New atomic model? split from Is there anything left to discover in electromagnetism?

[Brett Nortj]

12 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Electromagnetism has nothing whatsoever to do with the weak and strong interaction.

This is where the attractive forces themselves come from. If they were not attracted to each other, the whole atom would fall apart, and, there would be no matter. So, if there was no attractive force between other things, due to electromagnetism, there would be no things, world or universe. This follows that the world is held together by electromagnetism and everything is affected by this fundamental force.

The atom itself is held together by a neutron that bonds with the protons. This leads to zero friction, as they have bonded. Then,t he electron will be attracted to the proton, held back by the repulsion of the other electrons coming together like a fullerene compressing onto the protons. This is like those things made of sticks that get bigger and smaller at the same time, complexly put together to expand and contract at the same ratios and rates.

This electromagnetism thing is noting to be scoffed at.

[swansont]

 

6 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

This is where the attractive forces themselves come from. If they were not attracted to each other, the whole atom would fall apart, and, there would be no matter. So, if there was no attractive force between other things, due to electromagnetism, there would be no things, world or universe. This follows that the world is held together by electromagnetism and everything is affected by this fundamental force.

No, not really. While you have some vaguely true statements in here, it's not presented in a way that one could agree that it's correct.

6 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

The atom itself is held together by a neutron that bonds with the protons. This leads to zero friction, as they have bonded. Then,t he electron will be attracted to the proton, held back by the repulsion of the other electrons coming together like a fullerene compressing onto the protons. This is like those things made of sticks that get bigger and smaller at the same time, complexly put together to expand and contract at the same ratios and rates. 

Same thing here. 

 

[Brett Nortj]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

No, not really. While you have some vaguely true statements in here, it's not presented in a way that one could agree that it's correct.

Same thing here. 

 

Am i merely speculating, or, does this not show that the atomic structure is based on a theory?

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

Am i merely speculating, or, does this not show that the atomic structure is based on a theory?

Atomic structure is indeed based on a theory — Quantum Mechanics.

[Brett Nortj]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Atomic structure is indeed based on a theory — Quantum Mechanics.

And what do quantum mechanics say about laws of attraction and repulsion? Is there a base for my ideas of electromagnetism being based inside the atom too? If that is true, and, things are merely bigger representations of this model, where, if it works inside, it works outside too, like laws inside our atmosphere and outside our atmosphere... I hope you can agree with me now?

[studiot]

28 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

Am i merely speculating

Is there a base for my ideas of electromagnetism being based inside the atom too?

Yes you are merely speculating and the rules say this should therfore be in speculations.

Placing it, as apparant fact, in the mainstream confuses those with less knowledge.

 

Swansont has already told you that modern atomic structure theory is based on quantum theory.

Are you aware that not only does this describe a shell structure for the electrons but also a shell structure for the nucleus.

 

[Brett Nortj]

Just now, studiot said:

Yes you are merely speculating and the rules say this should therfore be in speculations.

Placing it, as apparant fact, in the mainstream confuses those with less knowledge.

Swansont has already told you that modern atomic structure theory is based on quantum theory.

Are you aware that not only does this describe a shell structure for the electrons but also a shell structure for the nucleus.

 

How do I prove my theory other than with foundational accepted already working models? I have done that.

[studiot]

17 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

How do I prove my theory other than with foundational accepted already working models? I have done that.

You should be asking a moderator for guidance, not me.

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

And what do quantum mechanics say about laws of attraction and repulsion? Is there a base for my ideas of electromagnetism being based inside the atom too? If that is true, and, things are merely bigger representations of this model, where, if it works inside, it works outside too, like laws inside our atmosphere and outside our atmosphere... I hope you can agree with me now?

EM interactions do play a large part of what happens in atomic structure (but they are not exclusively EM). Nuclear structure includes both the strong and weak interactions. You are painting with too broad of a brush.

25 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

How do I prove my theory other than with foundational accepted already working models? I have done that.

What do you have that's new? If you are using already-accepted models, what phenomenon do they predict that have not been investigated, and what are these predictions?

[Brett Nortj]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

EM interactions do play a large part of what happens in atomic structure (but they are not exclusively EM). Nuclear structure includes both the strong and weak interactions. You are painting with too broad of a brush.

What do you have that's new? If you are using already-accepted models, what phenomenon do they predict that have not been investigated, and what are these predictions?

This brush is all that is needed for my theory to prove that electromagnetism, as has been debated, is based on protons and electrons, being the strong and weak forces.

~ It was found as recently as last year that the weak force was the electron. I concluded that the strong force was obviously the proton, Or, vice versa.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

This brush is all that is needed for my theory to prove that electromagnetism, as has been debated, is based on protons and electrons, being the strong and weak forces.

~ It was found as recently as last year that the weak force was the electron. I concluded that the strong force was obviously the proton, Or, vice versa.

No, this is spectacularly wrong. At energies we can easily access, the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions are distinct.

The electron can interact via the weak force. But it also interacts via the electromagnetic force. There is an energy scale where these merge into a single interaction.

 

[Markus Hanke]

16 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

This brush is all that is needed for my theory to prove that electromagnetism, as has been debated, is based on protons and electrons, being the strong and weak forces.

~ It was found as recently as last year that the weak force was the electron. I concluded that the strong force was obviously the proton, Or, vice versa.

I think there may just be some confusion here about what these interactions actually mean; essentially, and very simply put, the different interactions are based on different types of charges which particles carry.

Electromagnetism is an interaction between electric charges, so it affects anything that carries electric charge. The strong interaction describes the interactions between colour charges, which are carried by quarks and gluons. The weak interaction arises from a type of charge called weak isospin. 

Some particles carry more than one type of charge - for example, quarks have electric charge, colour charge, and weak isospin; they thus interact electromagnetically, are bound by the exchange of gluons, and can change flavour via the weak interaction. 

Therefore, an atom is held together and made into what it is via a complex interplay of all three fundamental interactions; however, under normal circumstances these interactions are nonetheless physically distinct mechanisms, and which one of them prevails depends largely on scale and type of particle involved. So for example, the quarks inside protons and neutrons are bound mostly by the strong interaction, whereas electrons are bound to the atomic nucleus mostly by electromagnetism (and the general laws of quantum mechanics).