Butch

17 hours ago, swansont said:

How do you find the energy levels? What about the angular momentum? Why doesn't the electron spiral in to the proton?

I cannot do the complex math for the orbitals, I would greatly appreciate help in that area.

If the proton and electron did not collide but merged it would be momentary as the proton is not a black hole.

I have tried both scenarios with my models ( collision and merging) I was not able to create stability, it seems that if the dance is correct, it is such that neither occurs... If such an event did occur the atom would decay.

Rough schematics:

Perhaps it will help to explain how I tripped upon this model...

I have always had a problem with the role of the neutron in the atom, I was trying to model an atom where electron proton pairs periodically merged forming neutrons and giving up their kinetic energy to a neutron which then decayed into a fresh proton electron pair. Failure! However the simulation I had created used only protons and electrons which hypothetically would combine and decay. I would try placing these particles in my direct3d "space" at guesstimated positions and velocities then I would allow it to run... for hours or days. One day I was observing a model that had been running for days and had not dissipated(as so many had) and I realized that although the model had some stability, none of the pairs were combining. It was a stable model of a helium atom. I backtracked and found that I was able to produce stable forms of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium!

So you see, it was not my great physics knowledge, my talent with mathematics or even my great abstract thinking that brought me to this... It was serendipity.

So now what do I do? Chuck it in the waste basket or seek help?

Just now, studiot said:

The only atom with two protons is called helium.

Deuterium has one proton and one neutron.

In my model of deuterium at least one electron would be in the loose area of the nucleus, this area would be close to the associated proton group, however what we call the nucleus would extend to a range where the electron charge would be obscured somewhat giving the impression of a nucleus with a +1 charge, we would interpret this as 1 proton and 1 neutron, when it is actually 2 protons and a high energy electron.

My reasoning for thinking this is correct is demonstrated with a mind experiment, the tritium model can be thought of like weaving braids. While 1 electron is at apogee, another is in the "nucleus range" moving towards the proton group, another is in a similar range exiting the nucleus... What happens if we try to add another proton electron pair? How would the atom have to be constructed for stability?

I must leave you now, however let me leave you with this:

In the models of hydrogen and helium we can think of them as 2 dimensional, that is you can diagram them on a sheet of paper. The electron paths so far have been opposing or perpendicular. When we move on to lithium however, for things to remain this way we must become 3 dimensional. That fits quite well don't you think?

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Then it is not deuterium, it is helium.

 

So let us model helium with two protons and consider your model of the passage of one of the electrons through the gap.

Classically, as you say, the electron will exert a pulling together force on both protons.

At some point when it is close enough this force will be greater than the mutual repulsive force of the two positive charges, depending upon the dimensions of the gap.

This effect will be greatest when the electron is centered between the two protons.

After this point the effect will diminish as the electrons passes the centre.

So the passage of the electron will cause the protons to oscillate closer and further in position.

 

Have I understood your model correctly?

 

Yes!... However this is not helium(no neutrons), it is deuterium! The electron passing close to the proton nucleus would be detected as a neutron, by charge and mass!

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Solve hydrogen first, before you worry about the n-body problem. You'll have enough of a problem with that, I suspect.

Hydrogen 1 is simple, the electron orbits the proton, the proton will wobble a bit, but very easily a stable atom and the building block of more complex atoms... And that is where the dance becomes important.

35 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Note deuterium has only one electron.

 

Here is my problem.

Take the simplest atom, that of hydrogen with exactly one proton and one electron.

You say that the electron passes through the nucleus, and the centre of the hydrogen nucleus is smack bang in the centre of its only proton.

So the electron must pass clean through the proton.

 

Hydrogen is the exception, in hydrogen the electron simply orbits the proton.

In my model deuterium has two electrons and two protons... No neutrons however an electron is almost always in the "area" we refer to as the nucleus. The nucleus is not a tightly packed collection of protons and neutrons, but rather an associated group of protons with plenty of space for electrons to fall through.

I would love to present a movie of my model unfortunately it would take a month or more to produce a meaningful few seconds, also direct3d is incremental and the model is huge(proper representation of an atom would allow a movie of on ly the nucleus). This model will require calculus and very complex orbital equations... And then there is the n-body problem. I am a competent programmer, perhaps someone knows of a suitable animation app? I am currently limited to my smart phone.

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't follow this.

You say the protons are pulled back.

Why or what do you think pulls the proton(s)?

Pulled back from where to where?

The electrons passing through the nucleus have great velocity, great enough to pull the protons back towards the "center" of the atomic structure... I created atoms by just putting things on my direct3d space and starting the animation. I was rarely successful(the first one was an accident created while I was exploring another hypothesis, which has proven false). Think of this as the same effect that occurs when planets orbit suns, only gravity has very little to do with this, the electric force is the main operator here.

Deuterium is the simplest to understand, the path of the electrons are duplicates, but operating on opposite sides of the atomic structure.

.          o.o

Like that.

Note that the nucleus represented by the o's(protons) and the . (electron) would seem to have a potential of +1.

The apparent mass of the nucleus would be greater than the combined rest mass of 2 protons and 1 electron.

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Although my question was rhetorical and addressed to swansont, thank you for attempting an answer.

I would be more than interested for you to expand on the mechanics of a positive proton hurling a negative electron away as well as electrons herding protons.

 

In my model as an electron passes through the nucleus the protons are pulled back towards the "center" , note that the protons maintain a separation... I have never witnessed anything close to a collision... Not surprising I am sure you will agree. The "nucleus" is a rather loose knit affair and seems to reach a quiessent state... A balance. 

I realize that by this model, atoms would usually evolve from the first isotope of hydrogen where indeed the electron orbits the nucleus (a single proton). A helium atom forming spontaneously would be a very rare event as the protons would likely never find proximity.

I have been able to construct the three stable isotopes of hydrogen and the most stable isotope of hydrogen... No more... At this point I believe it would be best if I presented schematic models to someone who can deal with the complex orbital math.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

The first several posts were consistent with that. But you have a valid point; this is now in speculations. We discuss the questions in light of the OP's parameters: the electron has a trajectory, as described.

Very true, my model is quite linear... While the true nature of any particle is a field or interaction of fields, the basic sub--atomic particles have a center (outside of qm of course.). I will admit that I am not a fan of qm,  but it is certainly valid science. I suspect I will not gather many fans of my hypothesis, I will not call it valid science as I lack the math and physics abilities to take it very far. That being said... On the surface it fits very well with the sequence of elements, perhaps it presents a better view of bonding, but I really start to hit an n-body problem beyond lithium. I am able to plug math (given definition of terms) into the model, I just don't have the math or physics (or fast enough processors). 

The benefits seem worth the effort, perhaps we could manipulate materials in ways that we cannot now imagine. 

7 hours ago, studiot said:

Then why is this thread in Modern and Theoretical Physics, not Classical Physics, if we can't use all available to explain/describe something?

How, for instance, do purely mechanical charged balls lead to chemical bonding?

And why does a classical nucleus, with all that positive charge, not violently tear itself apart?

In my successful models, indeed one would expect the nucleus to tear apart, however even with the simple physics of my models the electrons seem to herd the protons, they take one step forward and then one step back as they hurl the electrons away. 

Bonding, I have not begun to attempt.

14 minutes ago, studiot said:

Are you sending them to dancing class?

 

If we could do that we would be God's! I am saying that in stable isotopes the dance is there. If it is not, "close but no cigar" and no atom. The dance does not have to be perfect, some atoms will decay quickly.

Note that in this model we can also do away with the strong and weak nuclear forces as the higher energy electrons falling through the nucleus would tend to "herd" the protons and I have already mentioned that more complex elements and isotopes would have a more critical dance and would tend to "decay" with a shorter half life.

The models I have built use only gravity and electric, I am a bit short on physics and math to do much more. The models seem to work, however I can only observe them for a few hundred cycles over a period of days. I have however pushed a deuterium atom to decay.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

Velocity of an orbital electron is not well-defined. It will have a kinetic energy, of several electron-Volts (perhaps tens of eV), depending on the atom. S-state electrons do this quite a lot.

Excellent! I am trying to put together an atomic model sans neutrons... It seems to work well. I am proposing a model in which the electrons (and the protons in the nucleus for that matter) have a rythm to them, a simple example would be deuterium as one electron approaches the nucleus another is approaching apogee... Giving the illusion of a neutral particle and a single electron. The electron in close vicinity to the nucleus would have greater velocity and greater apparent mass. Tritium would be similar. If we add a fourth electron proton pair we will get either a very unstable isotope of hydrogen... Or if the rythm is right a very stable helium atom sans protons in the same manner.

The models I have built in my head and even some I have built with direct3d seem to work, note that the dance of such a model would become more critical with the complexity of the atom.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

No I mean this.

There are two types of electron.

1) Those that belong to the same atom/molecule as the nucleus.

2) Those that are exterior to this atom/molecule.

 

 

 

 

Oh, okay... Much simpler than I thought.. those that belong to the nucleus of an atom (not a molecule for now.).

Good question, I assume you are referring to quantum v ... Please educate me.

What might its peak velocity be and how would its apparent mass compare to its rest mass?

On 11/8/2017 at 7:13 PM, Strange said:

And you believed him?

By abandoning the agreement, the US will not be helping anyone. (But will, of course, benefit from the work that all the other countries do to meet the goals.)

I'm not sure what you/Trump think the agreement is about. It almost sounds like you think it is about the US bailing out other countries, or something. In fact it is about all countries doing their bit. The US is now, I believe, the only country that has refused to agree to do their best to reduce the effects of climate change. Luckily, industry and many states are more intelligent, and have a better grasp of the science, than Trump and his anti-science cronies.

The U.S. was helping before the Accord and will help still... But on our own terms. 

Is China doing its bit, India? If a country is developed enough to produce nuclear weapons it is developed enough for clean energy! Perhaps you have not read the terms of the Paris Accord?

https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwih7tjJhLTXAhUCS2MKHaZhDgQQFggzMAA&usg=AOvVaw1a5d54sI9wYCXIa00vWfIi

The clean air act of 1963 led the world, long before the Paris Accord... Sounds like the world needs to catch up, via our leadership!

On 11/7/2017 at 6:40 AM, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You are going to have to start backing up your claims. How about starting with this one. Make your case.

 

He is not knowledgeable when it comes to science, for example... He wants to establish a moon base in preparation for a manned Mars mission. I know his thinking on a Mars mission is wrong, however he has a knack for finding the right people. He has expressed the feeling that American technology is helping the planet as a whole. When he left the Paris Accord he stated that American technology produces the most efficient and cleanest facilities on Earth and this technology is being shared even in the third world.

I think he was right in leaving the Accord, this country is more than willing to help them who help themselves, we should not be held to help those who are not.

Most of the naysayers are focused on climate change... I believe climate change is happening, I also believe the U.S. is leading the world in reducing pollution. That said, if man had never appeared on Earth, the climate would still be changing and I don't think there really is a lot we can do about it... Even if we could turn on a machine that would regulate the climate, I don't think we should play around with such things... We are not gods.

Here is a quote from a Trump interview you can find it all over the web... Spun many different ways.

"Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous."

Sounds like science to me.

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

We have already pointed out that he changes his story more often than some folk change their socks.

If he believes one thing  on odd numbered days and another thing on even numbered ones, doesn't that show he's just swaying in the breeze of public opinion?

 

It shows that you are swaying in the breeze, if you see a story, check your facts, educate yourself... Don't just go along with popular opinion... I am not saying change your opinions, just don't be a blind follower.

Trump could be a complete disaster! I just think he was the best option at the time and I hope it shows a change in the attitudes of Americans when we choose our elected officials.

8 minutes ago, Butch said:

Glad you clarified that.
Perhaps you can explain which of them is the one that makes you look like a competent businessman.

A reorganizational bankruptcy, holds off creditors while a business tries to recover... It is a difficult, but usually wise business decision. It is done in the private sector, not via big brother and if it is successful the creditors are satisfied. It is better for everyone than locking the doors and walking away.

Study: Lee Iacoca and Chrysler Corp.

17 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I have made this point on science forums more than once.  Sure they write a bigger check to government but they get that money from their consumers in the middle class.  Those that argue against this point must know it is true, but they don't care, because they simply want more tax revenue for the government.  

They get that money from anyone who buys their products. Business tax is a hidden tax, it is a tax on the consumer... All consumers! 

If it we're eliminated and replaced by a sales tax, how would you feel about paying it?

16 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Which sort of bankruptcy should I be looking for when I'm choosing a businessman to run the world's biggest economy?

Definitely chapter 11, reference Lee Iacoca.

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

OK, so a bankruptcy is  a bankruptcy, but a bankruptcy isn't.
The bankruptcy he declared wasn't a bankruptcy. 

Glad you clarified that.
Perhaps you can explain which of them is the one that makes you look like a competent businessman.

(Do you think anyone is still taking you seriously)
 

Are all the consumers middle class in your world?
 

You need to do some studying...

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is it really much better when the only reason that’s true is because he got bailed out by a rich friend?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/business/stephen-bollenbach-dead.html

Yeah, I think I said something about that earlier, I guess he should have gone to big brother.

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

He is the Big Boy.

He just snatched the government for himself (and his rich friends).

That's why he's destroying regulatory legislation.

We will have to wait and see if that is true, however we still need to seek statesman, not politicians to take the reins.

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Perhaps you see the contradiction in your posts, submitted only 5 m8 utes apart

A chapter 13 personal bankruptcy and a chapter 11 company reorganization bankruptcy are as different as bananas and okra. Donald Trump has never declared bankruptcy.

1 minute ago, Butch said:

Absolutely true! That is what politicians do! IMHO Trump might be able to snatch government away from the "big boys".

Do any of you realize who pays corporate taxes? You do, for corporations it is just the cost of doing business, it gets passed on to the consumer. If corporations want to avoid that cost, they simply do their business in another country.

I wholly do not agree with Trump's trade policies, protectionism has been tried and tried and it has failed and failed. I am not a blind follower, I just think we have a chance with Trump.

15 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

His values are to say he's a patriot, but to export jobs.

We know how well that sort of thing went

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2008

You seem to have forgotten that it was the banks that got bailed out by a govt safety net. The Big Boys were never at any real risk. That's the joy of gambling with other people's money.

 

Absolutely true! That is what politicians do! IMHO Trump might be able to snatch government away from the "big boys".

Do any of you realize who pays corporate taxes? You do, for corporations it is just the cost of doing business, it gets passed on to the consumer. If corporations want to avoid that cost, they simply do their business in another country.

I did quite well in '07 and '08, I quit playing when the government started pouring money into the markets.

There was a time in this country, when you knew your neighbor, you knew when he needed a hand up and if you could you extended that hand... Now everyone looks to big brother and he really doesn't give a Damn about you.

Just now, waitforufo said:

You won't find many people like that on this blog Butch.  Most here not only want a safety net, but one that's no more than an inch beneath their posterior.  In their minds profit is something owned by the community to be distributed by government.

I am all for socialism on a small level, it is good to have community to do those things... It is not our governments job.

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

 

He did not change his story, just his actions, he is very anti media... And I don't blame him.

Just now, John Cuthber said:

No, but I know that, on average, stocks go up so, in the long term it's easy to eke out a profit.

 

Yeah, I am talking about things like trading futures... In one minute out the next and hope you grabbed a few dollars. If making a dollar we're easy, a dollar would not be worth much. Trump's job is really tough... Really tough, especially when he chooses to stick to his values and he isn't doing it for the money.