Jump to content

Orbituary: An Obituary for the Sad Passing of the Orbital Electron (1913 to 2022)


Recommended Posts

Posted

1197780299_ObituaryfortheOrbitalElectron.jpg.956556991956441d34513d6a4b2d565e.jpg

The orbital electron is possibly simply an unfortunate historical aberration stemming from the 1913 Bohr model of a positively charged nucleus holding negatively charged electrons in orbit. The comforting features of the Bohr model, particularly in the early 1900’s, were its simplicity and similarity to our own planetary system, with a Sun being the equivalent of a nucleus and the orbiting planets the electrons. The main difference, apart from size and scale, is that the planets are held in orbits by gravitational pull whereas electrons are allegedly by opposite electric charge attraction; and there is the slight problem that the mutual repulsion between protons within the nucleus should cause it to explode, which is usually conveniently forgotten or not actively pursued.

Discrepancies between predicted and measured energy levels related to emission and adsorption spectra soon became problematic, resulting in the Bohr model being upgraded to the Orbital Nuclear Atomic Model (ONAM). For ONAM, the nucleus is represented as a cluster of nucleons (positively charged protons and neutral neutrons arranged in no specific order or structure); the orbital electrons are considered to act more like electromagnetic waves than as particles; and the shell-like spherical orbitals have been replaced by the weirdly shaped ‘spdf’ probability distributions as determined by the wave equations. However, despite increased sophistication and complexity, the planetary system analogy still persists, as does the concept that wave-like electrons are still held within orbital clusters by the electric field attraction by protons within the nucleus.

The first time that I came across a theory suggesting that electrons do not orbit around an atomic nucleus was the 2003 online version of Professor P M Kanarev’s 'The Foundations of Physchemistry of Micro World'. Although Kanarev’s experiment results and associated mathematical modelling seemed to be quite thorough, because at that particular time I was a firm believer in the ONAM approach, I was most skeptical about his claims and did not pursue them.

Around 2016 work began on the energy-centric hypothesis that there is only one type of energy generating material (dubbed energen), initially focussing upon the electron. Electrons are considered to be a fundamental (or elementary) particle, and because fundamental particles would seem to be associated with angular momentum, and thus have a spin component (albeit intrinsic), it seemed likely that energen in a concentrated form would also have a circular flow or spin. Research indicated that the most appropriate physical model for an electron was a variation of the toroidal model, which in turn led to the Spin Torus Energy Model (STEM).

Further down the track, when looking at the implications of the energen-based approach to atom structure, the toroidal electron structure also seemed appropriate for the preon (the fundamental particle that underpins the structure of quarks). The STEM version of the preon thus became the concentrated energy source (CES), which is considered to have a similar structure to that of an electron, but is larger and contains much more energen that is more concentrated. The STEM CESs are considered to build into up and down quarks; the quarks built into nucleons; and nucleons into an atomic nuclei that, amazingly, well match the physical characteristics and preferred bonding orientations of the elements of the Periodic table without the need for orbital electrons.

Although, with the STEM approach, orbital electrons are not required, that is not to say that electrons do exist within an atom’s structure but, when they do, they are in a pre-electron form called a bitron. Free electrons within matter are considered to have been generated from bitrons within chemical bonds when the bonds are damaged or broken, and from bitrons within particular nuclei via a fission process. Thus free electrons are considered to be a derived and renewable resource, which in part explains why they are so plentiful and readily available, particularly within highly conductive material such as metals.

The development of STEM has been iterative and, along the way, many fairly major mistakes have been made and blind alleys followed. In its current form, STEM is a physical model that remains far from being complete, and probably even further away from being fully correct: but it does represent the start of a new approach that is, hopefully, heading in the right direction to add to future Physics. As well as a paper discussing atomic structure, `STEM provides one about the structure of the electron, electromagnetic fields and electricity; and another addressing the nature of EMR and the various forms of light, all readily and freely available for your perusal.

Posted
37 minutes ago, Pivot said:

1197780299_ObituaryfortheOrbitalElectron.jpg.956556991956441d34513d6a4b2d565e.jpg

The orbital electron is possibly simply an unfortunate historical aberration stemming from the 1913 Bohr model of a positively charged nucleus holding negatively charged electrons in orbit. The comforting features of the Bohr model, particularly in the early 1900’s, were its simplicity and similarity to our own planetary system, with a Sun being the equivalent of a nucleus and the orbiting planets the electrons. The main difference, apart from size and scale, is that the planets are held in orbits by gravitational pull whereas electrons are allegedly by opposite electric charge attraction; and there is the slight problem that the mutual repulsion between protons within the nucleus should cause it to explode, which is usually conveniently forgotten or not actively pursued.

Discrepancies between predicted and measured energy levels related to emission and adsorption spectra soon became problematic, resulting in the Bohr model being upgraded to the Orbital Nuclear Atomic Model (ONAM). For ONAM, the nucleus is represented as a cluster of nucleons (positively charged protons and neutral neutrons arranged in no specific order or structure); the orbital electrons are considered to act more like electromagnetic waves than as particles; and the shell-like spherical orbitals have been replaced by the weirdly shaped ‘spdf’ probability distributions as determined by the wave equations. However, despite increased sophistication and complexity, the planetary system analogy still persists, as does the concept that wave-like electrons are still held within orbital clusters by the electric field attraction by protons within the nucleus.

The first time that I came across a theory suggesting that electrons do not orbit around an atomic nucleus was the 2003 online version of Professor P M Kanarev’s 'The Foundations of Physchemistry of Micro World'. Although Kanarev’s experiment results and associated mathematical modelling seemed to be quite thorough, because at that particular time I was a firm believer in the ONAM approach, I was most skeptical about his claims and did not pursue them.

Around 2016 work began on the energy-centric hypothesis that there is only one type of energy generating material (dubbed energen), initially focussing upon the electron. Electrons are considered to be a fundamental (or elementary) particle, and because fundamental particles would seem to be associated with angular momentum, and thus have a spin component (albeit intrinsic), it seemed likely that energen in a concentrated form would also have a circular flow or spin. Research indicated that the most appropriate physical model for an electron was a variation of the toroidal model, which in turn led to the Spin Torus Energy Model (STEM).

Further down the track, when looking at the implications of the energen-based approach to atom structure, the toroidal electron structure also seemed appropriate for the preon (the fundamental particle that underpins the structure of quarks). The STEM version of the preon thus became the concentrated energy source (CES), which is considered to have a similar structure to that of an electron, but is larger and contains much more energen that is more concentrated. The STEM CESs are considered to build into up and down quarks; the quarks built into nucleons; and nucleons into an atomic nuclei that, amazingly, well match the physical characteristics and preferred bonding orientations of the elements of the Periodic table without the need for orbital electrons.

Although, with the STEM approach, orbital electrons are not required, that is not to say that electrons do exist within an atom’s structure but, when they do, they are in a pre-electron form called a bitron. Free electrons within matter are considered to have been generated from bitrons within chemical bonds when the bonds are damaged or broken, and from bitrons within particular nuclei via a fission process. Thus free electrons are considered to be a derived and renewable resource, which in part explains why they are so plentiful and readily available, particularly within highly conductive material such as metals.

The development of STEM has been iterative and, along the way, many fairly major mistakes have been made and blind alleys followed. In its current form, STEM is a physical model that remains far from being complete, and probably even further away from being fully correct: but it does represent the start of a new approach that is, hopefully, heading in the right direction to add to future Physics. As well as a paper discussing atomic structure, `STEM provides one about the structure of the electron, electromagnetic fields and electricity; and another addressing the nature of EMR and the various forms of light, all readily and freely available for your perusal.

Oh no, not this rubbish again.

(My grandmother ate Energen rolls as part of her calorie-controlled diet.)

Posted
1 hour ago, Pivot said:

The first time that I came across a theory suggesting that electrons do not orbit around an atomic nucleus was the 2003

Well, you should do more research. The Bohr model has been dead for almost 100 years. It was superseded by quantum mechanical treatments back in 1926, when Pauli and Schrödinger both published solutions for the hydrogen atom.

!

Moderator Note

Please note that linking to files is insufficient to foster discussion. You need to post a model here, so that people can discuss it without following links.

You should start with the fundamental parts of your thesis before forging ahead, because we don't permit speculation to be based on other speculation.

 
Posted
1 hour ago, Pivot said:

1197780299_ObituaryfortheOrbitalElectron.jpg.956556991956441d34513d6a4b2d565e.jpg

The orbital electron is possibly simply an unfortunate historical aberration stemming from the 1913 Bohr model of a positively charged nucleus holding negatively charged electrons in orbit. The comforting features of the Bohr model, particularly in the early 1900’s, were its simplicity and similarity to our own planetary system, with a Sun being the equivalent of a nucleus and the orbiting planets the electrons. The main difference, apart from size and scale, is that the planets are held in orbits by gravitational pull whereas electrons are allegedly by opposite electric charge attraction; and there is the slight problem that the mutual repulsion between protons within the nucleus should cause it to explode, which is usually conveniently forgotten or not actively pursued.

Discrepancies between predicted and measured energy levels related to emission and adsorption spectra soon became problematic, resulting in the Bohr model being upgraded to the Orbital Nuclear Atomic Model (ONAM). For ONAM, the nucleus is represented as a cluster of nucleons (positively charged protons and neutral neutrons arranged in no specific order or structure); the orbital electrons are considered to act more like electromagnetic waves than as particles; and the shell-like spherical orbitals have been replaced by the weirdly shaped ‘spdf’ probability distributions as determined by the wave equations. However, despite increased sophistication and complexity, the planetary system analogy still persists, as does the concept that wave-like electrons are still held within orbital clusters by the electric field attraction by protons within the nucleus.

The first time that I came across a theory suggesting that electrons do not orbit around an atomic nucleus was the 2003 online version of Professor P M Kanarev’s 'The Foundations of Physchemistry of Micro World'. Although Kanarev’s experiment results and associated mathematical modelling seemed to be quite thorough, because at that particular time I was a firm believer in the ONAM approach, I was most skeptical about his claims and did not pursue them.

Around 2016 work began on the energy-centric hypothesis that there is only one type of energy generating material (dubbed energen), initially focussing upon the electron. Electrons are considered to be a fundamental (or elementary) particle, and because fundamental particles would seem to be associated with angular momentum, and thus have a spin component (albeit intrinsic), it seemed likely that energen in a concentrated form would also have a circular flow or spin. Research indicated that the most appropriate physical model for an electron was a variation of the toroidal model, which in turn led to the Spin Torus Energy Model (STEM).

Further down the track, when looking at the implications of the energen-based approach to atom structure, the toroidal electron structure also seemed appropriate for the preon (the fundamental particle that underpins the structure of quarks). The STEM version of the preon thus became the concentrated energy source (CES), which is considered to have a similar structure to that of an electron, but is larger and contains much more energen that is more concentrated. The STEM CESs are considered to build into up and down quarks; the quarks built into nucleons; and nucleons into an atomic nuclei that, amazingly, well match the physical characteristics and preferred bonding orientations of the elements of the Periodic table without the need for orbital electrons.

Although, with the STEM approach, orbital electrons are not required, that is not to say that electrons do exist within an atom’s structure but, when they do, they are in a pre-electron form called a bitron. Free electrons within matter are considered to have been generated from bitrons within chemical bonds when the bonds are damaged or broken, and from bitrons within particular nuclei via a fission process. Thus free electrons are considered to be a derived and renewable resource, which in part explains why they are so plentiful and readily available, particularly within highly conductive material such as metals.

The development of STEM has been iterative and, along the way, many fairly major mistakes have been made and blind alleys followed. In its current form, STEM is a physical model that remains far from being complete, and probably even further away from being fully correct: but it does represent the start of a new approach that is, hopefully, heading in the right direction to add to future Physics. As well as a paper discussing atomic structure, `STEM provides one about the structure of the electron, electromagnetic fields and electricity; and another addressing the nature of EMR and the various forms of light, all readily and freely available for your perusal.

 

I'm not clear what your point, question or stance is here.

Energy is a property.  There are several kinds of energy.

What kind of energy does an electron possess, orbital or otherwise ?

Or are you denying the existence of an electron ?

Posted
2 hours ago, Pivot said:

Wot an energenic geriatric.

Indeed. A good start for you would be to summarise the advantages you claim for your new model of the atom. What hitherto unexplained observations does it account for? Or how is it simpler in accounting for observations than the electron/nucléon QM model? And, most crucially, what predictions does it make that would show its superiority?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.