Jump to content

martillo

Senior Members
  • Posts

    330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by martillo

  1. I was editing while you answering. I will copy my last comment now: It is a relation between the Standard Model and Relativity. It is not a problem between themselves. They are compatible in this. Thank you Eise very much for your advice. If I have something to ask I will count with the forum, thanks.
  2. Please, seems we both are confusing what the other actually say. In that phrase I was talking about the Standard Model not mine. I don't use the same name for mine. I didn't give a name to my model. This way, doesn't Relativity also limit the velocity of propagation of fields and forces like in the "force carriers" too? This is the relation between Relativity and the Standard Model I was talking about.
  3. May be it was just a misunderstanding. I wrote: I was talking about my model, not the Standard Model. Eise, I appreciate your comment. May be you didn't read the following I have posted while answering to studiot: My model have a different configuration of the electrons in the atom, they remain quite static in an equilibrium between electric and magnetic forces with with its associated proton, but it is totally compatible with the "quantum levels" of current theory giving the same spectral series for hydrogen for instance as I show. The model would be also totally compatible with all the geometry already considered in atoms. All these imposible for me to treat here in a thread in the forum, of course, mainly due to the many mistakes I usually make as I admitted.
  4. Too much wrong things I have posted in this thread. I always make mistakes, may be everyday. Even having reason in some things I make too much mistakes while trying to defend them. I apologize. I will not bother you more...
  5. You asked for a reference for "... Relativity stating all fields (including gravity) must act at light velocity only. " right? Actually that is something I have seen in lot forums' discussions, is not based in any scientific document. My perception was that Relativity impose the c limit in the velocity of everything, that nothing can travel at a higher velocity than c. Am I wrong in this? Is there something currently allowed to travel instantaneously through space? Particularly is there any field in current theories that propagates instantaneously? Am I wrong concluding that is Relativity that impose the c limit in the propagation of any field? You know, is really difficult for me to get to the real point in what you are saying. It happened many times to me. I need to read several times your assertions to understand properly what you are trying to transmit. May be it is because English is not my natural language and I get lost while reading. Is not my intention to misunderstand what you say... So you judge something without reading it just because you judge the author doesn't have enough understanding on the subject. So you judge something without knowing anything of what it is about. It is your decision, you close even the possibility to talk about, nothing I could do. To make things worst for me I have made many big mistakes here in this thread. I understand your point of view. How could I revert it? Is there a way?
  6. The Standard Model includes "force carriers" travelling at c velocity of light. Isn't this a condition imposed to match with Relativity? Do you refer to the electron's change in longitudinal size due to the effect of retarded potentials as determined by the original Lorentz's factor introduced by Lorentz which was associated to an increase of mass in the experiments of Kaufmann, Bucherer and Neumann experiments?
  7. The key feature is that the model is based in instantaneous Electric and Magnetic fields as Classical Physics do and that goes against Relativity stating all fields (including gravity) must act at light velocity only. That also goes against the electromagnetic wave theory of light, I know, the model agrees with the particle theory of light (the photons) only and solving the "wave-particle duality" in favor to the particle model only. As everything is inter related in Physics, just a little change somewhere provoke changes in several other places. But there's no other way for a new theory. The paradigm of "welding" all theories doesn't work...
  8. I totally agree with for an angular momentum and the Bohr magneton applied to a small charge but not at all to a point charge. The problem that arises then is how is that small particle meaning to give a structure for the particle. That's what the model I'm working is about. I'm not trying to model ions with some "(-ve)charge rotating about another equal or greater charge". I have no problems with ions now. Once I have admitted being totally wrong with the title of the thread and completely admitting the existence of negative ions I have not any problem with Chemistry now. I can completely agree with everything on Chemistry now. The problem I face now is with the Standard Model of particles. The model is in an advanced stage, advanced enough to be able to deal the main problems it could face to become a new model of all the particles and all the experimental particles observed in high energy Physics, I think. But it also has other big problems with half of the current "Quantum Physics" in what relates to the called "Waves Mechanics Theory" based on the De Broglie hypothesis of "matter waves" associated to the particles. Not to mention the problems it has with Relativity Theory. I'm totally aware about the huge challenge it involves and the enormous task it presents presenting it to discussion. So enormous that it doesn't fit to be presented just as an article in a Physics' journal for peer review and I know now the so enormous difficulty it would face to present the complete model for discussion here in the forum. I'm developing a manuscript with about 120 pages now to send to some universities just with the big hope that someone could take a look and be able to analyze it as properly as I think it deserves. That is the only way I think it could take. I can't think other way. What I have tried in the forum other times is to take some parts of it to put into discussion but is very difficult since everything is inter related in Physics, I'm well aware about that. But it worked sometimes and it was very productive for me to make corrections in the manuscript. May be I come with some other subjects to treat in some other threads in the forum other times. That's in resume the big challenge I'm facing today... P.S. The manuscript presents just a start point for a new theory in Physics, it does not pretend to replace the entire Physics' Science, not at all. It explicitly mention that. It also explicitly mention that I'm not infallible anyway and that adjustments could be necessary.
  9. The problem I mentioned is precisely related to the "spin" (intrinsic angular momentum) of the elementary particles like the electron if they are considered as "point like" particles. As I said in the previous post " I cannot handle the concept of "point like" having a magnetic field. For me the proper definition of magnetic field involves a current element which means a displacement of charge and so imposible to exist "within" a point." I cannot even pretend to replace an entire Science's development of a century myself, no way. But if I come up with an idea that could work for me, I could suggest it to some scientists I could reach for them to consider it and if it were the case to develop it further. I mean, that is something possible for me and for anyone coming up with some idea, for the Science's community to analyze and decide if some new idea could worth to be developed or not. Particularly, this forum could be a place were something new could in principle surge. It could give a first analysis on a new idea which could inspire some scientists about something new in Science. This is my approach while discussing things here. The problem I find is that when presenting something new it is always demanded to fully demonstrate it even experimentally as if I would have already solved it all. Fortunately exists this the "Speculations" place in the forum where new things could be proposed to be discussed. At least one door open to something new...
  10. I apologize... I was going in a very wrong way, very wrong, and you all showed me that. Hope not had made you waste your time too much. I admit now that even the statement of the title "No material can have a negative charge" is totally wrong. Negative materials do exist (as the discussed balloons), negative ions do exist, the commonly considered "ground" electric potential is not any positive potential, things cannot be explained by just the difference in positive potentials, a really zero potential is achieved at normal temperatures just whenever atoms have all of their electrons and not at 0ºK as I was considering... What a wrong way! I admit. Thanks to have made me "fall to the ground". I'm working on a model for the basic atomic particles considering them as not "point like" particles as is currently considered, I know. I cannot handle the concept of "point like" having a magnetic field. For me the proper definition of magnetic field involves a current element which means a displacement of charge and so imposible to exist "within" a point. A model still under development and I'm not thinking in abandon it easily although I need to reformulate it in something now. May be I could return with some other thing in mind to discuss in the forum at some time. Hope to not bother you too much...
  11. Trolling??? No, no way, not at all. I wouldn't waste my time that way, never. I got confused in many things in this thread and made many big mistakes, I admit, but trolling no... I'm not handling this discussion here anymore. I think I will not continue...
  12. I can't believe, I got astonished. I was considering you very knowledgeable and you can't think in the hydrogen atom as a dipole. Hydrogen atom has just one proton and one electron, right? A positive proton and a negative electron, right? So, a positive charge and a negative charge. Now, from wikipedia the definition of a dipole: "An electric dipole deals with the separation of the positive and negative charges found in any electromagnetic system. A simple example of this system is a pair of electric charges of equal magnitude but opposite sign separated by some typically small distance." Can't then the hydrogen atom be considered a dipole? Why? Please, I don't really understand how you can disagree... I was confusing covalent bonds with ionic bonds at that time. I apologize, Chemistry actually is not my area and we strongly entered it. I think I will not be able to handle the discussion anymore now...
  13. And I would be another one. I'm a bit crank, I admit, although with great reason sometimes... Just disappointed now...
  14. I would like to know what they would think about what I'm saying now here. By te way, I find this thread very productive for me. I apologize for my mistakes. I was wrong many times. I deserve those negative likes...
  15. I think you missed what I was editing: Now you may ask for negatively ionized H20 in the clouds. I think that the system of surface of earth and clouds can be modelled as a capacitor but I need to think more about this... Thinking in the molecule of H2O and considering the rare negative ion of hydrogen (which I admitted before as possible negative ion) I'm thinking in the clouds' molecules of H2O (which is very asymmetric) composed with that negative hydrogen ion and disposed down to earth... I have a reason to admit that negative ion of hydrogen as possible. I think in the normal hydrogen atom as a dipole with the positive proton in one side and the negative electron on the other side. The configuration for the negative ion for hydrogen would be: electron - proton - electron aligned in a straight line. It is possible since each electron "sees" the proton nearer than the other electron and so it "sees" a net positive electric field in front attracting it. The configuration would be stable. Then I'm forced to admit other possible negative ions to exist. Those composed with this negative hydrogen ion now, I know. Thinking a lot about all this. Productive thread!
  16. They could be captured by some positively charged atom. Thinking in Earth, lot of positively atoms exist due to the photoelectric effect caused by sun's radiation of photons, at least temporarily. By the way, the surface of Earth is in average positively charged since it attracts electrons from clouds producing lightning.
  17. As an Electrical Engineer y know that free electrons can also go to the "ground", other "objects" or even to the deep space...
  18. Much things would remain to be explained. Thanks to pointing out some of them now. The picture in the link shows Cs+ positive ions of Cs created. Wouldn't this machine create positive ions in spite of negative ones as it is said may be wrongly in the page of the link? I'm suspicious about it... It also shows an oven in the apparatus what means heat and for me what heat produce is lose of electrons in atoms due to the photoelectric effect. Everything makes me think the machine actually produce positive ions!!!
  19. I appreciate your comments about those experiments and observations. What I'm handling as a possible alternative explanation for ionic bonds is inspired in the H2O molecule which is very asymmetric as everybody would know. With this in mind I came up with the idea that negative ions could actually be just very asymmetric atoms which would be neutral but due to the asymmetry could behave as an electric dipole presenting a positive side and a negative side. This way the negative side could well make an "ionic bond" with a positive ion. I have no problem with positive ions since they would come up from a neutral atom just losing an electron. I'm thinking this could be a valid explanation but I need further research about first, I know... I would need an explanation for this too as I can see now...
  20. Is obvious for who not care about more electrons than protons existing in an atom. I'm worried about that and thinking if it would be really possible. A good explanation received by exchemist was involving two electrons with opposite spins occupying same level of energy in agreement with Pauli's exclusion principle but I'm considering if other way is possible without two electrons in the same level. I know now that it will not be so easy to present it as really possible and that would need to study several phenomena for that as exchemist pointed out. I'm well aware about that. Is there any experiment detecting negative ions the way your picture shows? I mean gas chambers or similar. I agree now, I must study the subject a lot before pointing out such possibility. I'm not thinking in a non existing ionic bond but just in it working in a different way than it is explained. Hard thing to do anyway, aware now.
  21. You mention two possibilities for making the bonds. I stay with the second one. I think chemical bonds with shared electrons can be perfectly explained with electrons in outers positions of the atom in a way that can be easily shared by atoms with other atoms which would have a structure that would accept those shared electrons. This way there´s no need to consider that possibility of atoms becoming negative ions.
  22. Right but I'm explaining them with just single electrons in the orbitals only, not needing extra electrons in the atom. I mean they would not become negatively charged... You were right in pointing the mistake: I already edited it. Luckily had time to the edition removing "the nucleus" from the phrase.
  23. Again, I think I can explain them with the spatial structure of them "having some outer electrons in their atomic structure which can be shared for chemical bonds with other atoms" as I pointed above...
  24. Well, I have to apologize for me being wrong in some things while trying to defend the statement of the title of the thread, I admit. I made a deep review of my point of view and it needs some big corrections. Taking a look at the TRIUMFF cyclotron working with the rare ion of hydrogen having one proton and two electrons I must make just one exception to rule. In mathematics it is said that the exception makes the rule. In my case the exception to the "rule" that no "material" (thing composed by atoms and at least one atom) can be negatively is that rare hydrogen ion. The other ions are perfectly explained by the spatial distribution of their positive protons and negative electrons having some outer electrons in their atomic structure which can be shared for chemical bonds with other atoms. The other subject already pointed in the thread several times is that common "materials" at normal temperatures are all neutral with zero charge. I realized now that is right but that can be explained by the distribution of the charges. I mean at normal temperatures there are electrons expulsed from the atoms (which become positively charged) but these electrons stay orbiting around although not in any of the atoms' quantum levels. This way the "materials" they compose stay neutral with zero net charge as "seen" by other "materials" around. So I was wrong in my statements about things just being at some positive potential at normal temperatures and that just a difference in the potentials would explain it all, I admit. Things are normally neutral with zero net charge... The problem of the charged balloons repelling each other also need a review now. I think now that the balloons become positively charged and not negatively. I mean they lose electrons, not gain electrons... But there is precisely the key on the subject of the thread... I think I can explain them with the spatial structure of them "having some outer electrons in their atomic structure which can be shared for chemical bonds with other atoms" as I pointed above...
×
×
  • 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.