - r_j| is the distance between the ith and the jth ion. In addition,

z_j = number of charges of the jth ion

e = 1.6022×10⁻¹⁹C

4 π ϵ₀ = 1.112×10⁻¹⁰ C²/(J m).

This is a method of calculating the combined effect of all other ( than its associated proton) positive charges influencing the electron on the other side to provide what you call your point of balance - the value you admit you can't calculate for yourself.

 

Now tell me again that these four pieces of Physics I recommended are not relevant.

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, John Ye said:

You may  recall how to solve H atom's Schrodinger equation.

Coulomb's law is used and applicable in the beginning of the equation solving  process,  Am I correct?

Why do you say it become not applicable after the equation was solved?

I didn't. How did you arrive at such a bizarre conclusion?

3 hours ago, studiot said:

First of all, classical electrostatics forbids you to have a static system of electric charges, under coulomb forces alone.

If you are using the Coulomb force, yes, but the OP is claiming a new force. He has presented no evidence of this, of course, and I suspect scattering experiments would easily disprove it, but things forbidden under the assumption of Coulomb's law don't necessarily apply.

[John Ye]

5 hours ago, studiot said:

I see that you are still not listening.

Pity for you.

 

I will try one last time to lay out the logic as to where you are right (yes in some places you are indeed right) and where you are just plain wrong.

 

First of all, classical electrostatics forbids you to have a static system of electric charges, under coulomb forces alone.

In particular Earnshaw's Theorem say

OK so if we have a system of two or more charges, the charges must be moving. Period.

In this case the proton is approximately 1800 times as massive as the elctron so we take the proton reference frame as the basis and refer the electron's motion to it.

So the electron is moving relative to the proton.

 

Now an electron in motion is the definition of an electric current.

And an electric current has an associated magnetic field.

So there is an associated magnetic field, hence the Biot Savart Law is applicable.

Note by 'stationary' Wiki means steady.

 

So you have said that the electron would crash into the proton under coulomb forces.

Why?

For the same reason the Earth does not crash into the Sun under classical gravitational forces.

Because it is in motion.

So gravitational attraction provides the centripetal force to accelerate the Earth's trajectory into the path of a closed curve.

Similarly the coulombic attraction accelerates the electron's trajectory into the path of a closed curve.

 

That is essentially Bohr's satellite theory, as you have called it.

 

However the problem (acknowledged by Bohr and his contempories) is that an accelerating charge must interfere with its own magnetic field (Biot Savart or Lorentz) to generate electromagnetic waves.

But the electron in an atom does not do that. An electron in a cathode ray definitely does emit EM radiation.

There is no classical explanation for this.

The why is where the Quantum Theory enters but I will not pursue that here and now, since this is a completely classical analysis (like yours).

 

Now you have taken empirical measurements and calculated (with your proposal)  the simple hydrogen first spectra, as Bohr did, and got pretty good agreement with observation, as Bohr did.

 

Does this graph look familiar?

It is the Lennard Jones Potential I mentioned earlier.

And it is very similar to your proposal, although the formula is more complicated.

This is also empirical.

Finally I asked you to look at one more thing.

The Madelung constan.

This is a method of calculating the combined effect of all other ( than its associated proton) positive charges influencing the electron on the other side to provide what you call your point of balance - the value you admit you can't calculate for yourself.

 

Now tell me again that these four pieces of Physics I recommended are not relevant.

 

Studiot,

Thank you for providing these here, which may help me a lot. I will read them later, and answer same part of the paragraph.

It's not accidental for the graph to look familiar.

Microscopic world has a regular pattern or basic law, that is, things are attractive while they are apart far enough, are repulsive while closer enough, and there must be a balanced point.

Electron and proton are the case.  So do atoms (metal atoms build crystal), so do molecules.  If they seem not attractive each other, it's because temperature is not low enough.

I will read and answer other part of your long text. Later

[John Ye]

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

You would have been nearer to making a point if you had cited the scanning tunneling electron microscope.

But you would still have been wrong.

The uncertainty principle wins.

Because it gives the wrong answer.

Pretty much the whole of classical physics fails at this scale.

Learn to live with that fact.

John，

Does Coulomb law fails with quantum scale? It should belong classical physics, because it tell us certain thing----the force is certain with certain distance given

[John Ye]

15 hours ago, John Ye said:

Yes, my work doesn't deal with fine structure things. It only works on basic spectrum.

John,

What? I rehashed Bohr's model? Bohr electron must keep running, while in this model electron is not necessarily running, it can be totally stationary. 

This makes big and obvious difference, you didn't see, did you?