Energy Constants, Cube & Sphere Formation

[Strange]

 

Just so we are clear this is water

 

Except that water molecules don't look like that.

 

How do you account for van der Waals forces if there are no electrons?

[davidivad]

i would like to see a wave function used somewhere here.

this is the best way to percieve a particle as it does not exist a a solid object but a probability.

there needs to be a time variable in your equation somewhere.

i see that you are using reflective lighting math to describe particle interactions which can be useful as you need wvefunctions instead of angular descriptions.

always remember that water is not water until it is disturbed.

to start this race...

we need to be able to accurately describe subtleties of a perfect vacuum first. this is the first step and is the stage upon which all your math will be built.

the next step is to describe the simplest multibody system you can. once you have done this for hydrogen, things have a funny way of falling into place because you can build more complex math with basic functions.

you clearly recognise the importance of the wavefunction in such a problem as you are trying to figure it out with light.

one browny point for you...

[Ant Sinclair]

Please Strange look over the thread again, this is a speculation that has a different take on atomic make up! Where conventional theory speaks of electrons and their shells around them, this model shows the dirac fields generated by neutrally-attracted gluons, obviously with "colour bonding" there's a variant of QCD at it's heart.

[Strange]

Please Strange look over the thread again, this is a speculation that has a different take on atomic make up!

 

But it is giving the wrong results. It is as simple as that. Shouldn't you have abandoned it as soon as you discovered that?

 

 

this model shows the dirac fields

 

I must have missed the math where you did that.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Strange

[davidivad]

At the most basic level, the field at each point in space is a simple harmonic oscillator, and its quantization places a quantum harmonic oscillator at each point. Excitations of the field correspond to the elementary particles of particle physics. However, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure, so all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.

The vacuum has, implicitly, all of the properties that a particle may have: spin, or polarization in the case of light, energy, and so on. On average, most of these properties cancel out: the vacuum is, after all, "empty" in this sense. One important exception is the vacuum energy or the vacuum expectation value of the energy. The quantization of a simple harmonic oscillator states that the lowest possible energy or zero-point energy that such an oscillator may have is

start here. this is easy to prove out whether right or wrong.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

At the most basic level, the field at each point in space is a simple harmonic oscillator, and its quantization places a quantum harmonic oscillator at each point. Excitations of the field correspond to the elementary particles of particle physics. However, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure, so all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.

The vacuum has, implicitly, all of the properties that a particle may have: spin, or polarization in the case of light, energy, and so on. On average, most of these properties cancel out: the vacuum is, after all, "empty" in this sense. One important exception is the vacuum energy or the vacuum expectation value of the energy. The quantization of a simple harmonic oscillator states that the lowest possible energy or zero-point energy that such an oscillator may have is

 

 

start here. this is easy to prove out whether right or wrong.

That is sort of what I was saying in an illustrative way with the swimming pool a few posts ago. Space or the vacuum is sitting there , not empty but it looks empty. As with the pool ,systematically rotate or oscillate the water and you get vortex and threads. I know it is only a model and not quantitative , but nonetheless incorporates rotation, or spin , and what is more ' quantised ' items . ( rotating items, and threads )

 

Maybe the goldfish ,can wake up to the fact, that he is not in an empty gold fish bowl , but in water !

 

Mike

Edited October 13, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[davidivad]

mike, what i find even more interesting is that vortexes are very much the quantum way of things. without this property, we would not have superconductivity and the likes.

Edited October 13, 2014 by davidivad

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

As we are looking at a construction of quarks here :

 

I listened to this scientist who led the CERN project for some time , discussing the relevance of quarks :

( large hadron collider)!

 

Makes good listening : Link. :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b047z8wv

 

Mike

Edited October 19, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I think you may have something here ANT .

I was looking at my magnetic toy the other day and I noticed the pieces although holding together in a random shape as shown in the photo below . The three quark shape was very very stable .

This seems to fit with the current model of protons and neutrons , composed as they are by 2 up quarks and 1 down quark Or 2 down quarks and 1 up quark . For the two entities protons and neutrons . However the base particle (so far ) is a quark.

However as RUTHERFORD when bombarding the atoms found the nucleus bouncing back Alfa particles . So today we are interested in the individual QUARKS .

So your model based on quarks may have some mileage .



Note the non descripti particle coming in from the left ready to collide with either the 3 quark combination ( say a neutron or a proton ). Or the individual quark , should with very high energy be removed from its very strong three-some combination .

Mike

Edited October 22, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ant Sinclair]

Thanks for your posts Mike, DavidivaD, Jeremy and Strange

Sorry for the lack of response to your posts gents but I've been suffering from a cold/flu for the last 5 days.

Mike thats another interesting post and could you send me the link please.

David thanks for your posts on how this wave can possibly be found.

Jeremy please can I ask you to wait as regards chemistry as future posts will show many chemical reactions.

Strange .......... ? You'll have to be "won-over" and hopefully the model in the end will do this.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Thanks for your posts Mike, DavidivaD, Jeremy and Strange

Sorry for the lack of response to your posts gents but I've been suffering from a cold/flu for the last 5 days.

Mike thats another interesting post and could you send me the link please.

David thanks for your posts on how this wave can possibly be found.

Jeremy please can I ask you to wait as regards chemistry as future posts will show many chemical reactions.

Strange .......... ? You'll have to be "won-over" and hopefully the model in the end will do this.

 

 

links

 

Ruthorfords Experiment with bombarding the Atom discovers the Nucleus . link :- http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/R/Rutherfords_experiment_and_atomic_model.html

 

 

Proton : made up of ( up and down Quarks) link :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

 

Neutron : made of ( down and up Quarks ) :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

 

Up & Down quarks make up Protons & Neutrons :- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html

 

Modern Colliders ( advancement on Rutherfords Experiment reveal Quark Gluon Plasma :- http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/alice

 

 

Mike

Edited October 22, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ant Sinclair]

Please take a look

 

 

 

Energy Mass Within Quark Structures

 

Looking at Hydrogen, 4 H atoms(4 Quarks with Bond-Gluons) = 4 * 1.00794AMU = 4AMU + 0.03176AMU extra mass.

Looking at Helium((4 atoms(4 Quarks with Bond-Gluons)) = 4.002602AMU, 0.002602AMU extra mass.

 

Therefore 0.03176AMU – 0.002602AMU = 0.029158AMU. So why have 4 H atoms(Quarks/gluons) more energy mass than He? In fact 4 H Quarks/gluon have approximately 12 times the energy mass of He.

 

H has an energy flow through all phases.

H2 is a green/green connection.

 

He has an energy flow circulating through the 4 Quarks.

So is it the fact that He has 4 bond-gluons(2+ and 2-) “pulled” close together that limits energy in it's phases? Is this expulsion of Neutral-Gluons due to this energy flow “pulling” the Quarks tight and also is the Strong Force responsible limiting the amount of energy in the Quark-Phases of He?

 

O(8 atoms) O = 15.994915AMU

O has 7 neutral gluons with an arrangement of 3-1-3 and so an extra mass of 0.994915

O has 1 energised circuit and an energy circuit around the complete molecule - is it this energy flow around the entire molecule that “trys” to keep the Quark-Formations straight?

 

There now appears to be a difference between He with an energy circuit and O also with an energy circuit, but Os energy circuit is in the middle of the molecule.

The He appears to have rid it's self of all neutral-gluons and so why hasn't O? The difference is I think is the size of the molecule and I believe at this moment the He molecule pulls into a very tight diamond-shape expelling all bond-gluons where as the Os' outer energy flows preventing the 4 quarks in the centre of the O molecule to only “pull” half-way into the diamond shape allowing 1 Neutral-Gluon to remain. Looking at further gas molecules should confirm this. Is it the fact that the He Tight-Connection Strong-Force and its' fields are “pushing” energy out of the Quark-Phases to allow only 0.002602 energy mass?, does this cause a “pulsing” effect in He where the Quarks are moving very slightly away and then back to each others centre as the energy fluctuates in the Phases, as the Quarks get near the nuclear force would expel energy causing less energy in the circuit and allowing outward movement – this would then lower the nuclear force allowing more energy into the quark-phases and once again pulling closer.

 

I suppose your noticing the use of the word molecule, as the model unfolds it appears at present there is actually only one Atom in existence the H Atom. Every other atomic structure is a molecule made up of H!

Molecular Construction Mechanism

 

Iam beginning to think that the molecular construction mechanism originates from within the quark formations with a process of phase-jumping. Looking at the drawing of H2 it shows a green-green bond, then looking at the H2O & H2O2 drawing it shows the H2 part of H2O bonded to the left side O atom with two green-green bonds and the H2 that originally had a green-green bond it self now having a red-blue bond. It seems that in the combustion process the two H atoms' green phases have jumped outwards by 120 degrees to make the molecular connection. On the same drawing when H20 bonds with another O all of the eight quarks of the second O atom appear to phase-jump to make the bond.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Ant Sinclair

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Please take a look

 

 

 

 

 

 

Energy Mass Within Quark Structures

Looking at Hydrogen, 4 H atoms(4 Quarks with Bond-Gluons) = 4 * 1.00794AMU = 4AMU + 0.03176AMU extra mass.

Looking at Helium((4 atoms(4 Quarks with Bond-Gluons)) = 4.002602AMU, 0.002602AMU extra mass.

 

Therefore 0.03176AMU 0.002602AMU = 0.029158AMU. So why have 4 H atoms(Quarks/gluons) more energy mass than He? In fact 4 H Quarks/gluon have approximately 12 times the energy mass of He.

 

H has an energy flow through all phases.

H2 is a green/green connection.

 

He has an energy flow circulating through the 4 Quarks.

So is it the fact that He has 4 bond-gluons(2+ and 2-) pulled close together that limits energy in it's phases? Is this expulsion of Neutral-Gluons due to this energy flow pulling the Quarks tight and also is the Strong Force responsible limiting the amount of energy in the Quark-Phases of He?

 

O(8 atoms) O = 15.994915AMU

O has 7 neutral gluons with an arrangement of 3-1-3 and so an extra mass of 0.994915

O has 1 energised circuit and an energy circuit around the complete molecule - is it this energy flow around the entire molecule that trys to keep the Quark-Formations straight?

 

There now appears to be a difference between He with an energy circuit and O also with an energy circuit, but Os energy circuit is in the middle of the molecule.

The He appears to have rid it's self of all neutral-gluons and so why hasn't O? The difference is I think is the size of the molecule and I believe at this moment the He molecule pulls into a very tight diamond-shape expelling all bond-gluons where as the Os' outer energy flows preventing the 4 quarks in the centre of the O molecule to only pull half-way into the diamond shape allowing 1 Neutral-Gluon to remain. Looking at further gas molecules should confirm this. Is it the fact that the He Tight-Connection Strong-Force and its' fields are pushing energy out of the Quark-Phases to allow only 0.002602 energy mass?, does this cause a pulsing effect in He where the Quarks are moving very slightly away and then back to each others centre as the energy fluctuates in the Phases, as the Quarks get near the nuclear force would expel energy causing less energy in the circuit and allowing outward movement this would then lower the nuclear force allowing more energy into the quark-phases and once again pulling closer.

 

I suppose your noticing the use of the word molecule, as the model unfolds it appears at present there is actually only one Atom in existence the H Atom. Every other atomic structure is a molecule made up of H!

 

 

Molecular Construction Mechanism

Iam beginning to think that the molecular construction mechanism originates from within the quark formations with a process of phase-jumping. Looking at the drawing of H2 it shows a green-green bond, then looking at the H2O & H2O2 drawing it shows the H2 part of H2O bonded to the left side O atom with two green-green bonds and the H2 that originally had a green-green bond it self now having a red-blue bond. It seems that in the combustion process the two H atoms' green phases have jumped outwards by 120 degrees to make the molecular connection. On the same drawing when H20 bonds with another O all of the eight quarks of the second O atom appear to phase-jump to make the bond.

.

That is a very interesting hypothesis you have come up with there , Ant. If you are right you will have turned molecular construction principles , based on electron charge and atomic orbitals ' on its head '

 

However you have gone down a layer , from protons and electrons to more fundamental ' Quarks ' , which could be considered a more fundamental cause . If ' fundamental ' is found at lower levels .

 

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

 

Mike

Edited February 1, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ant Sinclair]

Thanks for Your post Mike which kind of leads to the next post as regards Atomic Mechanisms are concerned, this time The Mechanism of Radiation and Decay;

 

Isotopes of H

 

The model appears to indicate there are five isotopes of Hydrogen; H, H2, 2H, 3H(3H-ve) & 3He(3H+ve).

 

H consisting of one quark and one positive bond-gluon.

 

H2(single phase bond) consisting of two quarks, one positive bond-gluon & one negative bond-gluon.

2H(double phase bond) consisting of two quarks, one positive bond-gluon & one negative bond-gluon.

3H-ve(triple phase bond) consisting of three quarks, one positive bond-gluon & two negative bond-gluons.

3H+ve( triple phase bond) consisting of three quarks, two positive bond-gluons & one negative bond-gluon.

 

Why is 3H-ve(3H) radioactive and 3H+ve(3He) is not?

 

Looking at the 3H-ve figure the two negative bond gluons rotating clockwise and the positive bond gluon rotating anti-clockwise, the two negative bond gluons are nearest each other in positions marked by arrows. As the negative bond gluons begin to get nearest each other are the strong forces acting on something?, could these strong forces possibly be “sqeezing” the “ether” and ejecting “compressed”, possibly “condensed” energy outwards from the “areas” of compression?

Why doesn't 3H+ve behave like 3H-ve?, what does this say about negative bond gluons and the “ether”? Assuming the two negative strong forces' fields are “bumping” each other there should be some accompanying nuclear signal proportional to the frequency in the quark phases.

[Mordred]

What you need to do it look at valence bond theories.

 

Wiki links a couple of variations.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_bond_theory

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Theoretical_Chemistry/Chemical_Bonding/Valence_Bond_Theory/Overview_of_Valence_Bond_Theory

Then look at Bohr's model

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

How the quarks combine to combine to form a neutron or proton follows the conservation of color rules. The net color charge must result in no net charge. (Colorless)

 

you need to examine the conservation of spin and isospin rules. Each quarks has a spin and collectively form the resulting spin of the particle itself

 

However each quark also has an electromagnetic charge so you need to add up their contributions. This gives the electromagnetic charge of the particle itself.

 

so for example proton is 2/3+2/3+-1/3=+1 (2 up one down)

 

Another arena to look into is valence bonding in coordinate chemistry.

 

And molecular orbital theory

 

Chemistry isn't my strong suit lol

However that being said here is a key QM explaination

 

http://users.aber.ac.uk/ruw/teach/237/hatom.php

 

Schrodinger equation involvement with the hydrogen atom

Edited February 1, 2015 by Mordred

[Ant Sinclair]

Thanks for the post and links Mordred (more brain pain lol), Mordred I have looked but with having a very limited physicists vocabulary are probably not using the correct search string, does He have a pulsing property different to other elements as the model would suggest?

[Mordred]

Yes Schrodinger includes the quantum harmonic oscillator.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation

[swansont]

You keep mentioning quarks, but it's obvious that your particles are not quarks — they do not have the same properties as the particle that physicists call a quark.

 

H consists of a proton and an electron. That's pretty firmly established.

 

Is there any way to test to see if your model is correct? Do you make any concrete predictions?

[Ant Sinclair]

Your correct SwansonT, like many folk who visit/take part on this forum Iam still learning (with mountains of knowledge ahead of Me), and that the particles I have been calling quarks are not quarks, quarks are a selection of the sub-atomic particles that Murray Gelmann first coined a name for. Your Post got Me thinking and if I were to tag these particles would probably tag them Tri-Ceim(s), ancient gaelic for three (Tri) and Ceim (pass/phase).

I have been working on a catalogue of how the model describes/shows elements and molecules and how Hydrogen unlocks/shows a certain characteristic about dirac fields with relation to metals.

This is a WIP and this catalogue is months away (probably longer).

Along in this catalogue will be many of the models predictions.

[Ant Sinclair]

Radioactive Isotopes & Atomic “Wobble”

Lower Mass Radioactive Isotopes

 

It is beginning to look like the isotopes that are radio-active but still have relatively long half-lifes are more “balanced” with extra bond-gluons “acting” in pairs.

 

He5 & He6 like H3-ve indicates to the mechanism of radiation and decay and possibly the mechanism of half-life duration;

 

He4 AMU of 4.002602 - Stable

He5 AMU of 5.0122 - 2e-21 seconds

He6 AMU of 6.018886 - 0.807 seconds

 

He4 is obviously stable which takes us to He5, why does He5 have such a very small decay time relative to He6?, I believe the reason to be that even though He6 is unstable, the decay time is lengthened due to 2 extra bond-gluons in opposite triceims of the 4 triceims making up the He molecule and giving it more “balance”. This “extra balance” will hopefully lead to the mechanism of half-life durations.

 

Why would 3H-ve only have a half-life of 12.33 years and Carbon 14 have a half-life of 5730 years?

Could it be because of the “Balance” within the nucleus is less “balanced” due to only 1 bond-gluon?

Is it the fact that there are 2 extra bond-gluons symetrically opposite within the nucleus of C14 that makes it “more” stable?

Looking at further lists of radioactive/unstable isotopes, it seems that isotopes with odd numbered AMUs are far more frequently more unstable.

 

Moving away from lower mass radio-isotopes briefly to a heavier molecules the first Silver;

 

Ag 107 which say for now has an energy mass of 0.90509 giving it a “real” AMU of 106 and so it should be stable.

 

Ag 108 which after removing energy mass leaves an AMU of 107 and so it should be un-stable.

 

Ag 109 again after removing the energy mass has a “real” AMU of 108 and again it should be stable.

 

Now looking briefly at a few isotopes of Uranium;

 

Uranium 236 (ECM – U234), Energy Mass of 2.045563 and a half life of 23.42e6 years

 

Uranium 237 (ECM – U235), Energy Mass of 2.048725 and a half life of 6.75 days

 

Uranium 238 (ECM – U236), Energy Mass of 2.050785 and a half life of 4.468e9 years

 

Uranium 239 (ECM – U 237), Energy Mass of 2.054290 and a half life of 23.5 minutes

 

It does appear that radio-isotopes that have extra bond-gluons in “pairs” have longer half-lifes and should have less of an “Atomic Wobble”, again these “Wobbles” should give some nuclear signal proportional to the frequency in the triceim phases.

 

ECM – Energy Constants Model

 

 

Please note that the Energy Constants Catalogue of Atomic Structure is only around 20% compiled to date, and as such the above information is a guide to give an insight to as to the work in progress!

 

This thread will be going into slumber now until the catalogue is progressed substantially.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Ant Sinclair

[Ant Sinclair]

AS FROM THIS MOMENT I LOCK THIS THREAD!

 

ANY DRAWINGS ON THIS THREAD ARE MY PERSONAL WORKS AND I DO NOT AUTHORISE THEIR USE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM! !!!

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

I don't know what's gotten into you, sir, but you need to calm down and get a grip. This is completely unacceptable.