A new atom model （static electron configuration model )

[John Ye]

55 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Once again, you are telling me things I didn't ask for and in this case specifically excluded.

Why do you expect me to read your script if you persistently ignore mine?

I have taken pains to be fair and take notice of what you are proposing specifically I asked if a certain term in one of your equations was zero under certain conditions.

(1−R／r)

 

Would you agree that this is zero when R = r or is your equation wrong?

The answer is yes. It is zero when r=R. Obviously yes. 

1 minute ago, John Ye said:

(1−R／r)

 

Would you agree that this is zero when R = r or is your equation wrong?

The answer is yes. It is zero when r=R. Obviously yes. 

When r=R, the force = 0, so electron can stay there without any motion.

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Would you agree that this is zero when R = r or is your equation wrong?

The answer is yes. It is zero when r=R. Obviously yes. 

Would you further agree that your equation 2 contains the same zero when n_e = n_p since their ratio is then one?

 

I was specifically starting with the simplest possible situation ie one electron and one proton.

[John Ye]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Would you further agree that your equation 2 contains the same zero when n_e = n_p since their ratio is then one?

 

I was specifically starting with the simplest possible situation ie one electron and one proton.

Yes. Equation 2 is an extended version of equation 1, for the case when more than one electrons are attached within an atom.

1 minute ago, John Ye said:

Yes. Equation 2 is an extended version of equation 1, for the case when more than one electrons are attached within an atom.

And in equation 2, the R is no longer a constant.  It depends the number of electrons and protons.

3 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Yes. Equation 2 is an extended version of equation 1, for the case when more than one electrons are attached within an atom.

And in equation 2, the R is no longer a constant.  It depends the number of electrons and protons.

In equation 1, one electron with one proton, R is constant, its value is Bohr radius. 52.9pm

[swansont]

4 hours ago, John Ye said:

First, read my paper, I explained how the spectrum quantization happens. I tried my best to explain it. 

I asked about your claim about angular momentum, not energy.

32 minutes ago, John Ye said:

When r=R, the force = 0, so electron can stay there without any motion.

How does it get there? If it's moving, there will be no force, so it won't stay there. It will oscillate about an equilibrium point, at best.

[John Ye]

Just now, swansont said:

I asked about your claim about angular momentum, not energy.

There is no concept of angular momentum in my model.  The model assume that electron is static, no circular motion, so angular momentum does not exist.

As for how to explain the fine structure, something new must be introduced

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

I asked about your claim about angular momentum, not energy.

How does it get there? If it's moving, there will be no force, so it won't stay there. It will oscillate about an equilibrium point, at best.

Yes, you're right. The balanced points constitute a balanced sphere.  The electron shifts in it, with vibrations in the direction of radius, in normal temperature.

When temperature is extremely low, the electron will be totally static. Without any moving.

9 minutes ago, John Ye said:

There is no concept of angular momentum in my model.  The model assume that electron is static, no circular motion, so angular momentum does not exist.

As for how to explain the fine structure, something new must be introduced

Yes, you're right. The balanced points constitute a balanced sphere.  The electron shifts in it, with vibrations in the direction of radius, in normal temperature.

When temperature is extremely low, the electron will be totally static. Without any moving.

In absolute zero k, there will be no any electron movement. But the atoms and molecules are OK.

[studiot]

28 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Yes. Equation 2 is an extended version of equation 1, for the case when more than one electrons are attached within an atom.

And in equation 2, the R is no longer a constant.  It depends the number of electrons and protons.

In equation 1, one electron with one proton, R is constant, its value is Bohr radius. 52.9pm

Doesn't the The Bohr Model only apply to the hydrogen atom?

In any event I specified r = R, whatever value you put on it, so the term in those brackets is still exactly zero.

 

 

Now tell me,

If there is another positive charge of any description beyond R, for any reason, will it exert a greater or lesser force on that electron than its own nucleus, since we have just calculated that force to be exactly zero?

[John Ye]

29 minutes ago, John Ye said:

There is no concept of angular momentum in my model.  The model assume that electron is static, no circular motion, so angular momentum does not exist.

As for how to explain the fine structure, something new must be introduced

Yes, you're right. The balanced points constitute a balanced sphere.  The electron shifts in it, with vibrations in the direction of radius, in normal temperature.

When temperature is extremely low, the electron will be totally static. Without any moving.

In absolute zero k, there will be no any electron movement. But the atoms and molecules are OK.

So,in this model, the motion of electron is NOT a must. It is a temperature dependent feature. In Bohr model and in quantum model, the motion of electron is a must. If electron stopped moving, the atoms would be vanished because electrons crash into proton.

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

Doesn't the The Bohr Model only apply to the hydrogen atom?

In any event I specified r = R, whatever value you put on it, so the term in those brackets is still exactly zero.

 

 

Now tell me,

If there is another positive charge of any description beyond R, for any reason, will it exert a greater or lesser force on that electron than its own nucleus, since we have just calculated that force to be exactly zero?

Yes. The term must be zero. 

Bohr model can only be used with H.

So does quantum model.

If other proton approaches an H atom, it will be exert an attractive force to the electron, the balanced point will be changed. It will no longer be R. In this case, a hydrogen molecule will be formed.

Edited August 29, 2018 by John Ye

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, John Ye said:

If electron stopped moving, the atoms would be vanished because electrons crash into proton.

So why doesn’t this happen in your model?

[John Ye]

Sorry, it's too late for me, I will go to bed.

Talk to you tomorrow.

[studiot]

26 minutes ago, John Ye said:

So,in this model, the motion of electron is NOT a must. It is a temperature dependent feature. In Bohr model and in quantum model, the motion of electron is a must. If electron stopped moving, the atoms would be vanished because electrons crash into proton.

Yes. The term must be zero. 

Bohr model can only be used with H.

So does quantum model.

If other proton approaches an H atom, it will be exert an attractive force to the electron, the balanced point will be changed. It will no longer be R. In this case, a hydrogen molecule will be formed.

 

14 minutes ago, John Ye said:

Sorry, it's too late for me, I will go to bed.

Talk to you tomorrow.

 Please stop answering questions I haven't asked.

It wastes your time and mine.

You have more than one misconception and I'm trying to take them one at a time.

 

Before you come back please look up the following, if you are not familiar with them.

 

Earnshaw's theorem.

Lennard Jones Potential (This is a theory very similar to yours)

Madelung constants.

Biot- Savart Law

 

They are all very relevant theory.

Edited August 29, 2018 by studiot

[swansont]

2 hours ago, John Ye said:

There is no concept of angular momentum in my model.  The model assume that electron is static, no circular motion, so angular momentum does not exist.

Then your model is wrong, or at least incomplete.

A stationary electron means there would be an electric dipole moment. Do you have any evidence that neutral, ground state atoms possess these dipole moments?

 

2 hours ago, John Ye said:

Yes, you're right. The balanced points constitute a balanced sphere.  The electron shifts in it, with vibrations in the direction of radius, in normal temperature.

Then the energy will be variable, depending on the temperature. Any evidence that this is true?

Why doesn't the electron, which would be accelerating from these vibrations, radiate?

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why doesn't the electron, which would be accelerating from these vibrations, radiate?

I was getting to that.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, John Ye said:

So,in this model, the motion of electron is NOT a must. It is a temperature dependent feature.

So why isn’t angular momentum proportional to temperature? 

[John Ye]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Then your model is wrong, or at least incomplete.

A stationary electron means there would be an electric dipole moment. Do you have any evidence that neutral, ground state atoms possess these dipole moments?

 

Then the energy will be variable, depending on the temperature. Any evidence that this is true?

Why doesn't the electron, which would be accelerating from these vibrations, radiate?

Electrons have the lowest energy when they are in the balanced point.

The vibrations are small thermal movement. Which are temperature dependent. The lower the temperature, the less the vibrations.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

So why isn’t angular momentum proportional to temperature? 

There might be for some electrons which are not fixed. The fixed electrons are those shared by other atoms, e.g. the chemical bond electrons. Fixed ones can not. And it will happen when some external force can make them to drift in balanced sphere.

 

6 hours ago, Strange said:

So why doesn’t this happen in your model?

In my model, electron doesn't need to move for it not to crash into proton. It stays in balanced point, never crash.

If it moves, it's small thermal drifting and vibrations. 

Bohr electrons will crash if circular movement is stopped. So do the electrons in quantum model.

 

6 hours ago, studiot said:

 

 Please stop answering questions I haven't asked.

It wastes your time and mine.

You have more than one misconception and I'm trying to take them one at a time.

 

Before you come back please look up the following, if you are not familiar with them.

 

Earnshaw's theorem.

Lennard Jones Potential (This is a theory very similar to yours)

Madelung constants.

Biot- Savart Law

 

They are all very relevant theory.

thanks. I will if I have time.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Then your model is wrong, or at least incomplete.

A stationary electron means there would be an electric dipole moment. Do you have any evidence that neutral, ground state atoms possess these dipole moments?

 

Then the energy will be variable, depending on the temperature. Any evidence that this is true?

Why doesn't the electron, which would be accelerating from these vibrations, radiate?

It does. Electrons' thermal movement make them radiate all the time. At absolute zero K temperature, all electrons stop thermal vibration, radiation stops.

[John Ye]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Then your model is wrong, or at least incomplete.

A stationary electron means there would be an electric dipole moment. Do you have any evidence that neutral, ground state atoms possess these dipole moments?

 

Then the energy will be variable, depending on the temperature. Any evidence that this is true?

Why doesn't the electron, which would be accelerating from these vibrations, radiate?

In terms of electrical dipole, yes, that is true for the atom with fixed electrons.

For atom with electron free to move within balanced sphere, for example, ground state H, the dipole doesn't exist.

[Strange]

6 hours ago, John Ye said:

In my model, electron doesn't need to move for it not to crash into proton. It stays in balanced point, never crash.

What creates this “balanced point”? What opposes the electric force between the electrons and the nucleus?

[studiot]

7 hours ago, John Ye said:

thanks. I will if I have time

 

So you wish to pursue your hypothesis without regard to the rest of Science?

 

7 hours ago, John Ye said:

Electrons' thermal movement make them radiate all the time.

How?

[John Ye]

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

So you wish to pursue your hypothesis without regard to the rest of Science?

 

How?

Vibrating or randomly moving electric charge emits energy. This is so called thermal radiation. Any matter does so in universe.

46 minutes ago, Strange said:

What creates this “balanced point”? What opposes the electric force between the electrons and the nucleus?

You didn't read my script. Formula 1 tells that F=k(1-R/r)qq/(rr).

F is the force exerted on an electron by a proton.  F has a zero point when r =R

This model must be the real physical structure in atom.

 using this model, I can easily calculate the spectrum of H and half spectrum of helium.

Quantum model can't. 

This is NOT a coincidence.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

This model must be the real physical structure in atom.

Why?

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

using this model, I can easily calculate the spectrum of H and half spectrum of helium.

So it is only slightly better than the (incorrect) Bohr model. 

Is your result more accurate than that produced by quantum theory: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.3728 ?

If your model is correct, you should be able to calculate the spectrum of all atoms.

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

Quantum model can't. 

Really? IT gets more difficult for larger atoms, but it can be done. For example: https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08928

Edited August 30, 2018 by Strange

[studiot]

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

Vibrating or randomly moving electric charge emits energy. This is so called thermal radiation. Any matter does so in universe.

When I asked how I was asking for your mechanism.

All you have done is restate a claim that it does.

Where does the electron get this 'thermal energy of vibration' ?

Why and how does it radiate this ?

You have provided neither references nor maths to support this allegation.

 

There is no point continuing trying to help if I am having to put in ten times the effort you are doing.

That is showing contempt for others (me).

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by studiot

[swansont]

3 hours ago, John Ye said:

In terms of electrical dipole, yes, that is true for the atom with fixed electrons.

For atom with electron free to move within balanced sphere, for example, ground state H, the dipole doesn't exist.

You said they are at rest.  If they are moving along this sphere, they are accelerating, so why don't they radiate?

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

3 hours ago, John Ye said:

 

For atom with electron free to move within balanced sphere, for example, ground state H, the dipole doesn't exist.

You said they are at rest.  If they are moving along this sphere, they are accelerating, so why don't they radiate?

 

Well caught swansont.

John Ye.

This is a clear violation the the definition of an electric dipole, even by your proposals.

An electric dipole is a pair of coupled charges separted by a distance R.

It is defined as the product of the charge and the distance.

 

In what way does your gorund state H not comply with this definition?

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

Vibrating or randomly moving electric charge emits energy. This is so called thermal radiation. Any matter does so in universe.

You didn't read my script. Formula 1 tells that F=k(1-R/r)qq/(rr).

F is the force exerted on an electron by a proton.  F has a zero point when r =R

This model must be the real physical structure in atom.

 using this model, I can easily calculate the spectrum of H and half spectrum of helium.

No, that's not what you did. You explain what happens when you have multiple electrons, but your model does not appear to explain the spectrum of neutral hydrogen. What happens when it gets excited to the n=2 state? 

[John Ye]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, that's not what you did. You explain what happens when you have multiple electrons, but your model does not appear to explain the spectrum of neutral hydrogen. What happens when it gets excited to the n=2 state? 

You must have not read my script carefully. I explained it in detail. It's possible that I used poor English, not clearly explains it. If so, I feel sorry.

 

In n=2 state, two electrons are temporarily attached to proton. 

29 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Well caught swansont.

John Ye.

This is a clear violation the the definition of an electric dipole, even by your proposals.

An electric dipole is a pair of coupled charges separted by a distance R.

It is defined as the product of the charge and the distance.

 

In what way does your gorund state H not comply with this definition?

 

 

static electron model does not mean that electron is totally stationary. Because of temperature is higher than zero K, the electron has thermal movement, which includes drifting in balanced sphere, and  vibrations 

Even for the bond electrons in a molecules. They are having thermal movement.

17 minutes ago, John Ye said:

You must have not read my script carefully. I explained it in detail. It's possible that I used poor English, not clearly explains it. If so, I feel sorry.

 

In n=2 state, two electrons are temporarily attached to proton. 

static electron model does not mean that electron is totally stationary. Because of temperature is higher than zero K, the electron has thermal movement, which includes drifting in balanced sphere, and  vibrations 

Even for the bond electrons in a molecules. They are having thermal movement.

to totally stop electron, reduce the temperature. Some matter will become superconductor.

On 2017/9/8 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

I see no mention of angular momentum, or other details, like the Lamb shift. We already know the Bohr model is incorrect; predicting the energy levels is not sufficient to replace the quantum-mechanical model, which encompasses much more.

This paper does not mention atom's fine structure. The angular momentum is for the quantum theory to explain the fine structure.

the quantum theory has not defined a circle track motion of electron, the momentum is not applicable.

 

32 minutes ago, John Ye said:

You must have not read my script carefully. I explained it in detail. It's possible that I used poor English, not clearly explains it. If so, I feel sorry.

 

In n=2 state, two electrons are temporarily attached to proton. 

static electron model does not mean that electron is totally stationary. Because of temperature is higher than zero K, the electron has thermal movement, which includes drifting in balanced sphere, and  vibrations 

Even for the bond electrons in a molecules. They are having thermal movement.

to totally stop electron, reduce the temperature. Some matter will become superconductor.

This paper does not mention atom's fine structure. The angular momentum is for the quantum theory to explain the fine structure.

the quantum theory has not defined a circle track motion of electron, the momentum is not applicable.

 

 

I am hoping that this can explain energy levels of exciting hydrogen gas

[studiot]

 

4 hours ago, John Ye said:

For atom with electron free to move within balanced sphere, for example, ground state H, the dipole doesn't exist.

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

John Ye.

This is a clear violation the the definition of an electric dipole, even by your proposals.

An electric dipole is a pair of coupled charges separted by a distance R.

It is defined as the product of the charge and the distance.

 

In what way does your gorund state H not comply with this definition?

 

Your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with my question.

1 hour ago, John Ye said:

static electron model does not mean that electron is totally stationary. Because of temperature is higher than zero K, the electron has thermal movement, which includes drifting in balanced sphere, and  vibrations 

Even for the bond electrons in a molecules. They are having thermal movement.

 

Here is my reference for the definition you are clearly trying to avoid.