Butch

Senior Members
  • Content count

    280
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Butch last won the day on November 6

Butch had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-11 Bad

About Butch

  • Rank
    Atom
  • Birthday 10/13/55

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tampa, FL
  • College Major/Degree
    A.S. Computers 1976 (weird science at the time)
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Theoretical physics
  • Biography
    Fool on the hill
  • Occupation
    Commercial fisherman

Recent Profile Visitors

3854 profile views
  1. Ether evidence?

    Empty space is a misnomer, space is something it has dimension, a photon has no mass but it has momentum. The concept of ether is comforting to us macro beings... Space is a medium.
  2. It is nice to have your attention.
  3. Unless you procreate, it doesn't matter. Recreational sex is all about chemistry. Sex is not the only vehicle for pleasing a partner.
  4. It seems that my atom: Could only receive energy in quanta that would maintain the coherence between the pairs. I am not neglecting photo electrics. I will continue with my education, just thought I would drop this one off.
  5. That is the exceptional state of my atoms, no neutrons. I was baiting John. In my atom the greatest probability for the position of an electron is at the apogee, note that the probability of its position in the nucleus is not 0. Note also that if an electron is at apogee another is at perigee in the nucleus. This does not hold true for all my atoms (without naming the atom) in an atom composed of 3 pairs when an electron is at apogee, 2 are near the nucleus but one is post perigee another is pre perigee. I have avoided QM somewhat, quark theory disagrees with me... However, I must say at the basic atomic level it is quite pleasing. I am still having difficulty with the concept of spin, can someone help me out? Just curious, I think I will encounter this in my investigation of qm, but has any one considered that the quantum nature of light could be the nature of matter? What I am saying is that light exhibits itself as particles because matter can only absorb discrete energies from light.
  6. Yes, I am fine with that, Swansont has been all the help I need.
  7. Note the positioning of the neutrons...
  8. Working on exactly that. Doyou understand the functioning and the exceptional condition of my model?
  9. Hydrogen1 in my model is a proton with an orbiting electron. Hydrogen2 is different. Very much so. In my atoms sticking would occur when a synced pair of electrons are bound tightly to protons (can be read as "neutrons").
  10. My idea is not different than current models of hydrogen... Ok, I am alright with quantum mechanics from this side... Still have a problem with quark models, but that is irrelevant. I need you to check my understanding... The angular momentum of a an electron is directly proportional to the strength of the dipole field. In the following schematic representation of an atom (let's not worry about what atom it is for now) In this atom the electrons accelerate toward the nucleus and decelerate away from the nucleus, consequently the angular momentum of the electrons is constantly changing (regardless if the path is circular, elliptical or other) however since the 2 are in sync the sum of thier momenta would remain constant (e1 is decelerating as e2 is accelerating). Correct? Do I understand spin correctly? It is the orientation of the orbital to an axis?
  11. I am quite the fool not to have included magnetism in my simulation, this is where I will educate myself and the intro says it all: http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/esam/intro.html If I had included magnetism in my simulation I believe it would have been a much easier task to find stable configurations, from what I have digested so far this is math I can handle! Thank you all so very much, I hope to be back soon with a model that is somewhat more digestible.
  12. Ok, that experiment is not going to happen real soon, how about we look at the decay of polonium? As I stated before with my idea if collision or merger occurs the atom will lose stability. In the case of polonium I suppose that something like this happens I tend toward a third possibility... Two electrons interacting in the complex nucleus end up in a tight orbit with protons, this tight pair has a neutral charge and is now weakly bound to the atomic structure and incurs the ejection of two protons near enough that they are tugged by the electrons in the bound pairs... I know how far reaching this speculation is, however we are dealing with po214, that is a very complex atom. Perhaps if we look at a simpler atom. If my hydrogen atom were to decay I must believe it would involve 2 electrons "out of sync" that end up either great enough energy to leave the atomic structure (not likely) or they end up in bound pairs. Looking at this as an electric system we would now have 2 electrons at apogee and 2 bound electrons herding the nucleus... until the 2 that we're at apogee come back to the nucleus they will tend to eject the bound pairs and do less herding on the unbound protons (which will will be weakly bonded to the bound pairs). As the 2 unbound electrons head back towards apogee this atom will cease to be. I will do some studying on angular momentum of electrons and attempt to relate it to my idea. Thanks
  13. Aha! I think it is an experiment that is worth repeating in a vacuum tube with electrodes, If I am correct no electrons should be present if the bombardment produces true neutrons and there would be no current flow, however if current flow is detected then the neutrons are actually a tightly bound proton electron pair! Note that a Geiger counter has a path for current flow, a vacuum does not. Umm... I don't have even a small lab, I doubt I could get my hands on polonium... Any volunteers? Not like a collider is needed.
  14. Correct, but it would wobble and in more complex atoms that would have to be accounted for because of the periodically close proximity of the electrons to the nucleus. I found an article on Chadwick's experiment. Very nicely done and I get the math... But there is a problem here, how is it that neutrons exist if free neutrons are so unstable? From the merging of protons and electrons? I had that thought and abandoned it. If neutrons we're just there at the beginning then we should be running short on supply soon. Maybe the collision of a proton, electron and a neutrino with the kinetic energy being released as a photon? A beautiful experiment, however if the assumptions are correct: The "proof" of the existence of neutrons leads me to doubt in my assumptions, however the lack of origin leads me to confidence in my merger thoughts... If the assumptions missed something it would lend validity to the idea we have been discussing... I tend to believe there is more to understand about the basic structure of the atom, I am still attracted to the idea that the neutron is a proton electron interaction rather than a particle, although I do not see it as an electron tightly bound to a proton. I will have to give this some thought... But I do have a mind well suited to that.