Jump to content
Kartazion

Atomic Model with a Single Particle in Motion

Recommended Posts

Hello


This thread is pure speculation of an unknown physics phenomenon (optical illusion type).
I do not expect any answer or help, because all this should remain for the moment incomprehensible of all.
I created only this thread for archive and continuation if there will be.
Thank you.

 

The atomic model described in this thread represents the synopsis of the logical sequence of the oscillation mechanism of a single moving particle.
Reference:  https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120416-anharmonic-oscillator/

I - Anharmonic Oscillator

Here is the diagram of the anharmonic feature of the particle. Its oscillation is between singularity and visible matter, where between two its acceleration would be almost infinite.

atom_1_1.png

 

Here is the diagram of the path taken by the particle in the oscillator, as well as the role of the particle in the representation of the atom:

atom_1_2.png

 

Example of an atomic particle according to its delivered energy:

atom_1_3.png

 

II – Quantum atom

The quantum atom is basically composed of quantum jump method of the particle, between singularity and correlation of the mass. These jumps correspond to the Bottom-up oscillation and are of almost instant value. They can be of the order of a few million jumps in a nanosecond. The exclusion of Pauli is respected because there is only one particle present per atom created by reiteration.

Pure quantum atom, and series reiteration of Neutrons Protons (same number of N than of P):

atom_3_1.png

 

Isotope-type quantum atom and NPN reiteration:

atom_3_2.png

 

Quantum atom composed by NP and NPN reiteration:

atom_3_3.png

 

Thanks to the principle of reiteration, the probability of finding after NP and NPN in the atomic nuclei is consequent. Which brings us, and in relation to the atomic signature, to the conclusion of a composition rich in Deuterium, Tritium and Helium 4-5-6

The atomic signature corresponds to the spacing of the lines according to the energy delivered from the particle. The smaller the energy in ev, the greater the spacing of the line. The absence of line indicates that there is no particle in the field to study. Each line represents the path to the singularity that could be responsible for the electrical charges generated. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know that atoms do not behave according to classical physics. If an electron accelerates, it will radiate, and you would need to explain why this doesn't happen.

The nucleus of an atom is not a singularity.

There is no way that the electron has MeV, much less GeV or TeV, of energy.

 

Most of your diagrams make no sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

We know that atoms do not behave according to classical physics. If an electron accelerates, it will radiate, and you would need to explain why this doesn't happen.

Yes I know. But I still try to make an approach as such.

The single particle atom is radiative. Indeed, its oscillation is along an axis, and not a circle or sphere as orbital.
Radiation can propagate between the points A->B A->B' A->B'' A->B''' for example. But I will think about it.

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The nucleus of an atom is not a singularity.

How can we know it? In addition, the singularity of which I speak is that of the center of the earth for example. A perpetual oscillation of the particle between the center of the earth and the atom. 
 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

There is no way that the electron has MeV, much less GeV or TeV, of energy.

Indeed this is problematic. But in my case the electron becomes more massive when it dissociates from its orbit and become as heavy as a proton.

rather as heavy as a quark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kartazion said:

Yes I know. But I still try to make an approach as such.

The single particle atom is radiative. Indeed, its oscillation is along an axis, and not a circle or sphere as orbital.
Radiation can propagate between the points A->B A->B' A->B'' A->B''' for example. But I will think about it.

Then you need a new model for EM radiation, because that's not how it works. 

 

1 hour ago, Kartazion said:

How can we know it?

Scattering experiments, for one.

 

1 hour ago, Kartazion said:

In addition, the singularity of which I speak is that of the center of the earth for example. A perpetual oscillation of the particle between the center of the earth and the atom. 

Why is an electron oscillating like that? Why would you think that the binding energy of that system would be on the scales you indicate? 

 

1 hour ago, Kartazion said:

Indeed this is problematic. But in my case the electron becomes more massive when it dissociates from its orbit and become as heavy as a proton.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you even think there is an oscillation between an atom and the centre of the Earth. There is literally zero evidence to even hypothesize such a claim.

Secondly all SM particles have the same rest mass per given type at all locations.

The electron will always have the rest mass. The rest mass is an invariant quantity

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kartazion said:

In addition, the singularity of which I speak is that of the center of the earth for example.

In what sense is that a singularity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, swansont said:

Why is an electron oscillating like that? Why would you think that the binding energy of that system would be on the scales you indicate? 

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Why would you even think there is an oscillation between an atom and the centre of the Earth. There is literally zero evidence to even hypothesize such a claim.

This is the only solution to converge the information and the electrical charges of the system, and to regroup at one point the set of sequences of controlled oscillations.
 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

I simply associated the acceleration of the particle to mass in eV.

 

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Secondly all SM particles have the same rest mass per given type at all locations.

The electron will always have the rest mass. The rest mass is an invariant quantity

My model defines the type of particle when it is at rest, because the oscillator gives the particle a total stop of its movement in time with a very short life span.

 

5 hours ago, Strange said:

In what sense is that a singularity?

A singularity of transition and gravitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kartazion said:

This is the only solution to converge the information and the electrical charges of the system, and to regroup at one point the set of sequences of controlled oscillations.
 

I simply associated the acceleration of the particle to mass in eV.

 

My model defines the type of particle when it is at rest, because the oscillator gives the particle a total stop of its movement in time with a very short life span.

 

A singularity of transition and gravitation.

None of this makes any sense in accordance with any known physics with regards to the standard model of particles. Nor does your definition of a singularity condition.

Share this post


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

None of this makes any sense in accordance with any known physics with regards to the standard model of particles. Nor does your definition of a singularity condition.

Yes

A gravitational singularity. I do not see where the problem is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your describing the particles mass term which the invariant rest mass of the particle does not change as it approaches a gravitational singularity. A gravitational singularity does not exist at the Earth's centre. If it did the Earth itself would collapse into that singularity.

 The mass of the Earth is insufficient which does not make sense with your above statements that electrons oscillate between the atom and the Earth's centre. In your opening statement you describe the oscillations between a singularity and the particles mass as though gravitational singularities exist outside those of a black hole.

None of your statements make sense as they are inconsistent with ever changing goal posts.

Your going to have to better clarify your hypothesis with greater consistency.

12 hours ago, Kartazion said:

 

How can we know it? In addition, the singularity of which I speak is that of the center of the earth for example. A perpetual oscillation of the particle between the center of the earth and the atom. 
 

 

This for example is 100 percent incorrect. The Earth has no singularity within its centre. For the reason given above. 

Let's state one further detail. Every electron as one example has the identical invariant mass (rest mass) as every other electron in the entire universe. All massive particles in the SM model has an invariant mass term that every other particle of the same type has the identical mass term regardless of location.

Nor does time stop at a gravitational singularity.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

This for example is 100 percent incorrect. The Earth has no singularity within its centre. For the reason given above. 

Yes I admit. I made a mistake by using the term singularity.

Let's say rather a convergent point according to the terrestrial gravity field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you will need to better define this convergent point with the above graphs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

path particle.png

Just now, Mordred said:

Now you will need to better define this convergent point with the above graphs.

Yes. That's why I opened the Anharmonic Oscillator thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you believe particles oscillate above and below the Earth's surface.

What about other particles no where near any gravitational body.  

Or how does the above work with atoms that existed before any planet or star ?

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mordred said:

What makes you believe particles oscillate above and below the Earth's surface.

I did not know anything. It is the mechanics of the oscillator that brought me to this conclusion.
 

20 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What about other particles no where near any gravitational body. 

The scope of gravity is infinite. So all the particles are there. But the question arises when an object leaves the earth. It can be relayed by another system, such as the sun.

I also use this principle of oscillation between singularity and stars with the supermassive black holes and the galactic loop. 
In this case, and in between two, the flow of the particle becomes dark matter?

In fact the real path of the prticule is this one: big-bang -> supermassive black hole -> star -> planet

It's pure speculation but the sun is the point of origin of our solar system and manages all the objects that are there. The point of origin of the particle oscillating between sun and center of the earth. There should be a sunspot in the axis of every planet.
 

matrix_6b.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet the evidence does not exist to support any of your claims. For example I can calculate the particle number density of any blackbody temperature using the Bose Maxwell statistics. All particles and their interactions contribute to thermodynamics. We can also get good approximations of mass via the mass to luminosity relations. In essence we would be able to detect this supposed flow, which we do not.

 We can also identify which atoms exist in a given region via spectrum analysis. Nothing you have stated has any observational evidence.

 Thus far all you have is a blind conjecture with zero support.

There are also far more sunspots than planets in our solar system.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 Thus far all you have is a blind conjecture with zero support.

I had warned that thread was going to be based on speculative.
My only support is this one:  https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120416-anharmonic-oscillator/

 

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

There are also far more sunspots than planets in our solar system.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you definitely have your work cut out for you. I hadn't seen much in that other thread that I would count as evidence either. I have been paying attention to that thread but haven't chosen to get involved yet.

 For one thing Strange already mentioned one fundamental aspect.

No particle with mass reaches or exceeds c. So that other thread also is an unsupported speculation.

I'm going to assume your unfamiliar with GR. So let's just state it's a theory tested 1000's of times every day at particle accelerators with regards to the energy requirements to accelerate a particle to near c. For a particle with mass to reach c you would need an infinite amount of energy. So you can forget about oscillations at 1000 c.

Secondly mass is resistance to inertia change. You might want to think about how that applies. The coupling constants and how strongly particles couple to their respective fields of interaction is what gives the invariant mass term.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kartazion said:

A singularity of transition and gravitation.

In what sense is that a singularity? Please show the mathematical details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

In what sense is that a singularity? Please show the mathematical details.

In this way $$ f(x) = \frac {1}{x} $$

Edited by Kartazion
LaTeX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

In this way f(x) = \frac {1}{x}

What is x?

How does f(x) relate to electrons oscillating between the centre of the Earth and an atom?

It sounds like you are just making stuff up as you go along.

7 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Let's say rather a convergent point according to the terrestrial gravity field.

What is a "convergent point"?

10 hours ago, Kartazion said:

This is the only solution to converge the information and the electrical charges of the system, and to regroup at one point the set of sequences of controlled oscillations.

What does "converge the information and the electrical charges" mean?

What do you think the "sequences of controlled oscillations" need to "regroup?" (Whatever that means)

7 hours ago, Kartazion said:

t's pure speculation but the sun is the point of origin of our solar system

That is wrong. We know how solar systems evolve (both from theory and observation).

6 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I had warned that thread was going to be based on speculative.

My only support is this one:  https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120416-anharmonic-oscillator/

Sorry, but you need more than baseless guesses. You need evidence. A model (even if relevant) is not evidence.

Do you any observations or measurements that support the idea that electrons oscillate between atoms and the centre of the Earth? Do they all kove at the same time, or do they take it in turns? Why only electrons? Or do all particles perform this crazy dance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kartazion said:

This is the only solution to converge the information and the electrical charges of the system, and to regroup at one point the set of sequences of controlled oscillations.
 

That really makes no sense.

 

10 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I simply associated the acceleration of the particle to mass in eV.

And since we can measure these energies, you have effectively falsified your hypothesis.

 

 

9 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I do not see where the problem is.

That's the problem in a nutshell.

-------

 

Thus far there is no model, and what could pass as predictions don't comport with experimental results. Without a model there's no way to really critique specifics, since you can't make specific, testable predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I had warned that thread was going to be based on speculative.
My only support is this one:  https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120416-anharmonic-oscillator/

!

Moderator Note

You're going to need more to move your idea forward. Several posts have mentioned major problems with the concept, points where the ideas you're asserting don't agree with what we already observe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and your lack of support means you're simply soapboxing now, and that's against our rules. If you can't come up with a model, or some supportive evidence that might suggest some predictive power, I'm going to close this thread. More rigor, please!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Kartazion, please let me know by private message when you have some supportive evidence to discuss, and I'll re-open the thread. 

 

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.