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

[Butch]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

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

 

 

It's been nice talking to ya.

 

I would appreciate a link, the mechanism for the discovery of neutron would greatly interest me and the math couldn't hurt!

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

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

 

Correct, but it would wobble and in more complex atoms that would have to be accounted for because of the periodically close proximity of the electrons to the nucleus.

I found an article on Chadwick's  experiment.

Very nicely done and I get the math... But there is a problem here, how is it that neutrons exist if free neutrons are so unstable? From the merging of protons and electrons? I had that thought and abandoned it. If neutrons we're just there at the beginning then we should be running short on supply soon.

Maybe the collision of a proton, electron and a neutrino with the kinetic energy being released as a photon? 

A beautiful experiment, however if the assumptions are correct:

The "proof" of the existence of neutrons leads me to doubt in my assumptions, however the lack of origin leads me to confidence in my merger thoughts...

If the assumptions missed something it would lend validity to the idea we have been discussing...

I tend to believe there is more to understand about the basic structure of the atom, I am still attracted to the idea that the neutron is a proton electron interaction rather than a particle, although I do not see it as an electron tightly bound to a proton. I will have to give this some thought... But I do have a mind well suited to that.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Butch
Correction

[Butch]

Aha! I think it is an experiment that is worth repeating in a vacuum tube with electrodes, If I am correct no electrons should be present if the  bombardment produces true neutrons and there  would be no current flow, however if current flow is detected then the neutrons are actually a tightly bound proton electron pair! Note that a Geiger counter has a path for current flow, a vacuum does not.

Umm... I don't have even a small lab, I doubt I could get my hands on polonium...

Any volunteers? Not like a collider is needed.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Butch

[Butch]

Ok, that experiment is not going to happen real soon, how about we look at the decay of polonium? As I stated before with my idea if collision or merger occurs the atom will lose stability. In the case of polonium I suppose that something like this happens I tend toward a third possibility... Two electrons interacting in the complex nucleus end up in a tight orbit with protons, this tight pair has a neutral charge and is now weakly bound to the atomic structure and incurs the ejection of two protons near enough that they are tugged by the electrons in the bound pairs... I know how far reaching this speculation is, however we are dealing with po214, that is a very complex atom. Perhaps if we look at a simpler atom. If my hydrogen atom were to decay I must believe it would involve 2 electrons "out of sync" that end up either great enough energy to leave the atomic structure (not likely) or they end up in bound pairs. Looking at this as an electric system we would now have 2 electrons at apogee and 2 bound electrons herding the nucleus... until the 2 that we're at apogee come back to the nucleus they will tend to eject the bound pairs and do less herding on the unbound protons (which will will be weakly bonded to the bound pairs). As the 2 unbound electrons head back towards apogee this atom will cease to be. 

I will do some studying on angular momentum of electrons and attempt to relate it to my idea.

Thanks 

 

 

[Butch]

I am quite the fool not to have included magnetism in my simulation, this is where I will educate myself and the intro says it all:

http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/esam/intro.html

If I had included magnetism in my simulation I believe it would have been a much easier task to find stable configurations, from what I have digested so far this is math I can handle!

Thank you all so very much, I hope to be back soon with a model that is somewhat more digestible.

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought.

One answer might be that the electron sticks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture

 

[swansont]

21 hours ago, Butch said:

 Very nicely done and I get the math... But there is a problem here, how is it that neutrons exist if free neutrons are so unstable? From the merging of protons and electrons? I had that thought and abandoned it. If neutrons we're just there at the beginning then we should be running short on supply soon.

Neutrons in some bound states simply can't decay. There is no decay channel, i.e. it happens when there is no available state for the proton they would become, at a lower energy. 

17 hours ago, Butch said:

Ok, that experiment is not going to happen real soon, how about we look at the decay of polonium?

If you can't solve hydrogen, the simplest system, going to more complex atoms is not going to save you.

Stick to hydrogen.

[Butch]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Neutrons in some bound states simply can't decay. There is no decay channel, i.e. it happens when there is no available state for the proton they would become, at a lower energy. 

If you can't solve hydrogen, the simplest system, going to more complex atoms is not going to save you.

Stick to hydrogen.

My idea is not different than current models of hydrogen...

Ok, I am alright with quantum mechanics from this side... Still have a problem with quark models, but that is irrelevant.

I need you to check my understanding...

The angular momentum of a an electron is directly proportional to the strength of the dipole field.

In the following schematic representation of an atom (let's not worry about what atom it is for now)

In this atom the electrons accelerate toward the nucleus and decelerate away from the nucleus, consequently the angular momentum of the electrons is constantly changing (regardless if the path is circular, elliptical or other) however since the 2 are in sync the sum of thier momenta would remain constant (e1 is decelerating as e2 is accelerating). 

Correct?

Do I understand spin correctly? It is the orientation of the orbital to an axis?

Edited December 16, 2017 by Butch
Spelling

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, Butch said:

My idea is not different than current models of hydrogen...

Yes, it is. Very much so.

[Butch]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, it is. Very much so.

Hydrogen1 in my model is a proton with an orbiting electron.

Hydrogen2 is different.

Very much so.

5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Just a thought.

One answer might be that the electron sticks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture

 

In my atoms sticking would occur when a synced pair of electrons are bound tightly to protons (can be read as "neutrons").

Edited December 16, 2017 by Butch
Elaboration

[John Cuthber]

48 minutes ago, Butch said:

In my atoms sticking would occur

Well, we know when it happens in the real world, so we can see if your model either 

(1) agrees with the current model and is redundant, or

(2) is wrong,and therefore useless

[Butch]

12 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Well, we know when it happens in the real world, so we can see if your model either 

(1) agrees with the current model and is redundant, or

(2) is wrong,and therefore useless

Working on exactly that. 

Doyou understand the functioning and the exceptional condition of my model?

[John Cuthber]

4 minutes ago, Butch said:

Doyou understand the functioning and the exceptional condition of my model?

No.

I don't even plan to read it until you can show that it gives better answers than the "old" model.

Why would I bother (see my previous post)?

[Butch]

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No.

I don't even plan to read it until you can show that it gives better answers than the "old" model.

Why would I bother (see my previous post)?

Note the positioning of the neutrons...

[John Cuthber]

Did you understand my post?

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I don't even plan to read it until you can show that it gives better answers than the "old" model.

 

[Butch]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Did you understand my post?

 

Yes, I am fine with that, Swansont has been all the help I need.

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, Butch said:

Note the positioning of the neutrons...

 

I don't see any neutrons, would you be so kind as to point them out?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

Hydrogen1 in my model is a proton with an orbiting electron.

 

Which is not the accepted physics model. QM does not have orbits.

[Butch]

16 hours ago, studiot said:

 

I don't see any neutrons, would you be so kind as to point them out?

That is the exceptional state of my atoms, no neutrons. I was baiting John.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Which is not the accepted physics model. QM does not have orbits.

In my atom the greatest probability for the position of an electron is at the apogee, note that the probability of its position in the nucleus is not 0. Note also that if an electron is at apogee another is at perigee in the nucleus. This does not hold true for all my atoms (without naming the atom) in an atom composed of 3 pairs when an electron is at apogee, 2 are near the nucleus but one is post perigee another is pre perigee.

I have avoided QM somewhat, quark theory disagrees with me... However, I must say at the basic atomic level it is quite pleasing. I am still having difficulty with the concept of spin, can someone help me out?

Just curious, I think I will encounter this in my investigation of qm, but has any one considered that the quantum nature of light could be the nature of matter? What I am saying is that light exhibits itself as particles because matter can only absorb discrete energies from light.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Butch

[Butch]

It seems that my atom:

 

Could only receive energy in quanta  that would maintain the coherence between the pairs. I am not neglecting photo electrics.

I will continue with my education, just thought I would drop this one off.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Butch

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

I was baiting John.

Let me know how trolling works out for you.

[Butch]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Let me know how trolling works out for you.

It is nice to have your attention.

[John Cuthber]

24 minutes ago, Butch said:

It is nice to have your attention.

Be careful what you wish for.

It's easy to get my attention- just post trash..

If you want the mods' attention, just declare that you are trolling.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Butch said:

 In my atom the greatest probability for the position of an electron is at the apogee, note that the probability of its position in the nucleus is not 0. Note also that if an electron is at apogee another is at perigee in the nucleus. This does not hold true for all my atoms (without naming the atom) in an atom composed of 3 pairs when an electron is at apogee, 2 are near the nucleus but one is post perigee another is pre perigee.

There only one electron in hydrogen. In QM there or no orbits in any atom. In the ground state of hydrogen (and helium), the electron has no orbital angular momentum. 

Your model has to deal with that, before you go on to other things.

3 hours ago, Butch said:

I have avoided QM somewhat, quark theory disagrees with me... However, I must say at the basic atomic level it is quite pleasing. I am still having difficulty with the concept of spin, can someone help me out?

Starta thread on it and ask questions (but do not propose your own interpretation)

3 hours ago, Butch said:

Just curious, I think I will encounter this in my investigation of qm, but has any one considered that the quantum nature of light could be the nature of matter? What I am saying is that light exhibits itself as particles because matter can only absorb discrete energies from light.

Again, a topic for its own thread.

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

There only one electron in hydrogen. In QM there or no orbits in any atom. In the ground state of hydrogen (and helium), the electron has no orbital angular momentum. 

Your model has to deal with that, before you go on to other things.

Starta thread on it and ask questions (but do not propose your own interpretation)

Again, a topic for its own thread.

Thanks!