The implications of a new atomic model

[Neutron-man]

I am able to prove that the nucleus consists of a central neutron core, of highly organized neutrons. Repulsive protons remain somewhat distant to the core, as far apart as their bond to neutrons in the core allow, forming protonic shell(s). Electrons interact on a one to one basis with the individual protonic Ligands of a structured nucleus- forming nuclear H. Nuclear H in turn can form nuclear covalent bonds, forming nuclear H2, which in chemistry is identified as non bonding pairs of electrons. Each nuclear H is a potential covalent bonding site, where a covalent bond is redefined as the intermittent sharing of a lone electron between one proton of a nuclide and the proton of another. Lone pairs cannot form covalent bonds because one electron is on the outside of the system at any given time creating e-e repulsion. The stability of nuclides is a function of symmetry, in that the most symmetrical neutron cores combined with the most symmetrical proton shells mirrors the magic numbers of shell theory.

[Klaynos]

Can you show numerically how your model predicts the results of scattering experiments?

[Neutron-man]

One of the reasons that my predecessors came up with the notion of ' nucleons' was because there appeared to be no difference between the scattering of protons or neutrons during bombardment. In this model electron distribution is due to the structure of the nucleus. Protons and neutrons act independently to some degree, and it is their ability to compliment one another which determines if a given number of p+n is stable or not:

[John Cuthber]

Let me know when you can predict the magic numbers mathematically.

[Neutron-man]

The strange thing is that the magic numbers are a corollary, an afterthought. They correspond with the most symmetrical nuclei, both in the neutron core and in the protonic shell. The magic nuclei correspond geometrically with completed shells of protons and neutrons.

 

I suspect that attempts to incorporate the magic numbers, which from their inception are numerology, into a shell structure similar to the electron shell doctrine- in my opinion is curve fitting.

 

It needs to be appreciated that bombarding nuclei showed that certain combinations of protons and neutrons are more stable. This really serves as evidence that nuclei are structured, rather than a mixture of interchanging mixture of 'nucleons'.

[Klaynos]

So, I assume your model can not do what I asked?

[Neutron-man]

Can you show numerically how your model predicts the results of scattering experiments?

 

I must admit that my model is based upon electromagnetic principles. The decay of neutrons from unstable nuclides is troubling because it often gives rise to several B- electrons of different energies, in specific frequencies.

 

I have been able to show a correspondence in all cases between these ratios and the structured nuclei in the model. The idea is that if neutrons are arranged in the nucleus in a geometrical manner that different outer shell positions and therefore different neutron environments exist. In considering all of the possible unstable configurations, the empirical ratio of B-decay is reproduced.

 

The probability of finding an exact correspondence is astronomical, unless the structures proposed by the model exist.

 

 

So, I assume your model can not do what I asked?

 

So, I assume your model can not do what I asked?

Edited March 20, 2013 by Neutron-man

[Klaynos]

I didn't ask about decay I asked about scattering.

[Neutron-man]

Are you suggesting that scattering by a nucleus shows a well defined pattern? Please identify the phenomenon that you are speaking of, so I can address it formally. It would be appreciated.

[Klaynos]

Something like this experiment: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v92/i4/p978_1

[Neutron-man]

Why would I need to redo what has already been done. Electron scattering treats electrons as point particles, even though they have spin, and at low energies around 25 MeV their scattering shows that electrons are relatively evenly distributed around the atom. At higher energies the scattering of electrons is inconsistent with the idea of a uniformly distribution of nucleons, which is evidence for nuclear shell structure.. At even higher energies this type of penetration is used to show that protons and neutrons are not point particles, but must have structure.

 

In my model, nuclear H forms a shell around a central neutron core. Periodically speaking it takes time for this shell to develope, so naturally there will be a departure from the norm in the earlier elements He-B, where by time I mean the number of protons.

 

 

Let me know when you can predict the magic numbers mathematically.

 

The model not only predicts the magic numbers mathematically, but also shows which nuclei are stable even though they don't fit into that numerology. In other words there are nuclei that show the same stability, actually more than all the rest that are not a part of that number scheme.

 

By mathematical , I am referring to geometry, in electromagnetic terms, and the completion of both neutron core and protonic shells. In this model, the most symmetrically complete structures are by coincidence ' magic'.

 

In other words, nuclear stability is a structural phenomenon, and the equations I use are structural.

[juanrga]

Why would I need to redo what has already been done.

 

Because science is accumulative and one of the requirements of a new theory is that it must explain what is already known.

 

Electron scattering treats electrons as point particles, even though they have spin

 

Electrons are pointlike particles. Their spin is quantum and not due to motion around an axis.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

The model not only predicts the magic numbers mathematically, but also shows which nuclei are stable even though they don't fit into that numerology. In other words there are nuclei that show the same stability, actually more than all the rest that are not a part of that number scheme.

 

Prove it.

[Klaynos]

Because science is accumulative and one of the requirements of a new theory is that it must explain what is already known.

 

 

Electrons are pointlike particles. Their spin is quantum and not due to motion around an axis.

 

 

Prove it.

 

Quoting these as they are exactly what I was going to post but I was on my phone.

 

I'll add that if you really can predict the magic numbers in the way you claim it's certainly interesting.

[Mellinia]

I guess you're not going to post your paper online for fear of other people stealing your idea? I trust maths more than I trust the lingual treatment of any theory.