farmboy

Thouroughly interesting post.

Because this would lead to an increase in the energy levels of the electrons prior to their moving from one energy level to another, but that just doesn't happen. With what you are suggesting we would see continuous absorption and emission (think I already said this lol) since an electron in one instance could say make up say 17% of the energy required to 'jump' from collisions and then the other 83% from a photon or whatever. Essentially it would mean that all wavelengths could potentially be absorbed. That just doesn't happen dude, what you are suggesting doesn't fit with the experimental data. Again dude I'm not familiar with any of the terms you have put inside inverted commas, so I'm not really well placed to comment on this part of the theory. I can say though that if you are going to make a theory you should start with the evidence and make it fit that, rather than trying to work around the evidence to formulate a theory which sounds personally good to you.

It doesn't matter if the kinetic energy of a molecule is continuous or not though, the energy levels of electrons aren't, and that is what I'm asking about. Collisions etc do cause a number of other changes in atoms, whether that be a change in momentum or the like or some sort of quantum change. As far as I know the change in momentum would not necessarily be quantized, but this just has nothing to do with the energy of electrons being quantized dude. Energy levels simply don't change a little bit like you are hoping/imagining, they jump straight from one level to another and go back down again, always in jumps of specific energy. And nah dude, I'm really not sure what that first part means at all sorry. Why do you think that electron waves ''have to link up in a way that creates whole numbers of waves'' and how exactly are you imagining this exists in real terms? I mean you also seem to be basing it on the assumption that electrons can't overlap one another. Is that definitely true? I know the pauli exclusion principle states that two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state (or something like this), but I'm not sure that means that no two electrons can overlap like you are suggesting, they just need to have slightly different energy levels, but then could still orbit the same nucleus presumably also inhabiting the same space. So no need for them to line up in whole numbers or anything like that.

What do you mean by the precession of equinoxes, and what twisting motion are you referring to?

That doesn't happen though dude, not as far as I know anyway. The example with the water deforming doesn't explain it either so far as I can see. Okay so say there is a minimum amount of energy needed to deform the water in some way (actually I'm not sure that there is) but that doesn't in anyway explain why there are multiple energy levels that the electron can move to each requiring absorption of a discrete amount of energy. It shows how their might be one energy level, but doesn't explain quantization in any way. Again dude, thats not what happens. Look at the atomic spectra of different elements for example. We can identify the different elements that make up stars based on the light they emit. Each element produces a distinct spectra which we can identify based on the different energy levels which are missing. These missing energy levels correspond directly to the electron transitions which occur within that atom. If what you were suggesting were actually taking place then we would essentially see all wavelegths of light being absobed since energies less than the exact amount needed to change energy levels would still cause some change in the electrons. There were a couple of bits in your post that I didn't really understand though (I've put them in bold), I don't think they could change the points I made (that is all still true to the best of my knowledge) but just thought I'd point that out incase I was missing something significant. I study chemistry rather than physics just, and I don't always understand all the physics terminology.

Because you have an electron which has energy assosciated with it, then if it interacts with the nucleus you no longer have an electron and so the energy assosciated with it is transfered into other forms. The energy transformation is real, it just has nothing to do with converting volume into energy since volume isn't a type of energy.

I'm not sure how that explains what I said though dude, or even really relates to it. For example a ball of water being broken into different fragments, the fragments will all technically be quantized since they will consist of multiple basic units (atoms) and the energy required to seperate them will therefore be related to the total number of electrostaic attractions and the energy needed to break them and so would perhaps also be quantized (i'm not sure actually if that is accurate), but either way your theory does not exlpain why the same thing would happen with electrons moving up energy levels. Okay so an atom absorbs different amounts of energy, some of that energy causes other processes within the atoms, but some very specific amounts are absorbed and cause electron transitions. How do you explain the quantized nature of the enrgy which causes these transitions. With the water we know that there (is perhaps) quantization caused by the fact that water can be broken down into individual molecules, what causes the same effect in an electron? Again dude this doesn't actually explain why atomic processes, caused by absorption of energy, only work with dicrete packets of energy. All that does is show what might happen to any energy that isn't used up by these processes, and isn't related to what I said. The important part isn't what happens to any energy not used in electron transitions but rather what causes electron energy changes to directly correspond to quantized amounts of energy. The way you've suggested it seems that these processes would not be quantized.

He probably doesn't want to say that, because that isn't what is happening dude. Volume isn't being transformed into energy. The change in volume (assuming that even does happen) is just coincidental, not the actual cause of energy transfer.

Ah cool, I don't really know the answer, but if I had to speculate I'm not sure that those types of orbital diagrams really cover that area. They basically just show the orbital where electons of certain energies are likely to be found, though they can be found elsewhere in the universe.

I heard that space was the final frontier.

How do you mean dude? Like the type of diagram that shows the way the electrons in molecules arrange themselves (series of lines with arrows in the different places) or as in the actualy picture of what the atomic/molecular orbitals look like. Or something else completely lol?

Why does the energy go up in increments after you have reached the threshold then? If it was just an energy threshold that caused the initial quantization then I would have thought that above that level you would be able to add energy continuously, but you can't the next level up is also quantized.

From my limited understanding of the subject, this seems to be pure trash. The ''explanation'' of how this works just didn't seem to make much sense.

How are you meant to turn volume into energy?

No the part I've highlighted just isn't true. Values of c are always entirely independent of distance.

You say that dude, but then every single time you talk about electrons you do so from a classical perspective. If the electromagnetic force isn't strong, why do the electrons even hang around? Why do we need to put in large amounts of energy to seperate an electron. And how do you explain the fact that the energy of electrons is quantized rather than continuous?

Wondering this same thing myself. Do you mean you find it hard to read about chemistry, or is it the shorthand/nomenclature and stuff.

Assuming my understanding is correct, then it seems to me that people in this thread (not everyone of course) are sort of ignoring the bit I've highlighted above. You see this all the time in sci fi when they delve into this topic, all the alternate realities are the products of human decisions rather than what I thought the theory actually states, which is that all the alternate realities correspond to different quantum 'decisions'.

You are still thinking about electons like they are little balls of negative charge flying around a nucleus at different distances depending on their energy levels. This isn't an accurate representation of what an atom is actually like though, this is just something that we teach children when they are first learning chemistry because it gives them an idea about the nature of atoms without making it too complex. Orbitals actually look like this.... ....with the energy levels increasing left to right and top to bottom.

Is the OP really serious with this suggestion? Apologies as I haven't read the whole thread but the original post iritated me lol. I've lived in England 1 year (Irish originally) and I can genuinely say of the many hundreds of english people I've met not one had a lisp.

No idea what WHIMS is lol. I'm from UK just incase you are american and the qualification isn't international. But yeah in my experience being good in the lab is very much comparable to being good in the kitchen. You need to have an intuitive nature with regards to the progress that a reaction will take (and cooking is basically just a lot of chemical reactions at the end of the day anyway). But yeah the safety stuff is the only thing I can think of still. Maybe someone else will come along with something else though, so don't take my advice as absolute lol.

Hmmm, thats a hard one. Personally I've always found that lab work is actually very simple in chemistry (cooking a quality meal is perhaps harder), it is the theoretical side which is tough so I'm not sure there really is that much you can learn in advance. I work in a lab every day (PG student) and I still quite often look up the best ways to set up my aparatus or silly stuff like does the water go into the top or bottom of a condensor lol (happened today) so I wouldnt worry too much. I'd say enthusiam is more important than anything else from what you have said. If you really want to learn something though, then I'd go with safety regulations. COSHH crap, basic laboratory rules (no running with scissors lol) and stuff like that. Maybe the names of some common chemicals. HCl, NaOH, acetone, diethyl ether etc.

How does your theory match all known data? Do you genuinely believe this to be true? So far as I can see all you have done is make this statement, but not actually shown how or why it is true.

Evidence? EDIT Seriously dude, how do you arrive at these conclusions? I am genuinely curious. As far as I can see there is no logic in your conclusions, it is just the ideas that sound good or accurate to you. Is this about right?

Yeah I know, but I'd have to do all those equations to even guess what the change might be. Since I left secondary school I don't think I've ever had to worry about the colour change of a reaction, so it's not like I know them off the top of my head either unfortunately. I think you probably would need to have witnessed them to know exactly what happens. If you are going to have to guess then what you should do is get the right answer for every equation. Different metal ions have different colours in solution so that is what the colour will be based on, now the problem here is that you are probably going to have more than one ion in each case so that will make things more complicated. So apparently Mn2+ solutions are very pale pink or colourless and Fe3+ is yellow in solution, so that is why you get a change to yellow in that first case. You'll have to work out the rest in the same manner.