The 'empty atom' fallacy.

[zemna]

Please read the Summary Response to the previous thread first:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/114886-there-is-no-such-thing-as-energy/

"The atom is mostly empty space." This statement has been repeated so many times by so many scholars and experts that it is accepted without question by nearly all educated people in the modern world. It is advanced as proof of the puzzling nature of atomic structure, and of the uselessness of common sense as a guide to truth and reality. Yet physical objects are made of atoms, and are impenetrably solid. The statement is obviously fallacious.

To understand why requires little more than a thoughtful exercise of high school mathematics. An atom of hydrogen has a radius of 53e-12 metres and a volume of 624e-33 cubic metres. The single electron is bound to the single proton comprising the nucleus with an energy of 13.6eV. Beyond this, recourse is nowadays had to Quantum Mechanics, and conceptual interpretations are thus abandoned in accord with the Copenhagen Interpretation.

A new interpretive direction appears if we pursue traditional analysis. The energy density within a hydrogen atom is obtained by dividing the electrical binding energy by its volume, giving 3.49e+12 joules per cubic metre; a very large number, but without significance unless compared with a reference.

Consider a room measuring 6 x 5 x 4 metres that is filled with energy at the same density as in hydrogen. The total energy in the room is then 419e+12 joules. The energy released by the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was about 15 kilotons or 63e+12 joules, so the energy in the room is that of a moderately-sized atomic explosion. Were this energy quiescent - static and unchanging - it might be of little consequence; but all atoms possess magnetic fields, and these only result from dynamic electric fields. Physical matter cannot withstand such a huge energy flux: any physical object in the room would be torn to shreds.

The above applies to hydrogen, the simplest element. Lead has eighty-two electrons within it, the inmost with binding energies of 88keV. Those so inclined can calculate the energy density within an atom of lead to arrive at a value so enormous as to be far beyond any physical interpretation. So atoms are only 'empty' in having nothing outside the nucleus corresponding to solid substance. The enormous energy density within them, however, demands consideration.

The first point of note is that atoms do not have a shell surrounding them to contain the energy as does an egg. Were such a structure present, it would long ago have been revealed due to resonances within it. Instead, we are faced with a most unusual situation for those who have never thought about these things. The space inside an atom - the atomic volume or body - is different from the space surrounding it:

An atom is a 'bubble' of a different kind of space within the space of the Physical Realm in which we exist.

But how can one kind of space differ from another? The answer lies in the two fundamental properties of space: permittivity and permeability. Permittivity measures the amount of electric charge that a space can contain, whilst permeability measures the strength of magnetic flux that it can sustain. Their values within atoms differ from those of Physical Realm space, and are unique for each element. Why does this occur, and what does it imply?

Recall that energy is a relationship, either between mass and motion or between time and space. Almost all of the mass of an atom is in the nucleus, so the electrons could never move fast enough to account for the energy. Therefore the energy concentration within atoms results from a different relationship between time and space within them.

This alternative time-space relationship cannot presently be interpreted within the Western scientific tradition, but can so be within those more advanced. A beginning can be made with the multiple 'dimensions' postulated by Quantum Mechanics and string theory, anything from ten to twenty-six. These dimensions are said to be 'rolled up' so tightly that - most conveniently - they cannot be detected, except - even more conveniently - by the superior intelligence of Physicists. No explanation or interpretation is offered as to what these 'dimensions' are in reality. They are, in fact, mathematical inventions used to justify speculation: in other words, concepts within human imagination, as are energy, power, and many other parameters that have no physical reality.

Let us take a broader view. Nature is everywhere fecund; if she creates something such as a fish, she does so most generously. Not just one fish, nor even many of the same kind, but many different species and sub-species evolve over countless millennia, each slowly changing and evolving, gradually mutating into entirely new species. So too with plants, animals, humans, planets and stars. Nature is not monogenetic but polygenetic. The Earth was once thought to be the only planet in the whole universe, and Earth humanity the only race of Men. The discovery of other stars - other Suns - suggested that there may be other Earths, but this was resisted right up to the 1990s when the first exoplanets, those outside the Solar System, were proved to exist. It is now amply evident that Earth-like planets are extremely common throughout the galaxy.

Modern Western Science still insists that there is only a single space-time continuum; but why should this be so? Polygenesis should surely apply to space-time continua just as to all else in creation. We can make use of this concept to propose that the one we inhabit is not singular and unique, but just one, albeit vast and impressive, of many. If one exists, then others most certainly do. We therefore postulate that our ordinary physical surroundings constitute one space-time continuum that is permeated by at least one other. That is, they are coterminous: they occupy the same 'space', yet maintain their autonomy. For convenience, let us name them Realms, using capitalization to differentiate from the general case, and for simplicity consider just one other continuum, the Alternate Realm. This Alternate Realm cannot be detected by direct physical means because our physical senses only respond to stimuli within the Physical Realm, and even our electronic instruments are similarly limited.

Realms are 'causally closed': all events within the Physical Realm, for example, arise from causes within it, and the same is true of the Alternate Realm. In short, they are isolated, and do not normally interact. However, if atoms are conceived as 'bubbles of Alternate Realm space' within Physical Realm space, then events within the Alternate Realm can influence processes within atoms. Specifically, electron orbital transitions that are presently regarded as stochastic - completely random and without known cause - may occur as a result of events within the Alternate Realm. Conversely, physical events that modify electron states within atoms may transmit influences into the Alternate Realm. These mutual interactions will be most effective if they occur within structures that have correlated Physical Realm and Alternate Realm components. The most likely candidates are organic and biological structures that demonstrate what we call 'life' and 'consciousness'.

Should this conception be correct, atoms are not just the building blocks of matter, but provide an interface between coterminous Realms. If the question, "Can living creatures be constructed from dead matter" be answered in the negative, then it is obvious that everything is possessed of life in some degree. Furthermore, atoms must have both biological aspects, and modes of response to influences that are presently invisible and unknown, suggesting a whole new field of investigation and experimentation for those to whom such possibilities have appeal.

For more see: commercial url removed by moderator

Edited January 20, 2019 by Phi for All
No advertising, please

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, zemna said:

"The atom is mostly empty space." This statement has been repeated so many times by so many scholars and experts that it is accepted without question by nearly all educated people in the modern world.

No one who knows anything about physics believes that. You seem to be basing you argument on a popular science concept that is simplified to the point of being wrong.

8 minutes ago, zemna said:

conceptual interpretations are thus abandoned in accord with the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Er, what? The Copenhagen interpretation IS a conceptual interpretation. If you don't like that one choose another. If you don't like any of them then ignore them all.

10 minutes ago, zemna said:

So atoms are only 'empty' in having nothing outside the nucleus corresponding to solid substance.

If that was true, you would fall through your chair. "Solidity" is a result of the repulsive forces between electrons. Therefore atoms are almost entirely "solid" (in as much as this term means anything at this scale).

12 minutes ago, zemna said:

An atom is a 'bubble' of a different kind of space within the space of the Physical Realm in which we exist.

As you provide no evidence for this I think we can ignore it. 

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, zemna said:

 "The atom is mostly empty space." This statement has been repeated so many times by so many scholars and experts that it is accepted without question by nearly all educated people in the modern world.

You made a similarly unsourced and erroneous claim in your other thread. This one is based on the concept of the Bohr model, which we know to be incorrect, but is in some regard a valid statement.

Quote

It is advanced as proof of the puzzling nature of atomic structure, and of the uselessness of common sense as a guide to truth and reality. Yet physical objects are made of atoms, and are impenetrably solid. The statement is obviously fallacious.

Electron and neutron diffraction in crystals called to disagree about your "impenetrably solid" claim.

(and, depending on the context, the fact that I am reading words through a piece of glass might be considered contradictory)

Quote

To understand why requires little more than a thoughtful exercise of high school mathematics. An atom of hydrogen has a radius of 53e-12 metres and a volume of 624e-33 cubic metres. The single electron is bound to the single proton comprising the nucleus with an energy of 13.6eV. Beyond this, recourse is nowadays had to Quantum Mechanics, and conceptual interpretations are thus abandoned in accord with the Copenhagen Interpretation.

A new interpretive direction appears if we pursue traditional analysis. The energy density within a hydrogen atom is obtained by dividing the electrical binding energy by its volume, giving 3.49e+12 joules per cubic metre; a very large number, but without significance unless compared with a reference.

Binding energy is a negative value. IOW, it takes 13.6 eV to ionize a Hydrogen atom. The atom does not possess this energy. It is a deficit.

Quote

 The first point of note is that atoms do not have a shell surrounding them to contain the energy as does an egg.

 

Energy isn't a substance that needs to be contained. The electrons are bound to the nucleus via the electromagnetic interaction, which is attractive, and (as I stated) as a result, energy is removed from the system in the act of becoming bound.

 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, zemna said:

Let us take a broader view. Nature is everywhere fecund; if she creates something such as a fish, she does so most generously. Not just one fish, nor even many of the same kind, but many different species and sub-species evolve over countless millennia, each slowly changing and evolving, gradually mutating into entirely new species. So too with plants, animals, humans, planets and stars. Nature is not monogenetic but polygenetic. The Earth was once thought to be the only planet in the whole universe, and Earth humanity the only race of Men. The discovery of other stars - other Suns - suggested that there may be other Earths, but this was resisted right up to the 1990s when the first exoplanets, those outside the Solar System, were proved to exist. It is now amply evident that Earth-like planets are extremely common throughout the galaxy.

 

Like your other thread, this one is a curious mixture of fact and fiction. You are clearly able to appreciate facts, both simple and complex and as the above extract shows able to develop good chains of reasoning.

But it also shows that you tailor facts to suit your thesis, without consideration for any alternative explanation or reasoning.

So in the above paragraph in a discussion of life you observe that other earth like planets are being identified, but omit to note that it is not only the type of planet but its position that permits life to develop.

A further unconsidered alternative may be that solar systems develop in the way they do with some terrestrial (=rocky) planets close to the star and other types further out for a good cosmological reason.

 

But back to the atom and space.

There is no hard boundary to an atom. Its influence extends indefinitely, albeit more and more diluted by the space and other atoms around it a greater and greater distances.

In a crystal the tail off of these influences are called Madelung constants.

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

 

Two kinds of space?

 

An interesting proposition but contrary to current underlying theory that requires homogenity and isotropy, and seems to produce excellent agreement with observation.

So it would take some extreme observations to support it.

 

Can I offer one further comment.

 

All our theories and principles are just models, designed to match particular aspects of and observations on reality.

As such generally they work well and are subject to review and modification when better obervations arise.

No model, however sophisticated, is identical in every way to the real thing - the subject of that model.

Edited June 5, 2018 by studiot

[Sensei]

3 hours ago, zemna said:

"The atom is mostly empty space." This statement has been repeated so many times by so many scholars and experts that it is accepted without question by nearly all educated people in the modern world. It is advanced as proof of the puzzling nature of atomic structure, and of the uselessness of common sense as a guide to truth and reality. Yet physical objects are made of atoms, and are impenetrably solid. The statement is obviously fallacious.

That is being said because of results of gold foil experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger–Marsden_experiment

Alpha particles, from radioactive source at a time, were directed toward gold foil. Some of them passed through it without any change of direction, some other were bounced a bit, and some other reflected back by metal foil (from human perspective solid substance!).

Conclusion from experiment: there must be nucleus in the center of Gold atom, which contains majority of the mass of atom, and if alpha particle hit it,.it is repelled, reflected.

Alpha particle while passing through cloud of electrons, is interacting with them, ejecting them from atom (accelerating them), and decelerating itself, and there are appearing secondary rays (delta rays) and tertiary rays (epsilon rays).

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

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

 

All of the above things are visible by naked human eye in Cloud Chamber.