Jump to content
Oldand Dilis

WHY electrons move in orbitals around nuclei

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Further contemplation on my Unified Field Theory and starting to study chemistry leads immediately (the first day) to solving another long standing mystery in physics. WHY electrons orbit an atoms nucleus. The energy/vibration travels forward in a sense like an object on water, a duck, a boat, a swimmer. Moving forward and sending waves out in all directions as it does. Just as a swimmer arrives at the end of a swimming pool the forward wave hits the wall but the wave continues out in all directions. In the quantum world the object/vibration/energy can only move forward but as the fabric of space time becomes curved that path also becomes curved hence why electrons get fixed in orbitals around an atoms nucleus. While gravity is a much weaker force it works on the same principle. Its like comparing creating a vortex by dragging a paddle around a swimming pool to gather debris in the middle to gravity. It's a slow but sure process while on the atomic level it's like creating a vortex in a cup by stirring a spoon around fast. The effect is instant and strong.  Unfortunately I don't have a computer and the software to build a lattice simulation of the spacetime fabric. If I did or when someone does I am confident the maths will show that a perfect orbital path only happens at certain points corresponding to the inner and outer zones where electrons spin around the nucleus of each individual element. The logical assumption is that these paths intersect at certain points allowing electrons to cross paths and share orbitals around other elements creating compounds. 

For heavier elements as the core structure becomes larger it inherently becomes less and less uniform and uneven leaving its spin unstable and its paths less able to follow symmetrically perfect orbital circuits both of which lead to energy escaping ie. radiation. 

Edited by Strange
Changed to a readable font

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations due to the non-mainstream nature of the post. Please use evidence to support your assertions.

And please stop using such a huge, bolded font. It's like you're screaming at everyone, and it makes you look a bit crazy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The energy/vibration travels forward in a sense like an object on water, a duck, a boat, a swimmer. Moving forward and sending waves out in all directions as it does. Just as a swimmer arrives at the end of a swimming pool the forward wave hits the wall but the wave continues out in all directions

Bizarrely enough, it almost sounds like you have stumbled on something close to the right answer. Electron orbitals are rather like the standing waves you get in a pool, for example, when the wavelength is an exact multiple of the length of the pool.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Further contemplation on my Unified Field Theory and starting to study chemistry leads immediately (the first day) to solving another long standing mystery in physics. WHY electrons orbit an atoms nucleus.

The QM answer is that they don't. They are in orbitals, which is not the same thing.

If they were actually orbiting they would be accelerating, and would need to continuously radiate, which they obviously do not do.

46 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The energy/vibration travels forward in a sense like an object on water, a duck, a boat, a swimmer. Moving forward and sending waves out in all directions as it does.

This represents an energy loss, which cannot be happening to something in a stable orbit.

46 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Just as a swimmer arrives at the end of a swimming pool the forward wave hits the wall but the wave continues out in all directions. In the quantum world the object/vibration/energy can only move forward but as the fabric of space time becomes curved that path also becomes curved hence why electrons get fixed in orbitals around an atoms nucleus. While gravity is a much weaker force it works on the same principle. Its like comparing creating a vortex by dragging a paddle around a swimming pool to gather debris in the middle to gravity. It's a slow but sure process while on the atomic level it's like creating a vortex in a cup by stirring a spoon around fast. The effect is instant and strong.  

How can it lose this energy but also not lose energy? (i.e. the electron continues to be in the same energy state)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still haven't figured out that you require mathematics to develop a unified field theory.

 For starters the term Field describes a multi collection of values under a coordinate basis without necessarily a coordinate choice  

In other words a mathematical object...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A set of coordinates don't define a field. At best they define the geometry of the field. Let's cut the BS ("the term Field describes a multi collection of values under a coordinate basis without necessarily a coordinate choice"). A field is composed as vectors of force. To describe the field requires that the geometry be quantized by these vectors of force.

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

the term Field describes a multi collection of values under a coordinate basis without necessarily a coordinate choice 

A field is composed a vectors of force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 Never heard of a scalar field ? Forces are not the only type of field either. If your going to criticize you might want to make sure you get your reply correct.

You can even have a tensor or spinor field however the prior two are more commonly known

For example you can have a temperature field. As an example of a scalar field.

A Majarona or Wehl spinors are two examples of spinor fields. A Majarona field would be one describing a fermionic field. While the other typically bosons. (Though one can define bosons with Majarona spinors via matter/antimatter pairing)

GR 's Einstein field theory is an example of a field theory that applies coordinates without choosing Cartesian , polar or cylindrical coordinates as a basis. For that matter the EFE has a vacuum solution which is a scalar field. The weak field approximation which covers Newtonian gravity is a vector field. These both are described under the EFE with a tensor field.

Here is a little trivia the Reimann curvature tensor isn't a tensor as the name implies but a tensor field.

In string theory we have another mathematical object a string. A collection of strings is a brane. Which is another type of field.

As it's good policy not to simply take my word for this. You can google any calculus textbook that covers field theory but in the interim

"In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space-time." This is how wiki describes it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

hrrm spacetime in the above is a coordinate system fancy that....

Feymann had a better definition " A collection of objects " of course in physics speak an object is a mathematical one

Back at the OP. You might want to take notes, every particle interaction is described by the fields I just mentioned. With this and the correct formulas one can determine any particle interaction

that is the purpose of physics  to describe every physical phenomena under a testable and predictive manner. Mathematics is the best tool to make predictions to be tested.

If you can't tell us how two particles interact and form two different particles via mathematics or predict the particle number density via a blackbody temperature etc etc your not doing physics.

To give an analogy when someone comes along trying to reinvent physics with no math. It's like listening to a five year old that just played Doctor with the toy that beeps when you hit the sides with a tweezer. Tell a surgeon how to perform an operation.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2019 at 9:27 AM, swansont said:

The QM answer is that they don't. They are in orbitals, which is not the same thing.

If they were actually orbiting they would be accelerating, and would need to continuously radiate, which they obviously do not do

Ok fine orbitals are not the same thing I have no problem with that. It still comes from the same pull on the fabric creating the paths. Yes the duck, swimmer analogy is incorrect I was thinking that this morning when thinking about frequency! Thanks I'll correct that on the site. What my field theory does provide however is an explanation for frequency and spin of particles which gives us a 7th dimension 3 in space 3 in time and one in the field (indicating there are more). As the particle/energy/vibration moves forward through the field it follows a path around and along the quantum balls which makes an incredibly long spring or corkscrew shape. Spin surely explains why some particles absorb others and repel the same when spinning opposite directions (Like trying to jump on a merry go round from the wrong direction).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

What my field theory does provide however is an explanation for frequency and spin of particles which gives us a 7th dimension 3 in space 3 in time and one in the field

What are these three time dimensions you mention? What is your definition of frequency when there are multiple time dimensions? What does the two extra time dimensions explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding field and mathematics. Mathematics DESCRIBE values, shape, speed, orientation etc. They describe what we see, feel hear etc. Its the objects themselves we use on a practical basis. You don't have to know every thread depth and width on every screw, every exact radius of every pipe and cylinder, every number of sparks per second, every grade of fuel to invent or visualise a car and understand how it works. That comes later, that's important for formalising it to work on. Jimi Hendrix didn't need to read or write music to create music neither do we need to to feel and understand it. The writing of it is for a specific way of sharing it. So is physics just a way to help us LIVE it in itself is only one discipline of use in our lives every day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sure then let's see you mathematically describe frequency with your 7 dimensions.

You have yet to post any formulas in this thread. Yet claim you have three time dimensions and three spatial dimensions with one in a field.

Do you even know what a dimension or field means ? As what you stated makes literally no sense whatsoever by any accepted definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My battery is at 4% ill explain when I get powered up if I get cut off. frequency os the energy along paths around the quantum balls is like a corkscrew or spring shape. From the side it looks like a sound wave shown visually from head on it looks like spin. Im at 3%. Gonna have to find a cafe  

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

What are these three time dimensions you mention? What is your definition of frequency when there are multiple time dimensions? What does the two extra time dimensions explain?

The two extra dimensions of time provide the solution to the double slit. When focusing on/observing a particle along the slice of time it is in just like the finishing line on a race we can only record to see the result at that spot. If the track were not all one for example if the race (the source of energy/vibration) has all players (particles) standing inside an inner circle and each running along a radius towards buzzers located on an outer circle. They will all hit the buzzer at the same time if they all run and swing their hands down at the  same speed. However we can only record one runner at a time with each camera. If there's a square outside the outer circle (the back wall in the double slit) the runner directly facing it will hit the buzzer first the others hitting theirs later, same speed but arriving along different paths so arriving after. This could be easily verified using the variation on the Double slit experiment with angled walls as I explained previously. 

 

The effect of these dimensions on the frequency corkscrew/spring analogy I'll have to think about but it seems to me initially they are all single instances of energy moving through the path so all other relational energies will also be following the same frequency and spin with the same corkscrew pattern along their paths moving out in their individual direction from the same central source of the energy/vibration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

frequency os the energy along paths around the quantum balls is like a corkscrew or spring shape. From the side it looks

We have precise mathematical theories that make testable (and tested) predictions. Why should anyone accept your vague handwaving over useful theories that actually work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Ok fine orbitals are not the same thing I have no problem with that. It still comes from the same pull on the fabric creating the paths. Yes the duck, swimmer analogy is incorrect I was thinking that this morning when thinking about frequency! Thanks I'll correct that on the site. What my field theory does provide however is an explanation for frequency and spin of particles which gives us a 7th dimension 3 in space 3 in time and one in the field (indicating there are more).

You don't have a theory. There is no math. Without math, you can't make precise predictions.

Quote

As the particle/energy/vibration moves forward through the field it follows a path around and along the quantum balls which makes an incredibly long spring or corkscrew shape. Spin surely explains why some particles absorb others and repel the same when spinning opposite directions (Like trying to jump on a merry go round from the wrong direction).  

For some interactions spin does explain why they occur and others don't. But that's all covered already by QM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Strange said:

We have precise mathematical theories that make testable (and tested) predictions. Why should anyone accept your vague handwaving over useful theories that actually work?

Because I solved the double slit experiment with a second variation that will also work. Because I provide a way to test orbital paths formation using computer modelling and a test to check for quantum entanglement hinging on time dimensions. 

6 hours ago, swansont said:

You don't have a theory. There is no math. Without math, you can't make precise predictions.

I clearly have a theory that I got without maths and solved the double slit using primary school maths, something seems to be blinding you to accepting it, again you could embrace it or scoff at it until someone else embraces it. Your choice. No I can't make precise predictions but I provide the fields exact structure which can be modelled to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This "The Emperor's New Clothes" reboot isn't very good.

15 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

 No I can't make precise predictions

And that's a huge problem.

15 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

but I provide the fields exact structure which can be modelled to do so. 

Then do the modeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Because I solved the double slit experiment with a second variation that will also work.

What about the double slit experiment needs to be "solved"?

Quote

Because I provide a way to test orbital paths formation using computer modelling and a test to check for quantum entanglement hinging on time dimensions. 

If they can be tested using computer modelling then you must have a mathematical model. Can you share it with us?

57 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

No I can't make precise predictions

Then your idea cannot be tested and cannot be modelled on a computer.

58 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

I clearly have a theory that I got without maths and solved the double slit using primary school maths

What do you mean by "solved" the double slit? Can you perform a calculation to predict the result in different cases or not?

 

You claim to be doing science, but all you are doing is waving your hands around frantically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Funny I thought this thread was about orbitals...

 

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Because I solved the double slit experiment with a second variation that will also work. Because I provide a way to test orbital paths formation using computer modelling and a test to check for quantum entanglement hinging on time dimensions. 

I clearly have a theory that I got without maths 

Computer modelling without math yeah right sure ya did. What did you use paint ?

 Surely you had to use math to generate a working computer model. So post the math. 

1 hour ago, Oldand Dilis said:

 

I clearly have a theory that I got without maths and solved the double slit using primary school maths, 

So which is it ? If you claim to solved it using primary school math at least post that. However in the same sentence you state without math...

Funny how those two statements don't match...

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

This could be easily verified using the variation on the Double slit experiment with angled walls as I explained previously.

No. (Check the mod note of those threads)

8 hours ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The effect of these dimensions on the frequency corkscrew/spring analogy I'll have to think about but it seems to me initially they are all single instances of energy moving through the path so all other relational energies will also be following the same frequency and spin with the same corkscrew pattern along their paths moving out in their individual direction from the same central source of the energy/vibration.

Discussing these aspects of our universe is interesting but your analogies are not useful. You need to provide arguments and evidence; where and how are the currently used and verified models incorrect? Analogies are not useful. 

Out of curiosity I did some more reading about how multiple time dimension causes trouble in physics. This picture from wikipedia is interesting, let's investigate further:

image.thumb.png.d60dd5174efb189a30450264a08637d6.png

It can be found in https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf, a paper discussing both temporal and spatial dimensions. From there we can move on to one of the references;  https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1.1976386 that focuses on some evidence against the possibility of multiple time dimensions. Conclusion in that article is that particles would be unstable:

image.png.77ec21649053c3a19832a57bc96fa0c3.png

There are several arguments, one is from particle decay. Particle decay is the spontaneous process of one unstable subatomic particle transforming into multiple other particles. The particles created in this process (the final state) must each be less massive than the original, although the total invariant mass of the system must be conserved*. If multiple time dimensions exists the article states that particles would not be restricted to decay into less massive particles. Particles could decay in ways not possible in our universe:

image.png.9ee6d31bf749fbc56d91a2aeb7085a9c.png 

 

I'm posting this just to show one aspect of how deep and fundamental changes an idea of multiple time dimensions requires. 

(Explaining all aspects of the articles argumentation about geodesics and Minkowski spacetime here is out of scope and not necessary I think)

*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol it would take far too long to post particle decay via QFT

"S " matrix treatments. I would need to write a textbook 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2019 at 12:44 AM, Mordred said:

Mathematics is the best tool to make predictions to be tested.

Is maths the method or the language?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To make testable predictions language is next to useless. A testable prediction is only viable through the mathematics. For example Newton's law predicts f=ma. This formula has withstood the tests of time for centuries until one had to consider relativistic effects. It's still incredibly robust in everyday applications.

Though one can express that formula using language you are simply replacing the formula with a direct translation not an interpretation.

 It is the mathematics that is vital. Words simply assist to understand and interpret the relations shown under math.

 As someone who has studied different physics theories for over three decades unless an article contains roughly 50 to 75 % math I tend to ignore that paper.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Is maths the method or the language?

Both? I would say it is a tool. It can be used as the method to develop results, and as the language to communicate those results (and the method used to get there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, swansont said:

This "The Emperor's New Clothes" reboot isn't very good.

And that's a huge problem.

Then do the modeling.

I don't have a computer, (or a home), I'm using a phone with a broken screen which has a "mind of its own". The problem here on this forum seems to be snobbery like this, that's whats blinding you the colonial superiority complex, "oh the native can't speak our language so she must be stupid, every intelligent person speaks English(or maths) haw haw chuckle chuckle" Snobbery also at the core of strange's blindness. I can't get you guys to understand on the physics level so I begin to study chemistry to see if I can do it there. Within ONE DAY of studying chemistry I can explain orbitals of electrons around atomic nuclei some thing which physics still can't explain logically, it can be measured mathematically sure but with no logic to explain it. When I do the snob Strange says "bizarrely enough you have got the correct answer...." Bizarrely why? Because with all your money and privilege you still haven't learned that humility and respect for every human equally is important you can't resist trying to assert your superiority even when I'm correct you try to belittle me.  You still think you are more intelligent than someone because you were privileged enough to get an education so now that you have learned other peoples theories and can recite them with your artificial human intelligence you think you are superior. I provide solutions to the double slit(with a variation to cross check), quantum entanglement (with a test), frequency, spin, gravity, atomic orbitals, teleportation but just like the fool's Galileo was faced with you sit going "no no stupid, can't be right, no no not looking at the evidence". What a waste of money your education was I'm losing patience with such stupid snobbery.  I provide an explanation for the weak force and then studying chemistry explain the strong force IN ONE DAY. I think I have solved the horizon problem also today and its nothing to do with the age of the universe but as I've already given you snobs everything from the solution to the double slit, QE, frequency etc and you wont look at that, I don't think I'll bother wasting my time you will just sit laughing saying "the native is stupid because she can't speak Maths haw haw" instead of doing something useful. Probably so fat and over fed the fat is slowing down the neuron transmissions in your artificial intelligence. As for language if you had any understanding of that you would know that the brain processes ALL languages even maths visually so its not me who is stupid I'm communicating at the highest level and your safety blanket of mathematics is limiting yours so take your snobbery and stick it wherever you like, what a waste of human potential, colonial snobs.

Edited by Oldand Dilis
Meh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

The problem here on this forum seems to be snobbery like this, that's whats blinding you the colonial superiority complex, "oh the native can't speak our language so she must be stupid, every intelligent person speaks English(or maths) haw haw chuckle chuckle" Snobbery also at the core of strange's blindness.

This is not snobbery. It just a fact that you cannot make predictions to test your idea without math. If you can't make testable predictions then there is no reason to consider your vague claims.

20 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

I can't get you guys to understand on the physics level so I begin to study chemistry to see if I can do it there. Within ONE DAY of studying chemistry I can explain orbitals of electrons around atomic nuclei some thing which physics still can't explain logically, it can be measured mathematically sure but with no logic to explain it.

It can be measured and it matches the mathematics of the theory. Until you can do that, you have nothing but "just so" stories, which are worthless.

21 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

Because with all your money and privilege you still haven't learned that humility and respect for every human equally is important you can't resist trying to assert your superiority even when I'm correct you try to belittle me.

I don't have money or privilege, and I don't think I am superior.

I am just pointing out that no one can tell if your idea is correct or not unless you can make testable predictions.

22 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

You still think you are more intelligent than someone because you were privileged enough to get an education

I don't think I am particularly intelligent. And I don't have much formal education. My highest qualification is a diploma from a part-time course when I was working.

24 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

I provide solutions to the double slit(with a variation to cross check), quantum entanglement (with a test), frequency, spin, gravity, atomic orbitals, teleportation but just like the fool's Galileo was faced with you sit going "no no stupid, can't be right, no no not looking at the evidence".

You haven't provided "solutions" because you haven't provided anything that can be tested. You have just told some stories (that make sense to you) about what you think is happening. This is not science.

25 minutes ago, Oldand Dilis said:

As for language if you had any understanding of that you would know that the brain processes ALL languages even maths visually

Citation needed.

 

Stop playing the victim and provide some science. (This is a science forum, after all.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.