A new atom model （static electron configuration model )

[Strange]

3 hours ago, John Ye said:

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

Your modification of Bohr’s model doesn’t make much difference. It still doesn’t work. 

5 hours ago, John Ye said:

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

Your silly straw man attacks on quantum theory do nothing to support your idea. 

[John Ye]

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

Your modification of Bohr’s model doesn’t make much difference. It still doesn’t work. 

Your silly straw man attacks on quantum theory do nothing to support your idea. 

I know what quantum theory means, and what its result means.

I am not attacking it, just saying the physical fact. I haven't thought of that this could make some believer feel unhappy. I am sorry for my too straightforward words.

Edited September 1, 2018 by John Ye

[Strange]

37 minutes ago, John Ye said:

I know what quantum theory means, and what its result means.

You agree it works then? And works better than your modified Bohr model. 

[John Ye]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

You agree it works then? And works better than your modified Bohr model. 

Bohr electron must be spinning, mine doesn't. They are absolutely different.

Not all working models are created equal.

Whose is simple? Whose are presenting physical nature? 

The geocentric theory had been working for centuries, but it is wrong.

[studiot]

8 hours ago, John Ye said:

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.

 

 

Of course it is not accidental both your analysis and the original Rutherford-Bohr analysis are empirical in that theory are adjusted to fit the same experimental observations.

 

8 hours ago, John Ye said:

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.

 

 

What I am telling you is that your analysis is well over 50 years old.

Do you contend that we have learned nothing in the last 3/4 of a century?

 

I remember in the 1960s this idea of attraction afar and repulsion at close range was put forward at basic physics level.

But it is an overall effect, a combination of many things.

You are incorrectly ascribing it to one cause.

 

It is particularly because of this I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get you to discuss the mechanism of your 'balance point'.

 

You have got this fundamentally wrong because you have completely missed something out here.
That is why your analysis does not work for any system more complicated than a one proton-one electron system.

 

This thread has 100+ posts and all wasted because you have made a fundamental error right at the beginning.

 

8 hours ago, John Ye said:

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.

 

 

So where do the particles obtain this thermal energy to have a higher temperature?

I see no mechanism available in your proposed system.

 

8 hours ago, John Ye said:

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

 

Fine I await your comments.

 

 

 

[John Ye]

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Of course it is not accidental both your analysis and the original Rutherford-Bohr analysis are empirical in that theory are adjusted to fit the same experimental observations.

 

 

What I am telling you is that your analysis is well over 50 years old.

Do you contend that we have learned nothing in the last 3/4 of a century?

 

I remember in the 1960s this idea of attraction afar and repulsion at close range was put forward at basic physics level.

But it is an overall effect, a combination of many things.

You are incorrectly ascribing it to one cause.

 

It is particularly because of this I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get you to discuss the mechanism of your 'balance point'.

 

You have got this fundamentally wrong because you have completely missed something out here.
That is why your analysis does not work for any system more complicated than a one proton-one electron system.

 

This thread has 100+ posts and all wasted because you have made a fundamental error right at the beginning.

 

 

So where do the particles obtain this thermal energy to have a higher temperature?

I see no mechanism available in your proposed system.

 

 

Fine I await your comments.

 

 

 

Thanks. I need time to learn and think it.

[Strange]

58 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Not all working models are created equal.

True. Yours is very limited. And has even more problems than the Bohr model. 

[John Ye]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

True. Yours is very limited. And has even more problems than the Bohr model. 

Satellite model is completely a joke.

People's mind was mislead by sun and earth system.

You may calculate the speed of Fe's inner layer electrons with satellite model, see what happens.

45 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Of course it is not accidental both your analysis and the original Rutherford-Bohr analysis are empirical in that theory are adjusted to fit the same experimental observations.

 

 

What I am telling you is that your analysis is well over 50 years old.

Do you contend that we have learned nothing in the last 3/4 of a century?

 

I remember in the 1960s this idea of attraction afar and repulsion at close range was put forward at basic physics level.

But it is an overall effect, a combination of many things.

You are incorrectly ascribing it to one cause.

 

It is particularly because of this I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get you to discuss the mechanism of your 'balance point'.

 

You have got this fundamentally wrong because you have completely missed something out here.
That is why your analysis does not work for any system more complicated than a one proton-one electron system.

 

This thread has 100+ posts and all wasted because you have made a fundamental error right at the beginning.

 

 

So where do the particles obtain this thermal energy to have a higher temperature?

I see no mechanism available in your proposed system.

 

 

Fine I await your comments.

 

 

 

By the way, how to read that special ASCII char formatted text? What tool to use? Thanks.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Satellite model is completely a joke.

Bohrs model works as well as yours (it is still used) and has fewer problems. So, not perfect but not a joke. 

4 minutes ago, John Ye said:

You may calculate the speed of Fe's inner layer electrons with satellite model, see what happens.

We already know that, like your idea, it only works for hydrogen so this is just another strawman

[John Ye]

54 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Of course it is not accidental both your analysis and the original Rutherford-Bohr analysis are empirical in that theory are adjusted to fit the same experimental observations.

 

 

What I am telling you is that your analysis is well over 50 years old.

Do you contend that we have learned nothing in the last 3/4 of a century?

 

I remember in the 1960s this idea of attraction afar and repulsion at close range was put forward at basic physics level.

But it is an overall effect, a combination of many things.

You are incorrectly ascribing it to one cause.

 

It is particularly because of this I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get you to discuss the mechanism of your 'balance point'.

 

You have got this fundamentally wrong because you have completely missed something out here.
That is why your analysis does not work for any system more complicated than a one proton-one electron system.

 

This thread has 100+ posts and all wasted because you have made a fundamental error right at the beginning.

 

 

So where do the particles obtain this thermal energy to have a higher temperature?

I see no mechanism available in your proposed system.

 

 

Fine I await your comments.

 

 

 

Both Bohr model and quantum model are only working for H atom, one electron and one proton. My model works for H, and partially for helium, even Li, as long as they have equal opportunity electrons configuration.

 

Now I am telling why satellite model is joke. This is only one of many flaws.

Bohr electron's track radius is proportional to nn, where n is energy level number.

If n=7, 49R, electron will be running almost at MOON. It is a big joke, isn't it?

 

 

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Both Bohr model and quantum model are only working for H atom

Nonsense

[John Ye]

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nonsense

This is fact. Can you calculate helium's spectrum by each of them? 

35 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Both Bohr model and quantum model are only working for H atom, one electron and one proton. My model works for H, and partially for helium, even Li, as long as they have equal opportunity electrons configuration.

 

Now I am telling why satellite model is joke. This is only one of many flaws.

Bohr electron's track radius is proportional to nn, where n is energy level number.

If n=7, 49R, electron will be running almost at MOON. It is a big joke, isn't it?

 

 

Another joke is this:

Solar system is a permanent system, once it shaped, it will never be dismantled and rebuilt until it vanish.

How about  hydrogen atom?

It keeps bing dismantled and then rebuilt, right? In discharge tub, even in sky air, everywhere.

How can it be rebuilt without crashed electron? There must be a God to help out.

If dismantled Mars or Earth were rebuilt, they would crash into sun with the most probability.

A ridiculous joke.

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by John Ye

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, John Ye said:

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?

Yes, the big difference it makes is that your model is plainly wrong because it violates the uncertainty principle.

(In fairness, I should point out that Bohr's model violates classical electromagnetism, which is why it's no longer in use.)

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

This is fact. Can you calculate helium's spectrum by each of them? 

Another joke is this:

Solar system is a permanent system, once it shaped, it will never be dismantled and rebuilt until it vanish.

How about  hydrogen atom?

It keeps bing dismantled and then rebuilt, right? In discharge tub, even in sky air, everywhere.

How can it be rebuilt without crashed electron? There must be a God to help out.

If dismantled Mars or Earth were rebuilt, they would crash into sun with the most probability.

A ridiculous joke.

 

 

By the way the planetary/satellite model of the atom is due to Rutherford, not Bohr.

https://www.britannica.com/science/Rutherford-atomic-model

Rutherford introduced his model as a result of experimental evidence, thus moving on from Thompson's earlier 'plum pudding' model.

Bohr introduced a modification of great significance, following De Broglie.

Sommerfield made what was probably the last major improvement to this semi classical model by introducing elliptical orbits.

So yes, the atomic model we are discussing here is the Bohr model.

And yes the Scientific method has been shown by this process to allow for the possibility of continual improvement.

 

On the other hand you have not addressed my comments, whilst continuing to spout nonsense, so I am reporting this and asking for this thread to be closed.

If you wish to discuss God, I'm out of here.

 

 

 

 

[John Ye]

9 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Yes, the big difference it makes is that your model is plainly wrong because it violates the uncertainty principle.

(In fairness, I should point out that Bohr's model violates classical electromagnetism, which is why it's no longer in use.)

 

Does Coulomb law violate electron's uncertainty?  It tells us certain thing----the force is certain with certain distance given?

Edited September 1, 2018 by John Ye

[John Cuthber]

The uncertainty principle says that the position of a particle isn't knowable.

How do you propose to calculate the forces on it using Coulomb's law if you don't know where it is?

[John Ye]

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

By the way the planetary/satellite model of the atom is due to Rutherford, not Bohr.

https://www.britannica.com/science/Rutherford-atomic-model

Rutherford introduced his model as a result of experimental evidence, thus moving on from Thompson's earlier 'plum pudding' model.

Bohr introduced a modification of great significance, following De Broglie.

Sommerfield made what was probably the last major improvement to this semi classical model by introducing elliptical orbits.

So yes, the atomic model we are discussing here is the Bohr model.

And yes the Scientific method has been shown by this process to allow for the possibility of continual improvement.

 

On the other hand you have not addressed my comments, whilst continuing to spout nonsense, so I am reporting this and asking for this thread to be closed.

If you wish to discuss God, I'm out of here.

 

 

 

 

I am reading your paragraph

15 minutes ago, John Ye said:

I am reading your paragraph

Studiot,

I have read Earnshaw's theorem segment.

based on Coulomb law, Earnshaw's theorem is right. But you should remember I extended Coulomb law. Actually, Coulomb law is wrong indide atom size world.

I will read the remaining part of your text., And give you feedback.

Now this segment:

Here we don't deal with electric current. It flows in conduct wire. We bypass it

32 minutes ago, John Ye said:

I am reading your paragraph

Studiot,

I have read Earnshaw's theorem segment.

based on Coulomb law, Earnshaw's theorem is right. But you should remember I extended Coulomb law. Actually, Coulomb law is wrong indide atom size world.

I will read the remaining part of your text., And give you feedback.

Now this segment:

Here we don't deal with electric current. It flows in conduct wire. We bypass it

The following segment explain no_crash by magnetic field. It's unnecessary in my model. It's a patch. Without using any magnetic things, electron doesn't crash because of balanced point.

By stationary I mean the basic and commonsense word meaning, which we needn't extra explanation.

Next segment is about the curves, attractive far repulsive near, I already answered.

Edited September 1, 2018 by John Ye

[swansont]

11 hours ago, John Ye said:

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

It does not fail. Quantum theory does not modify Coulombs law. What is modified is the notion that we can know positions exactly.

You might not that Coulomb's law itself does not appear in the Schrödinger equation. It is cast as a potential, not as a force, and at no point are you needing to know where the particle is at any point in time, only that the electron experiences this potential due to the charge on the proton, no matter what its actual position is.

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

 based on Coulomb law, Earnshaw's theorem is right. But you should remember I extended Coulomb law. Actually, Coulomb law is wrong indide atom size world.

It would be good to show evidence which supports this. Like from scattering experiments, which will depend on the spatial details of the interaction. Can you predict what charged particle scattering should look like with your potential?

2 hours ago, John Ye said:

 

Another joke is this:

Solar system is a permanent system, once it shaped, it will never be dismantled and rebuilt until it vanish.

The ignorance here is staggering.

Are you aware of how our moon formed? The asteroid belt?

2 hours ago, John Ye said:

How about  hydrogen atom?

It keeps bing dismantled and then rebuilt, right? In discharge tub, even in sky air, everywhere.

If something added as much relative energy to our solar system as is added in a discharge tube, our siolar system would be greatly modified.

2 hours ago, John Ye said:

How can it be rebuilt without crashed electron?  

Quantum theory explains this, but you don't seem very interested in actually learning these details. You have apparently already decided quantum theory is wrong.

 

[John Ye]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

It does not fail. Quantum theory does not modify Coulombs law. What is modified is the notion that we can know positions exactly.

You might not that Coulomb's law itself does not appear in the Schrödinger equation. It is cast as a potential, not as a force, and at no point are you needing to know where the particle is at any point in time, only that the electron experiences this potential due to the charge on the proton, no matter what its actual position is.

It would be good to show evidence which supports this. Like from scattering experiments, which will depend on the spatial details of the interaction. Can you predict what charged particle scattering should look like with your potential?

The ignorance here is staggering.

Are you aware of how our moon formed? The asteroid belt?

If something added as much relative energy to our solar system as is added in a discharge tube, our siolar system would be greatly modified.

Quantum theory explains this, but you don't seem very interested in actually learning these details. You have apparently already decided quantum theory is wrong.

 

Does Coulomb law violate quantum theory?  It tells us certain thing about electron--the force is certain with certain distance given?

[studiot]

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

Studiot,

I have read Earnshaw's theorem segment.

based on Coulomb law, Earnshaw's theorem is right. But you should remember I extended Coulomb law. Actually, Coulomb law is wrong indide atom size world.

I will read the remaining part of your text., And give you feedback.

 

As before you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Earnshaw's theorem does not depend upon Coulomb's Law.

Coulomb's Law is a sufficent condition because it obeys Laplace's equation.

But it is not a necessary condition because many other functions also obey Laplace's equation.

 

So it is very big hearted of you to allow Earnshaw with all the benefit of 21st century knowledge.

 

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

Here we don't deal with electric current. It flows in conduct wire. We bypass it

 

You have absolutely no idea what an electric current is.

And you appear to be denying the observed magnetic effect of moving charge.

Are you invoking God for this as well?

 

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

The following segment explain no_crash by magnetic field. It's unnecessary in my model. It's a patch. Without using any magnetic things, electron doesn't crash because of balanced point.

By stationary I mean the basic and commonsense word meaning, which we needn't extra explanation.

Next segment is about the curves, attractive far repulsive near, I already answered.

 

You have explained nothing, either in principle or mathematically.

 

Yet you have the affrontery to challenge professional spectroscopists to calculate spectra mathematically, and to mock the very real use our modern ability to observe and measure such spectra has brought to modern medicine and its ability in turn to combat plagues.

Blame God for the plagues and praise modern medicine for curing them.

 

Because you can't do it, here is a mathematical comparison of the formulae for the kinetic energy of an isolated particle confined to a rectangular box of dimensions a x b x c.

Clasically the energy is given by

[math]E = \frac{{M{v^2}}}{2}[/math]

 

 

In Quantum Mechanics the energy is given by integer values of the parameter n which approach infinity in number.

 

[math]E = \frac{{{h^2}}}{{8M}}\left[ {{{\left( {\frac{{n{}_x}}{a}} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\frac{{n{}_y}}{b}} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\frac{{n{}_z}}{c}} \right)}^2} + } \right][/math]

 

 

Can you see why  we normally choose the classical equation, which yields sensibly the same results?

 

These formulae are given in mathmarkup language (MathML) or LaTex.

There are tutorials on this site about this.

You may need to refresh your page for the system to automatically translate the code into maths.

 

As a matter of interest can you maths tell you if the classical energy obeys Laplace's equation?

Edited September 1, 2018 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

I have read Earnshaw's theorem segment.

That's nice for you.

Are you aware that Earnshaw's theorem (as originally written) is wrong (or doesn't apply to the real world)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation#Diamagnetic_levitation

[John Ye]

8 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That's nice for you.

Are you aware that Earnshaw's theorem (as originally written) is wrong (or doesn't apply to the real world)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation#Diamagnetic_levitation

Based on Coulomb law, Earnshaw's theorem is correct.

In fact, this does not necessarily need  a theory,  We can imagine its conclusion. The electrons can be stay in a stationary position because of the attractive force.

 

[John Cuthber]

6 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Based on Coulomb law, Earnshaw's theorem is correct.

Based on observation, it isn't.

You can have diamagnetic materials which allow you to set up stable repulsion.

The interesting thing is that diamagnetism only works because the electrons are in continuous motion.

This proves your idea wrong.

You can stop wasting time on it now.

 

[John Ye]

33 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

As before you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Earnshaw's theorem does not depend upon Coulomb's Law.

Coulomb's Law is a sufficent condition because it obeys Laplace's equation.

But it is not a necessary condition because many other functions also obey Laplace's equation.

 

So it is very big hearted of you to allow Earnshaw with all the benefit of 21st century knowledge.

 

 

You have absolutely no idea what an electric current is.

And you appear to be denying the observed magnetic effect of moving charge.

Are you invoking God for this as well?

 

 

You have explained nothing, either in principle or mathematically.

 

Yet you have the affrontery to challenge professional spectroscopists to calculate spectra mathematically, and to mock the very real use our modern ability to observe and measure such spectra has brought to modern medicine and its ability in turn to combat plagues.

Blame God for the plagues and praise modern medicine for curing them.

 

Because you can't do it, here is a mathematical comparison of the formulae for the kinetic energy of an isolated particle confined to a rectangular box of dimensions a x b x c.

Clasically the energy is given by

E=Mv22

 

 

In Quantum Mechanics the energy is given by integer values of the parameter n which approach infinity in number.

 

E=h28M[(nxa)2+(nyb)2+(nzc)2+]

 

 

Can you see why  we normally choose the classical equation, which yields sensibly the same results?

 

These formulae are given in mathmarkup language (MathML) or LaTex.

There are tutorials on this site about this.

You may need to refresh your page for the system to automatically translate the code into maths.

 

As a matter of interest can you maths tell you if the classical energy obeys Laplace's equation?

You have absolutely no idea what an electric current is.

And you appear to be denying the observed magnetic effect of moving charge.

Are you invoking God for this as well?

-------

My model involves neither electric current  no magnetic things, which I think you know for sure.

The word God is not proper here, I just want to emphasize my previous words.

My model is very very simple, it just extends the basic Coulomb law,  based on formula 2,  and using the basic integration,  got the energy levels and the spectrum.

It's the simplest math.

So I don't need to use Laplace equation and etc. I know little about that.

 

  

15 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Based on observation, it isn't.

You can have diamagnetic materials which allow you to set up stable repulsion.

The interesting thing is that diamagnetism only works because the electrons are in continuous motion.

This proves your idea wrong.

You can stop wasting time on it now.

 

You can make a computer simulation, see if the system can be stable or not.

Use the clasical Coulomb law, simulate atom Li

I don't think it can be stable if the electron is stationary 

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, John Ye said:

My model involves neither electric current  no magnetic things, which I think you know for sure.

Your model involves a one proton-one electron system.

As such the one electron must, by definition be unpaired.

Any unpaired electron has a magnetic moment.

So, by definition your system involves magnetism.

 

I have already told you why, by definition, even one moving electron constitutes an electric current.

 

PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS I DID NOT SAY INTO MY MOUTH