If an electron falls through the nucleus of an atom...

[Butch]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Then it is not deuterium, it is helium.

 

So let us model helium with two protons and consider your model of the passage of one of the electrons through the gap.

Classically, as you say, the electron will exert a pulling together force on both protons.

At some point when it is close enough this force will be greater than the mutual repulsive force of the two positive charges, depending upon the dimensions of the gap.

This effect will be greatest when the electron is centered between the two protons.

After this point the effect will diminish as the electrons passes the centre.

So the passage of the electron will cause the protons to oscillate closer and further in position.

 

Have I understood your model correctly?

 

Yes!... However this is not helium(no neutrons), it is deuterium! The electron passing close to the proton nucleus would be detected as a neutron, by charge and mass!

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, Butch said:

Yes!... However this is not helium(no neutrons), it is deuterium! The electron passing close to the proton nucleus would be detected as a neutron, by charge and mass!

The only atom with two protons is called helium.

Deuterium has one proton and one neutron.

 

This is basic chemistry that I will leave you to look up as I bid you good night.

Edited December 14, 2017 by studiot

[Butch]

Just now, studiot said:

The only atom with two protons is called helium.

Deuterium has one proton and one neutron.

In my model of deuterium at least one electron would be in the loose area of the nucleus, this area would be close to the associated proton group, however what we call the nucleus would extend to a range where the electron charge would be obscured somewhat giving the impression of a nucleus with a +1 charge, we would interpret this as 1 proton and 1 neutron, when it is actually 2 protons and a high energy electron.

My reasoning for thinking this is correct is demonstrated with a mind experiment, the tritium model can be thought of like weaving braids. While 1 electron is at apogee, another is in the "nucleus range" moving towards the proton group, another is in a similar range exiting the nucleus... What happens if we try to add another proton electron pair? How would the atom have to be constructed for stability?

I must leave you now, however let me leave you with this:

In the models of hydrogen and helium we can think of them as 2 dimensional, that is you can diagram them on a sheet of paper. The electron paths so far have been opposing or perpendicular. When we move on to lithium however, for things to remain this way we must become 3 dimensional. That fits quite well don't you think?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Hydrogen 1 is simple, the electron orbits the proton, the proton will wobble a bit, but very easily a stable atom and the building block of more complex atoms... And that is where the dance becomes important.

How do you find the energy levels? What about the angular momentum? Why doesn't the electron spiral in to the proton?

[studiot]

10 hours ago, Butch said:

In my model of deuterium at least one electron would be in the loose area of the nucleus, this area would be close to the associated proton group, however what we call the nucleus would extend to a range where the electron charge would be obscured somewhat giving the impression of a nucleus with a +1 charge, we would interpret this as 1 proton and 1 neutron, when it is actually 2 protons and a high energy electron.

My reasoning for thinking this is correct is demonstrated with a mind experiment, the tritium model can be thought of like weaving braids. While 1 electron is at apogee, another is in the "nucleus range" moving towards the proton group, another is in a similar range exiting the nucleus... What happens if we try to add another proton electron pair? How would the atom have to be constructed for stability?

I must leave you now, however let me leave you with this:

In the models of hydrogen and helium we can think of them as 2 dimensional, that is you can diagram them on a sheet of paper. The electron paths so far have been opposing or perpendicular. When we move on to lithium however, for things to remain this way we must become 3 dimensional. That fits quite well don't you think?

 

I am not going to waste any more time on your redefining the wheel as a cog.

I will be happy to help when you are ready to use well established words conventionally.

[Butch]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

How do you find the energy levels? What about the angular momentum? Why doesn't the electron spiral in to the proton?

I cannot do the complex math for the orbitals, I would greatly appreciate help in that area.

If the proton and electron did not collide but merged it would be momentary as the proton is not a black hole.

I have tried both scenarios with my models ( collision and merging) I was not able to create stability, it seems that if the dance is correct, it is such that neither occurs... If such an event did occur the atom would decay.

Rough schematics:

 

Perhaps it will help to explain how I tripped upon this model...

I have always had a problem with the role of the neutron in the atom, I was trying to model an atom where electron proton pairs periodically merged forming neutrons and giving up their kinetic energy to a neutron which then decayed into a fresh proton electron pair. Failure! However the simulation I had created used only protons and electrons which hypothetically would combine and decay. I would try placing these particles in my direct3d "space" at guesstimated positions and velocities then I would allow it to run... for hours or days. One day I was observing a model that had been running for days and had not dissipated(as so many had) and I realized that although the model had some stability, none of the pairs were combining. It was a stable model of a helium atom. I backtracked and found that I was able to produce stable forms of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium!

So you see, it was not my great physics knowledge, my talent with mathematics or even my great abstract thinking that brought me to this... It was serendipity.

So now what do I do? Chuck it in the waste basket or seek help?

Edited December 14, 2017 by Butch
Spelling

[studiot]

When you get to the moon, remember to bring me back a pound of green cheese.

 

[Butch]

Just now, studiot said:

When you get to the moon, remember to bring me back a pound of green cheese.

 

There was a time when everyone thought the earth was the center of the universe, then the fool on the hill saw the sun going down and the eyes in his head saw a world spinning 'round, science moved ahead... Thank you Copernicus!

[studiot]

24 minutes ago, Butch said:

There was a time when everyone thought the earth was the center of the universe, then the fool on the hill saw the sun going down and the eyes in his head saw a world spinning 'round, science moved ahead... Thank you Copernicus!

 

As I said, but you didn't acknowledge, when you start using words for the purpose for which they were intended, rational discussion can move forward.

 

You have the germ of an idea which lies somewhere between the Thompson 1904 'plum pudding' model of the atom and the Bohr 1913 orbital model.
Probably quite close to the Rutherford 1911 model.

However, they all called Helium, Helium and Hydrogen, Hydrogen.

That enabled discussion.

There was a great deal of head scratching in those days to come up with these three models and the history is quite interesting and pertineent to your ideas.

Edited December 14, 2017 by studiot

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

I cannot do the complex math for the orbitals, I would greatly appreciate help in that area.

That's where all the physics is.

Quote

If the proton and electron did not collide but merged it would be momentary as the proton is not a black hole.

Why? They have opposite charge.

Quote

 I have always had a problem with the role of the neutron in the atom, I was trying to model an atom where electron proton pairs periodically merged forming neutrons and giving up their kinetic energy to a neutron which then decayed into a fresh proton electron pair. Failure!

Such a model ignores conservation laws (lepton number, for example). Failure indeed.

Quote

However the simulation I had created used only protons and electrons which hypothetically would combine and decay. I would try placing these particles in my direct3d "space" at guesstimated positions and velocities then I would allow it to run... for hours or days. One day I was observing a model that had been running for days and had not dissipated(as so many had) and I realized that although the model had some stability, none of the pairs were combining. It was a stable model of a helium atom. I backtracked and found that I was able to produce stable forms of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium!

So you see, it was not my great physics knowledge, my talent with mathematics or even my great abstract thinking that brought me to this... It was serendipity.

What "model" are you using? A trajectory (positions and velocities)? Why can't you find the energy from the values you use? KE = 1/2 mv^2, and PE = kQ1Q2/r

 

Quote

So now what do I do? Chuck it in the waste basket or seek help?

If your model doesn't predict the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, of what value is it?

[Butch]

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Why? They have opposite charge.

Yes, however they have inertia which is equal and opposite (relative to each other) hence they would break the merger with the same energies that created it.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

If your model doesn't predict the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, of what value is it?

With this model, understanding the mechanisms under way, we could manipulate atoms and molecules with coherent energies much, much, much lower than those of a collider. We could also investigate sub-atomic structures with those same coherent energies. We could do things like synchronizing atoms...

21 hours ago, studiot said:

As I said, but you didn't acknowledge, when you start using words for the purpose for which they were intended, rational discussion can move forward.

Some of the concepts I am discussing need new words (nucleus area for example) others are my ignorance or carelessness. I do not mind being corrected, after all a person without humility cannot learn.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

What "model" are you using? A trajectory (positions and velocities)? Why can't you find the energy from the values you use? KE = 1/2 mv^2, and PE = kQ1Q2/r

As far as I have been able to discern, the masses involved the magnitude of forces (gravitational and electric) are somewhat contentious. As I have stated my discovery of this model was serendipitous, the values I used were guestimates, after all my models were only observed for hundreds of cycles. I take the view that superior mathematics applied to this model might resolve such contention.

21 hours ago, studiot said:

You have the germ of an idea which lies somewhere between the Thompson 1904 'plum pudding' model of the atom and the Bohr 1913 orbital model.
Probably quite close to the Rutherford 1911 model.

Actually it is a modification of the Bohr model, with the absence of neutrons, and the presence of electrons that interact with the nucleus. 

You are absolutely correct, it is a germ of an idea... Not an idea that I thought up, but rather one that presented itself. If this idea had presented itself to you, what would you do?

I was hoping someone would jump at the obvious error in my helium schematic...

Edited December 15, 2017 by Butch
Spelling

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, Butch said:

Yes, however they have inertia which is equal and opposite (relative to each other) hence they would break the merger with the same energies that created it.

What is the reason that a photon could not be emitted to reduce the energy of the system?

59 minutes ago, Butch said:

With this model, understanding the mechanisms under way, we could manipulate atoms and molecules with coherent energies much, much, much lower than those of a collider. We could also investigate sub-atomic structures with those same coherent energies. We could do things like synchronizing atoms...

You need to have a model, first. Which would include the energy levels, etc.

You are implying that there are effects that you would be predicting. Has anyone ever observed behavior that needs explaining, which is not covered by existing theory?

59 minutes ago, Butch said:

 As far as I have been able to discern, the masses involved the magnitude of forces (gravitational and electric) are somewhat contentious. As I have stated my discovery of this model was serendipitous, the values I used were guestimates, after all my models were only observed for hundreds of cycles. I take the view that superior mathematics applied to this model might resolve such contention.

You must have used some numbers in your simulation (I wouldn't call it a model). How did you calculate trajectories without knowing these various parameters? Why won't you say what they were?

59 minutes ago, Butch said:

Actually it is a modification of the Bohr model, with the absence of neutrons, and the presence of electrons that interact with the nucleus. 

The Bohr model included the interaction between the electron and the nucleus. Along with other assumption(s), it gave the correct energy levels. But it failed because it predicted an angular momentum for the electron which we know to be wrong. Your simulation makes that same prediction. And you have less than the failed Bohr model.

 

[Butch]

I have checked my notes, I used relative mass values of:

Proton = 0.99862349
Electron = 0.00054386734

I did not measure velocities with my models, however the values used would indicate that the average velocities of the particles should produce an increase in relative mass of the nucleus of 0.00137651 for each neutron in the nucleus of the atom.

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

What is the reason that a photon could not be emitted to reduce the energy of the system?

Good question, perhaps the answer is in this model? Perhaps that answer will provide us a better understanding of atomic structure. 

What would be the mechanism responsible for the emission of a photon? A stable atom without the addition of energy does not emitted a photon in my understanding.

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

You are implying that there are effects that you would be predicting. Has anyone ever observed behavior that needs explaining, which is not covered by existing theory?

The relative mass of the neutron?

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

The Bohr model included the interaction between the electron and the nucleus. Along with other assumption(s), it gave the correct energy levels. But it failed because it predicted an angular momentum for the electron which we know to be wrong. Your simulation makes that same prediction. And you have less than the failed Bohr model.

My simulation would dictate the momentia, given the radius of the orbital shells, resolving the proper synchronizations and applying forces would resolve angular momentum. There is variance in this model, a perfect atom that was not influenced would never decay.  Another very simple deuterium atom might decay in a pico-second. All the math would result in averages. Sounds simple, it is not... at least for me. I can point to the math and perhaps I could understand it, I cannot create it.

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

You need to have a model, first. Which would include the energy levels, etc.

You are correct, all I have is an idea brought to me by my failed hypothetical simulation. It is quite gratifying to me that you pay it any attention at all, but my gratification is nothing... If someone could take my idea and create a model, that would be gratifying to science, that would be something.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Butch
Correction

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, Butch said:

I have checked my notes, I used relative mass values of:

Proton = 0.99862349
Electron = 0.00054386734

I did not measure velocities with my models, however the values used would indicate that the average velocities of the particles should produce an increase in relative mass of the nucleus of 0.00137651 for each neutron in the nucleus of the atom.

A number of problems arise here. The simplest form of Hydrogen has no neutrons, and the nucleus would be essentially stationary, so there is no relativistic correction to cite.

34 minutes ago, Butch said:

Good question, perhaps the answer is in this model? Perhaps that answer will provide us a better understanding of atomic structure. 

It would be an absolute requirement of the model to explain this.

34 minutes ago, Butch said:

What would be the mechanism responsible for the emission of a photon? A stable atom without the addition of energy does not emitted a photon in my understanding.

You have not presented anything that suggests that there is such thing as a ground state in your idea.

34 minutes ago, Butch said:

The relative mass of the neutron?

Why would an atomic model explain this? Neutrons have a mass even when they are free neutrons.

34 minutes ago, Butch said:

My simulation would dictate the momentia, given the radius of the orbital shells, resolving the proper synchronizations and applying forces would resolve angular momentum. There is variance in this model, a perfect atom that was not influenced would never decay.  Another very simple deuterium atom might decay in a pico-second. All the math would result in averages. Sounds simple, it is not... at least for me. I can point to the math and perhaps I could understand it, I cannot create it.

Then you have some work to do. Those predictions would indeed come from a model, at such time that you create one.

But you have already predicted that the angular momentum of hydrogen is non-zero (it has a circular orbit) which we know to be wrong.

[Butch]

Helium4

 

Why is helium2 unstable???

Because it is not helium2 it is an unstable form of hydrogen2!

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you have already predicted that the angular momentum of hydrogen is non-zero (it has a circular orbit) which we know to be wrong.

Simply a schematic representation, in fact referring to the paths as elliptical is not quite correct. The paths would be complex (as they were in my observations) the paths would be ellipses only in perfect atoms, and the occurrence of such would be infinitely rare and very short lived due to outside influence.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Butch
Correction

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, Butch said:

 a schematic representation, in fact referring to the paths as elliptical is not quite correct. The paths would be complex (as they were in my observations) the paths would be ellipses only in perfect atoms, and the occurrence of such would be infinitely rare and very short lived due to outside influence.

Anything but a straight line will have a nonzero angular momentum

[Butch]

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

Anything but a straight line will have a nonzero angular momentum

Average angular momentum could be zero. The greater the time scale the closer to zero. This is not a model of precision, it is a model of measured chaos, creating measured chaos (and complex math). Applying precision to this would be as simple as resolving pi to the last digit. Perhaps a formulae for boundries and decay rates could be created... However it would still be an approximation.

I am impressed by your insight into my idea, you must have a great mind for abstract thought. Combined with your physics knowledge... I am a neophyte, but even at that I have found that abstract thought has become a relative rarety in the scientific community.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Butch
Elaboration

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

22 hours ago, studiot said:

As I said, but you didn't acknowledge, when you start using words for the purpose for which they were intended, rational discussion can move forward.

Some of the concepts I am discussing need new words (nucleus area for example) others are my ignorance or carelessness. I do not mind being corrected, after all a person without humility cannot learn.

 

I have corrected you twice now as nicely as I can.

 

But you continue to misuse words with the resut that I (or anyone else) can't be sure what you are talking about.

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Another very simple deuterium atom might decay in a pico-second

And then again you may just be misusing terminology.

 

So I will leave you with a parting question.

 

Why are your small circles with the positive signs in the middle not at the centres of the large circles which appear to show orbiting blobs?

And why are you not using all of the three available dimensions or are your 'atoms' truly flat?

31 minutes ago, Butch said:

Helium4

 

 

 

[Butch]

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Why are your small circles with the positive signs in the middle not at the centres of the large circles which appear to show orbiting blobs?

And why are you not using all of the three available dimensions or are your 'atoms' truly flat?

These are schematic representations, hydrogen1, hydrogen2, hydrogen3 and helium4 can be represented schematically in 2 dimensions.. lithium cannot.

Note that my schematic of hydrogen 2 is a model of helium2, the difference is the timing, as one electron reaches apogee the other is passing through the center of the nucleus, this timing can vary, but doing so would decrease the half life of the atom. If the timing were such that both electrons were approaching apogee (a helium2 atom) the atom would disintegrate as the nucleus was torn apart.

Referring to my schematic of hydrogen4 the dotted line being the boundry of the nucleus, what would you say the charge of the nucleus would be?

Edited December 15, 2017 by Butch
Elaboration

[studiot]

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

Why are your small circles with the positive signs in the middle not at the centres of the large circles which appear to show orbiting blobs?

So you confirm they are deliberately positive signs, not just crosses?

[Butch]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

 

 

So you confirm they are deliberately positive signs, not just crosses?

Yes, they are protons, the blobs are electrons.

[studiot]

Now please read the following extract from my Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry

 

This couldn't be clearer.

 

HYDROGEN AND ITS ISOTOPES DEUTERIUM AND TRITIUM HAS ONLY ONE PROTON A

AND ONLY ONE ELECTRON

 

If you insist on publishing diagrams of atoms of other elements and calling them hydrogen or one of its isotopes there is no point our continuing this discussion.

Edited December 15, 2017 by studiot

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

A number of problems arise here. The simplest form of Hydrogen has no neutrons, and the nucleus would be essentially stationary, so there is no relativistic correction to cite.

The nucleus would wobble.

29 minutes ago, studiot said:

Now please read the following extract from my Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry

 

This couldn't be clearer.

 

HYDROGEN AND ITS ISOTOPES DEUTERIUM AND TRITIUM HAS ONLY ONE PROTON A

AND ONLY ONE ELECTRON

 

If you insist on publishing diagrams of atoms of other elements and calling them hydrogen or one of its isotopes there is no point our continuing this discussion.

In my schematic the nucleus of hydrogen4 contains 4 protons and 2 relatively high energy electrons, note that the 4 protons would have inertia equal to that of the 2 electrons this nucleus then would mimic by charge and mass that of a nucleus composed of 2 protons and 2 neutrons... I have attempted the math to represent this, however these are average values over time which incorporates the complex angular momenta of the particle paths (even the paths of the protons) I have sufficient math skills if the problem were as simple as electron n exerts force n on proton etc. I know there is much work already done that I could call upon, but I am not an academic. I have a great deal of respect for you that have the intelligence and passion to devote yourselves to the pursuit of physics. I will gladly answer your questions when I can. When I saw this system happening in my simulation and saw how well it fit with the periodic table, I felt there must be something to it. Swansont seems to have some insight like mine in this idea... I hope it sticks with him. 

Your input is appreciated also, Studiot.

I am trying to prepare myself for when Strange gets a hold of it... Lol.

I must leave for a bit, the tide is right... 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Butch

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, Butch said:

The nucleus would wobble.

At what speed? Not anywhere close to the speed of an electron in your model.

27 minutes ago, Butch said:

In my schematic the nucleus of hydrogen4 contains 4 protons and 2 relatively high energy electrons,

There is no stable isotope of hydrogen 4. It would be unstable. But it would still contain only one electron and one proton, by definition. That's not up for negotiation. If it has more than one proton, it's a different element. A neutral atom has the same number of electrons as protons. You will have to work within that framework.

 

[studiot]

Just in case you have any doubt here is an extract from Wikepedia which shows that Deuterium was discovered, before the Neutron.

 

Quote

Deuterium. , also known as heavy hydrogen) is one of two stable isotopes of hydrogen (the other being protium, or hydrogen-1). ... Deuterium was discovered and named in 1931 by Harold Urey. When the neutron was discovered in 1932, this made the nuclear structure of deuterium obvious, and Urey won the Nobel Prize in 1934.

 

It's been nice talking to ya.