Curious aubout the model of an atom

[Catkiller]

Has anyone ever actually seen an atom?

 

The electron microscope is as close as anyone has gotten to my knowledge, and it operates on a theory that doesn't actually give an image, but recreates an image from electron path deflections. Using one of these to magnify an atom gives you an image of a fuzzy dot. The Discovery Channel show that I watched on this went into all kinds of detail about how the fuzzy edges of the image are "consistent with" the traditional model of the atom, that the orbiting electron "cloud" would move in a way that would make the edges of the image of an atom appear fuzzy in exactly that manner. This sounds to me like self-fulfilling prophecy. It's "consistent with" what we expect, so we assume that we are correct.

 

Now, I'm no physicist and I'm certainly not a quantum theorist, but I want to challenge the traditional model of the atom. The problem is, even though I have a nice, juicy theory about what an atom really is and what its subatomic structure looks like, I have no idea how to go about proving it.

 

My theory is actually rather simple, and it's based on another question: what is a force? Physics recognizes the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravitational force, and electromagnetic force. But no one can explain why these forces exist. We do a lot of talking about how they work, but not why they work. So here's my take on it. These are not separate forces. These are different applications of the basic structure of all matter. So what is the structure?

 

Imagine space as a continuous mass that behaves like a fluid. This is not a collection of particles, but one continuous "particle" that encompasses nothing short of the entire universe. This mass is not stationary, it is moving. The flow of this movement creates eddies, and the eddies eventually begin to create whirlpool-like vortices. These vortices open up, creating "holes" in the mass. Like any other vortex found in nature, the opposite ends of each vortex swirl in opposite directions. Clockwise swirl could be considered positive charge and anti-clockwise swirl is negative charge. The result is a pair of charged sub-atomic particles that are interacting with each other at all times, no matter how much "space" separates them. This accounts for the FTL reactions seen in quantum physics experiments...electrons that have moved a great distance from their positrons.

 

This accounts for the interaction of positive and negative particles in another way as well. When two clockwiise swirls approach each other, the swirls cannot align, and they repel each other. When clockwise and anti-clockwise approach each other, they attempt to intersect and combine. Sometimes the trajectory and velocity of such a pairing is just a little bit too far out of synch to close the gap, and the open ends orbit each other. This orbit creates a three-dimensional swirl of "fluid" that continuously provides enough eddy current to keep the vortices from colliding and combining. The result is a sub-atomic particle. Swirls inside of swirls create atoms, molecules and so forth.

 

Note one other detail about this theory. It adequately explains why electromagnetic waves can pass through a vacuum with no matter to support them. It also explains why the speed of light is the maximum velocity of all matter in the universe...any speed greater than that collapses the eddies that separate the subatomic particles, combining the vortices. I suggest that this is where wormholes come from. It would also suggest that a mass could "ride" the swirl of a wormhole to the other end.

 

You might ask how this explains the ever-elusive Gravitational Force. It's really quite simple. If you get enough vortices in one place, some percentage of them is bound to be connected to far-off places in the universe. The natural result is a sort of negative pressure that pulls other vortices closer. What about "dark matter" or the other theoretical particles needed to explain the lack of mass in the universe? Hm...let me think...still water. Parts of the "fluid" mass that are not currently in motion.

 

I'm not saying I've got everything figured out here, and I'm not even saying I'm right. I'm just asking the question "If this theory is sound enough to warrant investigation, how would one go about setting up an experiment?"

[Bill Angel]

Imagine space as a continuous mass that behaves like a fluid. This is not a collection of particles, but one continuous "particle" that encompasses nothing short of the entire universe. This mass is not stationary, it is moving. The flow of this movement creates eddies, and the eddies eventually begin to create whirlpool-like vortices. These vortices open up, creating "holes" in the mass. Like any other vortex found in nature, the opposite ends of each vortex swirl in opposite directions. Clockwise swirl could be considered positive charge and anti-clockwise swirl is negative charge. The result is a pair of charged sub-atomic particles that are interacting with each other at all times, no matter how much "space" separates them. This accounts for the FTL reactions seen in quantum physics experiments...electrons that have moved a great distance from their positrons.

A basic property manifested in the behavior of matter and energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I don't see how your model could incorporate this principle, as it appears to be based on the concepts of classical fluid dynamics, which apply to large collections of particles on the macroscopic level.

[Klaynos]

Atoms are below the resolution limit of optical photons, we have no option but to go to other imaging methods, elections happen to be quite easy.

 

Theories and experiments can only ever be consistent or inconsistent.

 

Our best theory of an atom is the quantum mechanical electron orbital model (note not orbits, they're very different).

 

There is a large body of evidence that agrees with our best model including scattering experiments and those that probe energy levels of the orbitals. Any new theory would have to explain these experiments to the same degree of precision.

 

You may find em-srong-weak unification an interesting subject to read about.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Has anyone ever actually seen an atom?

My theory is actually rather simple, and it's based on another question: what is a force? Physics recognizes the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravitational force, and electromagnetic force. But no one can explain why these forces exist. We do a lot of talking about how they work, but not why they work. So here's my take on it. These are not separate forces. These are different applications of the basic structure of all matter. So what is the structure?

The reason for this is because questions of 'why' are fundamentally useless questions to science. 'Why,' implies some sort of purpose or intention to the way our universe and everything in it manifests itself, which is a purely philosophical notion and not one science concerns itself with.

 

Regardless, reading the rest of your post leads me to believe you've confused the terms. No where in this hypothesis of yours have I seen you address why you think things happen, but rather how you think things happen.

[swansont]

We understand the structure of atoms not via imaging, but by looking at the energy levels. One way we can do this is by seeing what frequencies and polarizations of light it absorbs and emits when the atom undergoes various transitions (spectroscopy). What we observe is consistent with the quantum mechanical model.

 

Any new model that comes along has to explain all the the QM model does, at a minimum, because it fits all the evidence we already have.

[Dekan]

Hm, does OP allude to: vortices - Descartes - cats (killed by defenestration as lacking souls)?

[Consistency]

Start by doing experiments you can actually measure. The thing about the mind is that it can conjure up information that has no bearing with reality.