Jump to content

A new atom model (static electron configuration model )


John Ye

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Your model involves a one proton-one electron system.

As such the one electron must, by definition be unpaired.

Any unpaired electron has a magnetic moment.

So, by definition your system involves magnetism.

 

I have already told you why, by definition, even one moving electron constitutes an electric current.

 

PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS I DID NOT SAY INTO MY MOUTH

 

 

Studiot,

If I incorrectly quoted your words, I say sorry to you. The text structure is not very clear to me, I will pay much attention to avoid the error.

37 minutes ago, studiot said:

Your model involves a one proton-one electron system.

As such the one electron must, by definition be unpaired.

Any unpaired electron has a magnetic moment.

So, by definition your system involves magnetism.

 

I have already told you why, by definition, even one moving electron constitutes an electric current.

 

PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS I DID NOT SAY INTO MY MOUTH

 

 

According to standard quantum textbook, you're right. But unfortunately, the real cause of magnetism have not been totally clear to mankind. For example, in quantum textbook,  the explanation of  paramagnetism and diamagnetism are not sure. There are some exceptions.

I know electric current, and know magnetism. Besides textbook, I used to have had some thinkings of mine.

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It does not fail. Quantum theory does not modify Coulombs law. What is modified is the notion that we can know positions exactly.

You might not that Coulomb's law itself does not appear in the Schrödinger equation. It is cast as a potential, not as a force, and at no point are you needing to know where the particle is at any point in time, only that the electron experiences this potential due to the charge on the proton, no matter what its actual position is.

It would be good to show evidence which supports this. Like from scattering experiments, which will depend on the spatial details of the interaction. Can you predict what charged particle scattering should look like with your potential?

The ignorance here is staggering.

Are you aware of how our moon formed? The asteroid belt?

If something added as much relative energy to our solar system as is added in a discharge tube, our siolar system would be greatly modified.

Quantum theory explains this, but you don't seem very interested in actually learning these details. You have apparently already decided quantum theory is wrong.

 

 

Screenshot_2018-09-01-22-58-50.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conflict.

Coulomb law needs electron to have certain and exact position, quantum theory tells that exact position is unknown.

This is the logic.

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

Studiot,

If I incorrectly quoted your words, I say sorry to you. The text structure is not very clear to me, I will pay much attention to avoid the error.

According to standard quantum textbook, you're right. But unfortunately, the real cause of magnetism have not been totally clear to mankind. For example, in quantum textbook,  the explanation of  paramagnetism and diamagnetism are not sure. There are some exceptions.

I know electric current, and know magnetism. Besides textbook, I used to have had some thinkings of mine.

 

 

Screenshot_2018-09-01-22-58-50.png

Conflict.

Coulomb law needs electron to have certain and exact position, quantum theory tells that exact position is unknown.

This is the logic.

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

Studiot,

If I incorrectly quoted your words, I say sorry to you. The text structure is not very clear to me, I will pay much attention to avoid the error.

According to standard quantum textbook, you're right. But unfortunately, the real cause of magnetism have not been totally clear to mankind. For example, in quantum textbook,  the explanation of  paramagnetism and diamagnetism are not sure. There are some exceptions.

I know electric current, and know magnetism. Besides textbook, I used to have had some thinkings of mine.

 

 

Screenshot_2018-09-01-22-58-50.png

that potential is Coulomb law's vibrant.

an integration or a differential between them.

exact position (at least radial) is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Ye said:

I don't think it can be stable if the electron is stationary 

It doesn't matter.

The electron can't be stationary because of the uncertainty principle.

However, you were the one talking about static electrons.
Does that post mean you have changed your mind?

2 hours ago, John Ye said:

he real cause of magnetism have not been totally clear to mankind.

They may not be clear to you, but they are to the rest of us.

 

2 hours ago, John Ye said:

I know electric current, and know magnetism. Besides textbook, I used to have had some thinkings of mine.

Unfortunately, it seems that thinking is wrong. For example, it doesn't take account of the uncertainty principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It doesn't matter.

The electron can't be stationary because of the uncertainty principle.

However, you were the one talking about static electrons.
Does that post mean you have changed your mind?

They may not be clear to you, but they are to the rest of us.

 

Unfortunately, it seems that thinking is wrong. For example, it doesn't take account of the uncertainty principle.

John, 

How to quote and reply part by part as what you did?

I will never change my mind.

The static electron configuration is the true picture of atom. no spinning, no ghostly jumping.

I know it's hard to be accepted today, for that quantum model have been existed so long time.

But I am sure there must be one day in the future.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, John Ye said:

How to quote and reply part by part as what you did?

It may be browser dependent.

If I drag the mouse cursor across some text in an earlier post  a little box appears with "Quote this" in it.
Clicking on that box generates a quote for me in the reply box at the end of the thread and I can add my reply there.

9 minutes ago, John Ye said:

I know it's hard to be accepted today, for that quantum model have been existed so long time.

But I am sure there must be one day in the future.

It is hard to accept because:

(1) it contradicts experience- for example it wouldn't allow diamagnetic materials. and

(2) You have provided no evidence, or theoretical justification for it.

 

Unless there is a day in the future when you resolve those issues you are wrong. Your day will not come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

It may be browser dependent.

If I drag the mouse cursor across some text in an earlier post  a little box appears with "Quote this" in it.
Clicking on that box generates a quote for me in the reply box at the end of the thread and I can add my reply there.

It is hard to accept because:

(1) it contradicts experience- for example it wouldn't allow diamagnetic materials. and

(2) You have provided no evidence, or theoretical justification for it.

 

Unless there is a day in the future when you resolve those issues you are wrong. Your day will not come.

I see. thanks. I use chrome, can't do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It may be browser dependent.

If I drag the mouse cursor across some text in an earlier post  a little box appears with "Quote this" in it.
Clicking on that box generates a quote for me in the reply box at the end of the thread and I can add my reply there.

It is hard to accept because:

(1) it contradicts experience- for example it wouldn't allow diamagnetic materials. and

(2) You have provided no evidence, or theoretical justification for it.

 

Unless there is a day in the future when you resolve those issues you are wrong. Your day will not come.

No contrary at all.

My model is easier and more precise  to explain the magnetism than quantum model.

 

and also to explain 1st kind of superconductivity

Give you an example, how to explain thermal radiation in current textbook?

It's 90% wrong.

We have wrongly explained a lot of things due to wrong atom model. 

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Weird, I'm using chrome; it works for me.

Failing that, use the "quote" link at the bottom of the post and edit what it says.
The forum will join together posts if nobody posts anything in between them.

I see a plus sign, which can be changed into MultiQuote. this may be the function.

I am not very familiar with this forum. just a newbie.

Edited by John Ye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That is not what the experimental evidence says.

If your model does not agree with the experimental observation then it is not because reality has made a mistake.

Experiments do not make mistake. People's explanation do.

I already said satellite model is a joke, and explained to you why it's joke. I think you can understand my words and agree me.

Another assertion is this:

Quantum model is not a joke, it's a very useful math tool. Its results are OK and used in scientific work everywhere.

But, its explanation is a joke too. I know the physical nature of quantum solution of H atom. I know it more than anyone else.

 

 

Quantum explanation is not physical nature of atom. My model is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Laugh out loud.

So, you claim to know better than everyone else- but you have not bothered to find out what everyone else knows.

 

Do you realise how silly that makes you look?

I said I know more about the physical meaning of quantum H solution than anyone else. I didn't say about all other things. OK?

You must know more about this. I haven't read textbook for long time.

OK. You have a good day. I am going to sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, John Ye said:

Does Coulomb law violate quantum theory?  It tells us certain thing about electron--the force is certain with certain distance given?

Violate? No. It's just not useful, owing to quantum effects. As I pointed out, the potential is used in the Schrödinger equation. That would be...awkward, if it violated quantum theory.

4 hours ago, John Ye said:

Conflict.

Coulomb law needs electron to have certain and exact position, quantum theory tells that exact position is unknown.

Only if you need to calculate the force for the electron being at an exact position. But we don't, so it's fine. It works.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Ye said:

I will never change my mind.

!

Moderator Note

This is a science discussion forum, and what you write here is NOT a scientific stance. It also breaks our rules against soapboxing. If you can't be swayed by superior evidence, and refuse to engage with other members offering help and reason, there is no point discussing this with you.

Thread closed.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.