Jump to content

No material can have a net negative charge. [Answered: Wrong!]


martillo
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, martillo said:

I can't believe, I got astonished. I was considering you very knowledgeable and you can't think in the hydrogen atom as a dipole. Hydrogen atom has just one proton and one electron, right? A positive proton and a negative electron, right? So, a positive charge and a negative charge. Now, from wikipedia the definition of a dipole:

"An electric dipole deals with the separation of the positive and negative charges found in any electromagnetic system. A simple example of this system is a pair of electric charges of equal magnitude but opposite sign separated by some typically small distance."

Can't then the hydrogen atom be considered a dipole? Why? Please, I don't really understand how you can disagree...

I was confusing covalent bonds with ionic bonds at that time. I apologize, Chemistry actually is not my area and we strongly entered it. I think I will not be able to handle the discussion anymore now...

You chose to enter the arena of chemistry by making a ridiculous statement, without supporting evidence, that there are no -ve ions, something that contradicts one of chemistry's most basic concepts, understood by every intelligent schoolchild.

I am not going to indulge you by getting into a discussion of the structure of the hydrogen atom. If you really don't know, you can perfectly easily look it up on the internet and revert with questions.  But I'm afraid I simply do not believe that someone who can ask questions about the Pauli Exclusion Principle one moment can, at the next, fail to understand something as basic as this. I think you must be trolling.

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You chose to enter the arena of chemistry by making a ridiculous statement, without supporting evidence, that there are no -ve ions, something that contradicts one of chemistry's most basic concepts, understood by every intelligent schoolchild.

I am not going to indulge you by getting into a discussion of the structure of the hydrogen atom. If you really don't know, you can perfectly easily look it up on the internet and revert with questions.  But I'm afraid I simply do not believe that someone who can ask questions about the Pauli Exclusion Principle one moment can, at the next, fail to understand something as basic as this. I think you must be trolling.

Trolling??? No, no way, not at all. I wouldn't waste my time that way, never.

I got confused in many things in this thread and made many big mistakes, I admit, but trolling no...

I'm not handling this discussion here anymore. I think I will not continue... 

Edited by martillo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Trolling??? No, no way, not at all. I wouldn't waste my time that way, never.

I got confused in many things in this thread and made many big mistakes, I admit, but trolling no...

I'm not handling this discussion here anymore. I think I will not continue... 

That may be for the best. If you are genuine, I suggest you either do some reading, or else ask questions instead of making assertions, when the topic is outside your area of knowledge.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A hydrogen atom is not a dipole, unless you have an external field of some sort. IOW you can induce a dipole moment, but the intrinsic/permanent dipole moment in the ground state is zero.

It's related to CPT symmetry. Having a permanent dipole moment implies a violation of time-reversal symmetry

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1595052

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize...

I was going in a very wrong way, very wrong, and you all showed me that. Hope not had made you waste your time too much.

I admit now that even the statement of the title "No material can have a negative charge" is totally wrong. Negative materials do exist (as the discussed balloons), negative ions do exist, the commonly considered "ground" electric potential is not any positive potential, things cannot be explained by just the difference in positive potentials, a really zero potential is achieved at normal temperatures just whenever atoms have all of their electrons and not at 0ºK as I was considering...

What a wrong way! I admit. Thanks to have made me "fall to the ground".

I'm working on a model for the basic atomic particles considering them as not "point like" particles as is currently considered, I know. I cannot handle the concept of "point like" having a magnetic field. For me the proper definition of magnetic field involves a current element which means a displacement of charge and so imposible to exist "within" a point. A model still under development and I'm not thinking in abandon it easily although I need to reformulate it in something now. May be I could return with some other thing in mind to discuss in the forum at some time. Hope to not bother you too much...

Edited by martillo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Phi for All changed the title to No material can have a net negative charge. [Answered: Wrong!]
15 hours ago, martillo said:

I apologize...

I was going in a very wrong way, very wrong, and you all showed me that. Hope not had made you waste your time too much.

I admit now that even the statement of the title "No material can have a negative charge" is totally wrong. Negative materials do exist (as the discussed balloons), negative ions do exist, the commonly considered "ground" electric potential is not any positive potential, things cannot be explained by just the difference in positive potentials, a really zero potential is achieved at normal temperatures just whenever atoms have all of their electrons and not at 0ºK as I was considering...

What a wrong way! I admit. Thanks to have made me "fall to the ground".

I'm working on a model for the basic atomic particles considering them as not "point like" particles as is currently considered, I know. I cannot handle the concept of "point like" having a magnetic field. For me the proper definition of magnetic field involves a current element which means a displacement of charge and so imposible to exist "within" a point. A model still under development and I'm not thinking in abandon it easily although I need to reformulate it in something now. May be I could return with some other thing in mind to discuss in the forum at some time. Hope to not bother you too much...

If you read a bit more about how magnetic moment arises within an atom, you will find it is due either to orbital angular momentum of the electron or to "spin" (intrinsic angular momentum), of the electron or nucleus or both. Classically, both would indicate motion of a charge  - which would generate a magnetic field. In the QM model it is a bit different, as you are dealing with a wave-particle entity that has no defined classical trajectory, but magnetism remains associated with momentum.

As for making your own model for atomic particles, be warned that the QM model science uses today is built up from over a century of experimental evidence, which it accounts for very well. If you try to create your own model it will need to account for all the phenomena that QM can account for. You will need to do a lot of studying before you can hope to accomplish that.

Do not imagine that what you have learnt as an electrical engineer will be sufficient.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

If you read a bit more about how magnetic moment arises within an atom, you will find it is due either to orbital angular momentum of the electron or to , of the electron or nucleus or both. Classically, both would indicate motion of a charge  - which would generate a magnetic field. In the QM model it is a bit different, as you are dealing with a wave-particle entity that has no defined classical trajectory, but magnetism remains associated with momentum.

The problem I mentioned is precisely related to the "spin" (intrinsic angular momentum) of the elementary particles like the electron if they are considered as "point like" particles. As I said in the previous post " I cannot handle the concept of "point like" having a magnetic field. For me the proper definition of magnetic field involves a current element which means a displacement of charge and so imposible to exist "within" a point."

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

As for making your own model for atomic particles, be warned that the QM model science uses today is built up from over a century of experimental evidence, which it accounts for very well. If you try to create your own model it will need to account for all the phenomena that QM can account for. You will need to do a lot of studying before you can hope to accomplish that.

Do not imagine that what you have learnt as an electrical engineer will be sufficient.    

I cannot even pretend to replace an entire Science's development of a century myself, no way. But if I come up with an idea that could work for me, I could suggest it to some scientists I could reach for them to consider it and if it were the case to develop it further. I mean, that is something possible for me and for anyone coming up with some idea, for the Science's community to analyze and decide if some new idea could worth to be developed or not. Particularly, this forum could be a place were something new could in principle surge. It could give a first analysis on a new idea which could inspire some scientists about something new in Science. This is my approach while discussing things here. The problem I find is that when presenting something new it is always demanded to fully demonstrate it even experimentally as if I would have already solved it all. Fortunately exists this the "Speculations" place in the forum where new things could be proposed to be discussed. At least one door open to something new...

Edited by martillo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, martillo said:

The problem I mentioned is precisely related to the "spin" (intrinsic angular momentum) of the elementary particles like the electron if they are considered as "point like" particles. As I said in the previous post " I cannot handle the concept of "point like" having a magnetic field. For me the proper definition of magnetic field involves a current element which means a displacement of charge and so imposible to exist "within" a point."

I cannot even pretend to replace an entire Science's development of a century myself, no way. But if I come up with an idea that could work for me, I could suggest it to some scientists I could reach for them to consider it and if it were the case to develop it further. I mean, that is something possible for me and for anyone coming up with some idea, for the Science's community to analyze and decide if some new idea could worth to be developed or not. Particularly, this forum could be a place were something new could in principle surge. It could give a first analysis on a new idea which could inspire some scientists about something new in Science. This is my approach while discussing things here. The problem I find is that when presenting something new it is always demanded to fully demonstrate it even experimentally as if I would have already solved it all. Fortunately exists this the "Speculations" place in the forum where new things could be proposed to be discussed. At least one door open to something new...

 

The main problem you are having with "spin" is related to the fact that you are reading the word spin and trying to use the properties of mechanical spin which is an entirely different property from quantum spin.

You are also persisting with mixing up macroscopic and microscopic properties of matter.
I believe you have already rejected my (friendly) warning about this. Not a warning that this will get you into trouble with the moderators, but a warning that your guesswork will founder on these misconceptions.

There is no simple theory to develop quantum spin form more fundamental principles.

Using angular momentum for a point charge or small charge, rotating about its centre, leads to a quantity called

The Bohr magneton

This development is in agreement with observation.

 

However attempts to use a similar development for a small (-ve)charge rotating about another equal or greater charge will not agree with observation, by a factor of 2.00023.

You should look up gyromagnetic ratio or Lande g factor  .

This g factor is one of the best examples of where experimental observation overrules theory.

Already in this thread in this thread, I have offered a few very important terms for you to look up.

Did you look them up ?

 

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, martillo said:

The problem I mentioned is precisely related to the "spin" (intrinsic angular momentum) of the elementary particles like the electron if they are considered as "point like" particles. As I said in the previous post " I cannot handle the concept of "point like" having a magnetic field. For me the proper definition of magnetic field involves a current element which means a displacement of charge and so imposible to exist "within" a point."

I cannot even pretend to replace an entire Science's development of a century myself, no way. But if I come up with an idea that could work for me, I could suggest it to some scientists I could reach for them to consider it and if it were the case to develop it further. I mean, that is something possible for me and for anyone coming up with some idea, for the Science's community to analyze and decide if some new idea could worth to be developed or not. Particularly, this forum could be a place were something new could in principle surge. It could give a first analysis on a new idea which could inspire some scientists about something new in Science. This is my approach while discussing things here. The problem I find is that when presenting something new it is always demanded to fully demonstrate it even experimentally as if I would have already solved it all. Fortunately exists this the "Speculations" place in the forum where new things could be proposed to be discussed. At least one door open to something new...

Not being able to handle a concept isn’t very persuasive; it’s argument from incredulity.

And you aren’t going to get any traction if you don’t address all of the evidence that’s out there, and only look at one bit of it. People have looked at classical solutions and they don’t fit the evidence. This includes scattering experiments which put a pretty stringent limit on the electron size. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, martillo said:

As I said in the previous post " I cannot handle the concept of "point like" having a magnetic field.

I meant to add the following to my last post.

 

You will clear up that problem for yourself when you stop thinking about the electron - nucleus system having a magnetic field and start thinking about the system in an external magnetic field.

It is the interaction of the charge with the external magnetic field that is important.

Oh and did I mention that the magnetic field is external ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, studiot said:

The main problem you are having with "spin" is related to the fact that you are reading the word spin and trying to use the properties of mechanical spin which is an entirely different property from quantum spin.

You are also persisting with mixing up macroscopic and microscopic properties of matter.
I believe you have already rejected my (friendly) warning about this. Not a warning that this will get you into trouble with the moderators, but a warning that your guesswork will founder on these misconceptions.

There is no simple theory to develop quantum spin form more fundamental principles.

Using angular momentum for a point charge or small charge, rotating about its centre, leads to a quantity called

The Bohr magneton

This development is in agreement with observation.

I totally agree with for an angular momentum and the Bohr magneton applied to a small charge but not at all to a point charge. The problem that arises then is how is that small particle meaning to give a structure for the particle. That's what the model I'm working is about.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

However attempts to use a similar development for a small (-ve)charge rotating about another equal or greater charge will not agree with observation, by a factor of 2.00023.

You should look up gyromagnetic ratio or Lande g factor  .

This g factor is one of the best examples of where experimental observation overrules theory.

I'm not trying to model ions with some "(-ve)charge rotating about another equal or greater charge".

I have no problems with ions now. Once I have admitted being totally wrong with the title of the thread and completely admitting the existence of negative ions I have not any problem with Chemistry now. I can completely agree with everything on Chemistry now.

The problem I face now is with the Standard Model of particles. The model is in an advanced stage, advanced enough to be able to deal the main problems it could face to become a new model of all the particles and all the experimental particles observed in high energy Physics, I think. But it also has other big problems with half of the current "Quantum Physics" in what relates to the called "Waves Mechanics Theory" based on the De Broglie hypothesis of "matter waves" associated to the particles. Not to mention the problems it has with Relativity Theory. I'm totally aware about the huge challenge it involves and the enormous task it presents presenting it to discussion. So enormous that it doesn't fit to be presented just as an article in a Physics' journal for peer review and I know now the so enormous difficulty it would face to present the complete model for discussion here in the forum. I'm developing a manuscript with about 120 pages now to send to some universities just with the big hope that someone could take a look and be able to analyze it as properly as I think it deserves. That is the only way I think it could take. I can't think other way. What I have tried in the forum other times is to take some parts of it to put into discussion but is very difficult since everything is inter related in Physics, I'm well aware about that. But it worked sometimes and it was very productive for me to make corrections in the manuscript. May be I come with some other subjects to treat in some other threads in the forum other times.

That's in resume the big challenge I'm facing today... 

P.S. The manuscript presents just a start point for a new theory in Physics, it does not pretend to replace the entire Physics' Science, not at all. It explicitly mention that. It also explicitly mention that I'm not infallible anyway and that adjustments could be necessary.

 

Edited by martillo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, martillo said:

That's in resume the big challenge I'm facing today... 

 

The trouble with repeatedly contradicting instead of listening is that others eventually give up trying to be helpful.
This applies most especially when you contradict things I did not say, in a 'reply' to something I did say.

Go well with your thoughts, I will try to remember not to bother replying to your next 'speculation'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, martillo said:

The problem I face now is with the Standard Model of particles. The model is in an advanced stage, advanced enough to be able to deal the main problems it could face to become a new model of all the particles and all the experimental particles observed in high energy Physics, I think.

And its great success is a problem?

1 hour ago, martillo said:

But it also has other big problems with half of the current "Quantum Physics" in what relates to the called "Waves Mechanics Theory" based on the De Broglie hypothesis of "matter waves" associated to the particles. Not to mention the problems it has with Relativity Theory.

What problems does it have with relativity? The standard model doesn’t incorporate gravity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What problems does it have with relativity? The standard model doesn’t incorporate gravity.

The key feature is that the model is based in instantaneous Electric and Magnetic fields as Classical Physics do and that goes against Relativity stating all fields (including gravity) must act at light velocity only. That also goes against the electromagnetic wave theory of light, I know, the model agrees with the particle theory of light (the photons) only and solving the "wave-particle duality" in favor to the particle model only.

As everything is inter related in Physics, just a little change somewhere provoke changes in several other places. But there's no other way for a new theory. The paradigm of "welding" all theories doesn't work...

Edited by martillo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, martillo said:

The key feature is that the model is based in instantaneous Electric and Magnetic fields as Classical Physics do and that goes against Relativity stating all fields (including gravity) must act at light velocity only. 

You have a reference for this? I was under the impression that it was a relativistic quantum field theory.

And electrodynamics - even classical electrodynamics- is inherently relativistic

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, swansont said:

You have a reference for this? I was under the impression that it was a relativistic quantum field theory.

The Standard Model includes "force carriers" travelling at c velocity of light. Isn't this a condition imposed to match with Relativity?

53 minutes ago, swansont said:

And electrodynamics - even classical electrodynamics- is inherently relativistic

Do you refer to the electron's change in longitudinal size due to the effect of retarded potentials as determined by the original Lorentz's factor introduced by Lorentz which was associated to an increase of mass in the experiments of Kaufmann, Bucherer and Neumann experiments?

Edited by martillo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, martillo said:

The Standard Model includes "force carriers" travelling at c velocity of light. Isn't this a condition imposed to match with Relativity?

They are virtual particles. They don’t violate causality or relativity.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

 

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Do you refer to the electron's change in longitudinal size due to the effect of retarded potentials as determined by the original Lorentz's factor introduced by Lorentz which was associated to an increase of mass in the experiments of Kaufmann, Bucherer and Neumann experiments?

No, I was referring to Maxwell’s equations.

You need to provide citations for your claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me,

Do you know of anyone who has won any lottery by contradicting the organisers when they publish the winning numbers and say to that someone.

"We're sorry to tell you that your speculated numbers did not match our list."

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, martillo said:

The problem I mentioned is precisely related to the "spin" (intrinsic angular momentum) of the elementary particles like the electron if they are considered as "point like" particles. As I said in the previous post " I cannot handle the concept of "point like" having a magnetic field. For me the proper definition of magnetic field involves a current element which means a displacement of charge and so imposible to exist "within" a point."

I cannot even pretend to replace an entire Science's development of a century myself, no way. But if I come up with an idea that could work for me, I could suggest it to some scientists I could reach for them to consider it and if it were the case to develop it further. I mean, that is something possible for me and for anyone coming up with some idea, for the Science's community to analyze and decide if some new idea could worth to be developed or not. Particularly, this forum could be a place were something new could in principle surge. It could give a first analysis on a new idea which could inspire some scientists about something new in Science. This is my approach while discussing things here. The problem I find is that when presenting something new it is always demanded to fully demonstrate it even experimentally as if I would have already solved it all. Fortunately exists this the "Speculations" place in the forum where new things could be proposed to be discussed. At least one door open to something new...

Except that you don't have enough understanding to make suggestions that are worth exploring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, swansont said:

You need to provide citations for your claims.

You asked for a reference for "... Relativity stating all fields (including gravity) must act at light velocity only. " right? Actually that is something I have seen in lot forums' discussions, is not based in any scientific document. My perception was that Relativity impose the c limit in the velocity of everything, that nothing can travel at a higher velocity than c. Am I wrong in this? Is there something currently allowed to travel instantaneously through space? Particularly is there any field in current theories that propagates instantaneously? Am I wrong concluding that is Relativity that impose the c limit in the propagation of any field?

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Tell me,

Do you know of anyone who has won any lottery by contradicting the organisers when they publish the winning numbers and say to that someone.

"We're sorry to tell you that your speculated numbers did not match our list."

?

You know, is really difficult for me to get to the real point in what you are saying. It happened many times to me. I need to read several times your assertions to understand properly what you are trying to transmit. May be it is because English is not my natural language and I get lost while reading. Is not my intention to misunderstand what you say...

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

Except that you don't have enough understanding to make suggestions that are worth exploring.

So you judge something without reading it just because you judge the author doesn't have enough understanding on the subject. So you judge something without knowing anything of what it is about. It is your decision, you close even the possibility to talk about, nothing I could do. To make things worst for me I have made many big mistakes here in this thread. I understand your point of view. How could I revert it? Is there a way?

Edited by martillo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much wrong things I have posted in this thread. I always make mistakes, may be everyday. Even having reason in some things I make too much mistakes while trying to defend them. I apologize. I will not bother you more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Martillo,

What I do not understand, is that you don't start to read. Several experts here have told you, that electron configuration in atoms and molecules, and chemical bonds, are thoroughly understood, and already belong to established science. Of course, there are still problems enough, but many (most?) of them are practical: even if we have the basic theories, the calculations become next to impossible when many particles are involved, and therefore approximations or experiments are needed. (just imagine: there is still no general analytical solution for the 3-particle problem , i.e. 3 particles that move under simple Newtonian gravity! How more difficult is it when you want to describe multiple particle problems for atomar conditions!)

The problem you have seems to me that what you understand about these topics so far, does not fit the concepts you use to approach atomar and molecular processes and configurations. I can only say: believe the experts here, and the established science, that there is no problem. There simply is no need for a new basic theory, so don't spill your time on it.

Use your time to get into the present scientific understanding. Read about quantum theory, quantum electrodynamics, and chemical bonding. Try to find the books that fit to your present understanding, and bring you to a higher level of insight about these topics. I am sure that some of the participants in this thread will help you to find the right books (or maybe even good web pages). I assure you, great new vistas will be opened in your mind.

Let us know, if you need any help to find the right texts for you.

Cheers,

Eise

Edited by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, martillo said:

 

So you judge something without reading it just because you judge the author doesn't have enough understanding on the subject. So you judge something without knowing anything of what it is about. It is your decision, you close even the possibility to talk about, nothing I could do. To make things worst for me I have made many big mistakes here in this thread. I understand your point of view. How could I revert it? Is there a way?

Yes I judge you without reading, because I have formed the opinion, based on evidence, that you are ignorant of the things you write about.

So yes, there is a way, and I and others have already told you what it is.

Learn, first, what the current established theories are, before you start trying to make up ones of your own. Virtually every scientist in history that has made a novel contribution has started by learning the current state of the art first.

It's obvious that one has to do that, since otherwise there is the risk of saying something really stupid - as you have done now on more than one occasion - which damages one's credibility. A reader of your posts cannot avoid forming an opinion of you and frankly, the opinion I now have of you is that you are somebody that does not bother to inform yourself about the science that you are trying to challenge. That makes it likely that we will spend our time correcting your basic errors, rather than learning any new insights from you.

It is in your hands. Read and  learn, first. Lots of us here, including me, will be only too happy to discuss science with you as you learn. You may pose some good and interesting questions in the process: people often do in such discussions. But do not try to make assertions that contradict established science without reading thoroughly beforehand, or you will just look an idiot.       

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, martillo said:

You asked for a reference for "... Relativity stating all fields (including gravity) must act at light velocity only. " right? Actually that is something I have seen in lot forums' discussions, is not based in any scientific document. My perception was that Relativity impose the c limit in the velocity of everything, that nothing can travel at a higher velocity than c. Am I wrong in this? Is there something currently allowed to travel instantaneously through space? Particularly is there any field in current theories that propagates instantaneously? Am I wrong concluding that is Relativity that impose the c limit in the propagation of any field?

No, I know that relativity limits information to lightspeed. I am interested in your claim that there is some issue with the standard model owing to relativity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, swansont said:

No, I know that relativity limits information to lightspeed. I am interested in your claim that there is some issue with the standard model owing to relativity.

 

 

May be it was just a misunderstanding. I wrote:

22 hours ago, martillo said:

Not to mention the problems it has with Relativity Theory.

I was talking about my model, not the Standard Model.

6 hours ago, Eise said:

Hi Martillo,

What I do not understand, is that you don't start to read. Several experts here have told you, that electron configuration in atoms and molecules, and chemical bonds, are thoroughly understood, and already belong to established science. Of course, there are still problems enough, but many (most?) of them are practical: even if we have the basic theories, the calculations become next to impossible when many particles are involved, and therefore approximations or experiments are needed. (just imagine: there is still no general analytical solution for the 3-particle problem , i.e. 3 particles that move under simple Newtonian gravity! How more difficult is it when you want to describe multiple particle problems for atomar conditions!)

The problem you have seems to me that what you understand about these topics so far, does not fit the concepts you use to approach atomar and molecular processes and configurations. I can only say: believe the experts here, and the established science, that there is no problem. There simply is no need for a new basic theory, so don't spill your time on it.

Use your time to get into the present scientific understanding. Read about quantum theory, quantum electrodynamics, and chemical bonding. Try to find the books that fit to your present understanding, and bring you to a higher level of insight about these topics. I am sure that some of the participants in this thread will help you to find the right books (or maybe even good web pages). I assure you, great new vistas will be opened in your mind.

Let us know, if you need any help to find the right texts for you.

Cheers,

Eise

Eise, I appreciate your comment. May be you didn't read the following I have posted while answering to studiot:

22 hours ago, martillo said:

I have no problems with ions now. Once I have admitted being totally wrong with the title of the thread and completely admitting the existence of negative ions I have not any problem with Chemistry now. I can completely agree with everything on Chemistry now.

My model have a different configuration of the electrons in the atom, they remain quite static in an equilibrium between electric and magnetic forces with with its associated proton, but it is totally compatible with the "quantum levels" of current theory giving the same spectral series for hydrogen for instance as I show. The model would be also totally compatible with all the geometry already considered in atoms. All these imposible for me to treat here in a thread in the forum, of course, mainly due to the many mistakes I usually make as I admitted.

Edited by martillo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.