Atomic radii.

[elas]

For some years I have been advocating a classical explanation of particle and atomic structure. This has been rejected by those who believe that only Quantum Theory should be used for particle physics.

This article shows how the table on:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32854 (structural Fractions)

combined with method used to create a table of elements on:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38485 (table of elements)

and the explanation of particle structure given on:

http://69.5.17.59/clf8.pdf (CLF model)

can be combined to explain the difference between atomic radii predicted by QT and classical atomic radii found by the interpretation of crystal structures.

For the full article see:

http://69.5.17.59/Atomic%20radii%20Putz.pdf

I will transfer the article to this forum as soon as time permits.

[Kaeroll]

Explain the quantisation of emission spectra using classical physics.

[John Cuthber]

"For some years I have been advocating a classical explanation of particle and atomic structure. "

Why?

[elas]

"For some years I have been advocating a classical explanation of particle and atomic structure. "

Why?

 

In pursuit of a believable explanation.

 

1) Extracts from ELECTRODYNAMICS AND CLASSICAL THEORY OF FIELDS AND PARTICLES by A.O. BARUT, Professor of physics, University of Colorado (1964 revised by author 1980) It is in the hypothesis that the mass or inertia of the electron is entirely due to its own field; and, furthermore, that the momentum and spin of the particle are momentum and spin of the particles own field. In other words we could put mo=0

The measured mass of the particle is a result of the motion of the initially massless “particle” in an external field. Although this idea appears to be very attractive it is not possible, at the present time, to build a complete theory on this basis. Certainly the quantum effects must be taken into account. But even within the framework of quantum theories the nature of the mass of the particles remains unexplained.

 

2) Extract from “The Elegant Universe”. Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science).

 

3) Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that: Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory.Extract from "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" by Richard Morris : "They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess".

 

4) Extract from "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" by Richard Morris : "They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess".

 

5) Extract from ‘Beyond Measure’; Jim Baggott (2003) about QT he writes: “The theory is not meant to be understood”…….”Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Explain the quantization of emission spectra using classical physics.

 

My aim is to explain the structures of particles and atoms; your question concerns the actions of particles and atoms, a subject that I have yet to approach. However, it is an interesting question; first let me point out that I have no disagreement with the mathematics of QT (except for one or two assumptions). My disagreement is with the words used to describe events and structures.

With that in mind I will attempt to answer your question by criticizing the current description and suggesting an alternative using the structures describe in my articles (note that I use the word 'article' because they are not published papers). This will take a little time but, I will give you a reply soon.

Edited April 8, 2009 by swansont
Consecutive posts merged. swansont: fix quote tag

[John Cuthber]

"In pursuit of a believable explanation."

Quantum mechanics is a widely believed explanation.

[elas]

"In pursuit of a believable explanation."

Quantum mechanics is a widely believed explanation.

 

By strict definition QT is a Mathematical Prediction Theory it does not tell us How or why; hence the explanation you refer is part of a model. It is now many years since the moderators agreed that this is correct but, only after I did considerable research and wrote at length on this very subject ( The date in the membership list Is the last time of joining, I have been around since 1989 in days when Integral kept us in order).

The mathematics of QT are correct, but, as the quotations show the numbers are conjured up to match the experiments they do not provide an explanation in words as to the cause of each number.

I do not want this forum sidetracked into a repeat of that debate; I am looking for comments on my work and so, for that reason, in future will only reply to constructive comments and criticisms.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"For some years I have been advocating a classical explanation of particle and atomic structure. "

Why?

 

On reflection I realize that I have not given a clear explanation of my aim; it is to propose an alternative explanation of atomic structure. For example:

The first two elements and the last six elements on each atomic shell, form two distinct groups but the number of elements between these two groups varies from shell to shell.

At present we have mathematical theories to predict the numbers of shell electrons but, as far as I am aware we have no explanation of the underlying cause (i.e. why is fluorine corrosive and neon inert?).

My graph shows that all Noble Gases have inner and outer fields with equal numbers of electrons and Halogens are elements with one less electron in their outer field than in their inner field. A slightly more complex explanation is needed for the grouping of the last six elements of each shell; but it is the explanation (of the last six elements of each shell) that are used to propose a cause.

At present I am writing an article that explain the relationship between the different Density Functional Theory atomic radii predicted in two papers one by Gosh-Biswas and the other by Mihai, Russo and Sicilia; and the standard atomic radii taken from The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. The unification of these three different values for atomic radii provides the data needed to present the case for the cause of the proposed groups within each shell.

I hope this reply will be of more interest to you than my earlier reply, thanks for your interest,

elas

Edited April 12, 2009 by elas
Consecutive posts merged.

[Kaeroll]

Quantum theory does explain why fluorine is corrosive and neon inert. It's an idea that predates quantum theory but is explained by it, the old 'octet rule'. Having a full valence shell is a low energy/stable state; any compounds of noble gases will tend to be higher energy than the elemental form, so will "want" (thermodynamically speaking) to return to that state.

 

Bear in mind that any model you propose has to do everything quantum theory does, and do it better. Can you explain and predict, to give just one example, spectroscopic wavenumbers? Schrodinger certainly can.

[Klaynos]

Quantum mechanics is one of the most well tested theories ever devised in physics.

 

Your 'theory' falls down simply because it cannot account for the shear number of experimental results that QM returns every single day. I would for example quite like to see your derivation of zeeman splitting...

[elas]

Quantum theory does.

Bear in mind that any model you propose has to do everything quantum theory does, and do it better. Can you explain and predict, to give just one example, spectroscopic wave numbers? Schrodinger certainly can.

 

Quantum mechanics is one of the most well tested theories ever devised in physics.

Your 'theory' falls down simply because it cannot account for the shear number of experimental results that QM returns every single day. I would for example quite like to see your derivation of Zeeman splitting...

 

There is no need to account for, or explain; those things that QT already does very well. There is a need to explain those things that QT does not do.

 

My proposal uses a new proposal for a Structural Table of the Elements and a new proposal for a Fractional Structural Table to show how two different QT predictions for atomic radii together with atomic radii found by interpretation of crystal structures can be interpreted as parts of an overall atomic structure.

 

Particle fractions originate in the QT applicable to TFQHE and occur again in composite fermions, both are two dimensional theories. Jain explains that the results of the two dimensional theories can be applied to the three dimensional world, but, the mathematics of two dimensional theory are non-transferable. I have shown that by replacing the entities of QT with the entities of classical theory, the fractions can be found in atomic structure in their three dimensional form. That implies that the proposed Table of Structural Fractions is applicable to both QT and classical theory.

Edited April 13, 2009 by elas

[John Cuthber]

"There is no need to account for, or explain; those things that QT already does very well."

Yes there is, it's called producing a consistent theory. If your theory can't explain simple things then it's no use trying to get it to explain complex ones.

"There is a need to explain those things that QT does not do."

OK, but your theory hasn't done this. Is it any use at all?

[elas]

"There is no need to account for, or explain; those things that QT already does very well."

Yes there is, it's called producing a consistent theory. If your theory can't explain simple things then it's no use trying to get it to explain complex ones.

"There is a need to explain those things that QT does not do."

OK, but your theory hasn't done this. Is it any use at all?

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/

On the above site you will find articles under the heading “What we don’t know” they include:

“What is the Universe made of”? And “Can the laws of physics be unified”?

These are questions that I believe can be answered by the development of a new understanding of particle structure. So far I have shown that using ‘mass times radius equals a constant’ arranges the particles listed by the Particle Data Group in a sequence that can be expressed in fractions in then order 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 etc (the standard electron is 1/5 and the radii are proportional to the wavelength). This was dismissed as numerology.

The work presented on this forum applies a development of the fractional system to atomic structure and I do not think this can be rejected as numerology.

 

This model uses only one fundamental particle (all particles have the same content in different states of compaction or compression) and one fundamental force (requiring mathematical variations for each compaction state [gravity, electromagnetic and nuclear]). That means that the model goes some way towards solving “What we don’t know”. This does not call for an abandonment of QT but it does provide QT with an underlying ‘cause’; the physical frame that makes mathematical prediction (i.e. QT) possible. (At present we have the purely mathematical frames of QT).

[swansont]

What is the physical justification for using mr^2 = constant? Are you still using the classical electron radius for the electron, which is known not to be the actual electron radius?

 

Why should these fractions exist? (Your whole justification seems to boil down to the FQHE, which is a collective behavior expressed only under a very specific, narrow range of circumstances)

 

If these are manifestations of a single particle, how do you reconcile this with different spin states and different charge that we observe?

[elas]

swansont 04-14-2009 08:55 PM

________________________________________

What is the physical justification for using mr^2 = constant? Are you still using the classical electron radius for the electron, which is known not to be the actual electron radius?

 

In a thread on electron radii I took the work of Malcolm H McGregor to show how the various radii given for the electron are in reality measurements to different points on a balanced force/anti-force field; using the radii of your choice does no more than change the value of the constant. (The longest radius given by McGregor for the electron is the ‘quantum mechanical Compton radius’).

 

Why should these fractions exist? (Your whole justification seems to boil down to the FQHE, which is a collective behaviour expressed only under a very specific, narrow range of circumstances)

 

Extract from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughlin_wavefunction

In condensed matter physics, the Laughlin wavefunction is an ansatz

 

Extract from ‘Composite Fermions’ by Jainendra K Jain.

“Unfortunately, a comparison with real life experiments also necessitates an inclusion of the effect of non-zero thickness of the electron wave function………at present, the quantitive agreement between theory and laboratory experiment is roughly within a factor of two although a 10-20% agreement has been reached in some cases”.

 

I am proposing a theory based on data from ‘real life experiments’ with ‘non-zero thicknesses’. (see also ‘Composite Fermions’ sec.5.15). Ansatz not required.

 

If these are manifestations of a single particle, how do you reconcile this with different spin states ……..

 

The proposed model is a classical model with two fields (force and anti-force) therefore the classical explanation of spin is applied to the elementary particle as described in the section on ‘Conservation of angular momentum’ on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PrecessionOfATop.svg

the two field particle has spin ½.

The anti-force field, being the elasticity of matter, cannot be reduced to a Zero Point but, the force field being a vacuum field is reducible to a ZP; when the vacuum field is collapsed the particle has a single (matter) field and spin 1 or 0 depending on the cause of the change of state.

Pairs of particles are kept in line by the external field and therefore are spin zero but, pairs where both particles undergo compaction to the next higher compaction state (J/PSI and Upsilon) have a degree of freedom and rotate around a common centre hence spin1.

Particle triplets consist of a pair of particles and a single particle that orbits the vortex binding the particle pair. The single particle acts as a drag on the pair causing the pair to rotate once for each 180 deg. Traverse of the singleton. Compaction of three particles of equal volume into the next highest compaction state (i.e. Omega-) alters the drag ratio hence spin 3/2.

 

…….and different charge that we observe?

 

As was explained in the very first article on the CLF model charge is the ratio of force to anti-force at any point within the particle, this is always 1:1 for two field particles. When the vacuum force is confined to a dimensionless ZP, the matter is relaxed (i.e. without elastic tension) hence there is no charge in a particle in its single field state.

 

Note that compression in one plane causes a change in angular momentum, but compaction (i.e. equal compression in all planes conserves angular momentum).

 

Returning to the Table of Elements note that in the Standard model all but one of the noble gases has 6 electrons in their outer shell, the exception has 2. In the CLF version there are no exceptions, all noble gases have inner and outer zones; with equal numbers of electrons.

 

Most important is the fact that the CLF model does not require the introduction of electromagnetism to explain particle and atomic structure; it obeys the Law of Economy.

Edited April 22, 2009 by elas

[elas]

What is the physical justification for using mr^2 = constant? Are you still using the classical electron radius for the electron, which is known not to be the actual electron radius?

 

Further to the above reply; Replacing the classical electron radius with the Quantum Mechanical Compton Radius allows the CLF model to predict a value for photon mass that is within a believable value. I have to check that my conversions are correct, then I will come on this particular point.

[elas]

Explain the quantisation of emission spectra using classical physics.

 

A preliminary (mathematical) investigation suggest the following solution:

(Recall that ‘The Compton wavelength of a particle is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose energy is the same as the rest-mass energy of the particle’.)

 

Within an atom of each element the electrons are compressed into different density states. The photons captured and emitted by each electron are emitted at the density state of the emitting electron given the photons different radii and therefore, different wavelengths.

 

As the electron states change in quantum steps (CLF model uses fractions) so also do the photon wavelengths. That is to say those changes in spectral wavelengths are proportional to changes in electron (CLF model uses a single elementary particle) density.

 

I have started on the production of a mathematical table to demonstrate the above statement but the solution only works if (as previously suggested) the photon is a two particle composite; so there is an additional explanation to be written; that will take time.

 

Some time ago one member submitted a reply on a different thread, stating that Fermi once had the same (two particle photon) idea but, was distracted by another discovery; and never completed the research; I would appreciate any information on this anyone can supply.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

After a little more thought I will put the formula as follows:

The mass[energy] (MeV) of the charged elementary particle divided by the wavelength (Au) of a photon with the same energy as the charged elementary particle equals the radius (Au) of the charged elementary particle.

Using the same data to find the linear force reveals that the photon has double the linear force of the elementary particle; indicating that the photon is a two particle composite.

Edited April 29, 2009 by elas
Consecutive posts merged.

[elas]

What is the physical justification for using mr^2 = constant? Are you still using the classical electron radius for the electron, which is known not to be the actual electron radius?

 

Why should these fractions exist? (Your whole justification seems to boil down to the FQHE, which is a collective behavior expressed only under a very specific, narrow range of circumstances)

 

If these are manifestations of a single particle, how do you reconcile this with different spin states and different charge that we observe?

 

In the first table below I have used the Quantum Mechanical Compton radii, the radii given by Codata (underlined) and the Compton wavelength (Codata Compton wavelengths underlined); they are all proportional to each other which means that either can be used to produce the CLF constant (mass times radius = linear force).

Table 3 is an adaption of the original CLF table. The radii are given in Au to allow the spectral wavelengths (quoted in Au in The Handbook of Chem. And Phys.) to be added at the bottom.

Between them the two tables show that photons are two particle composites, the proton is a three particle composite and the neutron is a five particle composite. This agrees with particle ‘decays’ observed by experiment but, it does not agree with the Standard model interpretation. In the CLF model there is only one conservation law, that is, the Conservation of the contents of the Elementary Particle . The graph illustrates how this works for the photon.

A and B show the particle and anti-particle which have both (vacuum) force and (elasticity of matter) anti-force; the vacuum alone can collapse into a (vacuum) zero point leaving the elasticity of matter in a relaxed state with half of the energy of the charged elementary particle (unbroken line in C). Two particles with collapsed vacuum fields are shown with a dashed line to have the same energy as a single charged (i.e. with vacuum field) elementary particle. (Force + anti-force = anti-force + anti-force). Bubble chamber experiments prove that we observe only the movement of vacuum fields and the collisions of matter fields; hence the photon has the collision energy of one elementary particle, but it has the wave of both particles in the form of a horizontal S. Differences in spin are caused by differences in particle state.

The fractions exist because particles have to fit the wavelength pattern that is repeated in all compaction states even on a cosmological scale. Nature repeats a simple structural pattern on an infinite scale, no beginning, no end; just the occasional appearance of the odd universe here and there: pinpricks in infinity caused by vortex compaction. This is only possible because the number of particles in infinity, together with their momentum, is conserved.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2009 by elas
Consecutive posts merged.