Can you believe atoms are cubes and NOT spheres?

[SciMann]

The electronic structure went astray when everyone hopped on the Bohr bandwagon. Electrons are NOT likely to form spheres and xyz orbitals around a nucleus. Indeed, orthogonality is only applied within each level when it should be applied to all levels. Thus, the current model has lots of interpenetrating orbitals - why don't e's bump into one another? Why aren't the orbitals repulsing one another in the overlap regions? Scientists had a chance to select the correct "aerospace" model when they found it necessary to “hybridize” their orbital network to actually explain even simple molecules. They chose, however, to go their merry way and ignore the fact that their base model was all wrong. The hydrogen base model is NOT best described by a sphere, but rather a tetrahedron. Helium has two opposing tetrahedrons. This is why there are “lines of sight” from one He nucleus to the electrons of another and hence attraction.

 

The model that does not have interpenetrating orbitals is the MCAS model. This model demonstrates that electrostatics is “the critical interaction” between atoms and that NO electron reversal is required. Indeed, e-reversal is most unlikely and doing the reversal without the expenditure of energy is “bad logic”. Readers are invited to read about the MCAS model application to molecules and reaction kinetics at this website: http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9902046

 

The MCAS model is also described in the book “Challenging Science”.

[Bignose]

They chose, however, to go their merry way and ignore the fact that their base model was all wrong.

 

Please cite the experiment that supports this statement right here. This is an incredibly strong statement, and I want to read about the extraordinary experiment and evidence that backs this statement up. Because there is an awful lot of evidence that supports the current model, so its going to take some really good evidence to overturn it. And I want to see it.

[GutZ]

Dude they're obviously triangles.

[UC]

Dude they're obviously triangles.

 

Or miniature models of the backstreet boys and N'sync.

[insane_alien]

you got one bit right, they can't really be said to be spherical.

 

there are all sorts of distortions from other atoms and orbitals. and besides that they are a bit more fuzzy. i'd say they look more like tribbles.

 

definitely not cubes though, we've seen them directly with electron microscopes and they approximated spheres and had no edges or corners like you would expect on a cube.

[Kyrisch]

I think someone's took the idea of 'building blocks' too far...

[SciMann]

Logic. Read the cited reference about how the new model fits the data without mathematical smoke (homophilic electrons - spin reversal). One would think that physics-mathematicians would want to see if other models worked that did not require "this" illogical bit needed to justify the current model!

[Bignose]

Logic. Read the cited reference about how the new model fits the data without mathematical smoke (homophilic electrons - spin reversal). One would think that physics-mathematicians would want to see if other models worked that did not require "this" illogical bit needed to justify the current model!

 

I read the link. There are no citations to any experiments whatsoever that provide evidence that this idea is right. It all a story that assumes a few things are right at the beginning and bases things on that.

 

But, what if those initial assumptions are wrong? It's like a house built on sand -- one good wind and it going to be blown away. Good ideas are like a house built on rock, built on a solid foundation. Those can stand up to some harsher conditions.

 

It is the same thing with "logic". If you make a chain like if A then B; if B then C; if C then D; if D then E and if E then F -- and F is my main point. Well, if you cannot prove A in the first place, then all the other part of the chain dependent on it don't hold.

 

So, again, I want to see a citation to an experiment that shows that the assumptions made in the beginning of that article are true. I want to know that the first things are true so that then it is worth looking at the other conclusions drawn in detail. If the first things aren't true, then there is no point in doing any work on any conclusions based on the first part.