Sleeping Troll Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 So in 1983 I began trying to compose an atomic model that did not require them... That has lead me to some very interesting places! Rather than restate all that I have found, let me propose my first model and confront the arguments against it. I think it will keep you quite entertained! As an example of my model of the helium atom, we can start at a point where there are 2 neutrons residing together in the nucleus. At two distant points we have 2 more neutrons: n nn n Gravity pulls the 2 distant neutrons to the nucleus where they collide with the 2 neutrons there. The neutrons "at rest" gain energy from the colliding neutrons and decay into proton electron pairs which repel each other. The electrons travel at a greater velocity due to their lesser mass. At some point the repelling forces of the like charges diminishes with loss of proximity and the pairs recombine to become neutrons, which fall back to the nucleus and the process repeats. I didn't say this was correct! I said it was where I started... Hit me with your arguments, I think I have them all covered! (I have a few that you probably haven't thought of) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) You don't really have much of a model here, or at least you have not presented it to us. Anyway... The neutrons "at rest" gain energy from the colliding neutrons and decay into proton electron pairs which repel each other. Okay, so how do we understand the decay without the weak force? Edited September 4, 2013 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 How do you explain the bound state of He without a strong force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeping Troll Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 A better question is how does collision occur at the subatomic level, being that what causes ordinary objects to appear solid is the electron cloud. I had begun modeling my atom with directx when that question occured to me, what I found (quite by accident) was that it was possible that there are no neutrons and that what we perceive as neutrons are actually electrons in close proximity to a nucleus of protons. I realized at this point that the "dance" that I described above was more complex, and that electrons were periodically falling through the nucleus. I accidently created a model in directx which demonstrated such a dance, unfortunately it was much to slow to garner much understanding from. I am back to the mind experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 A better question is how does collision occur at the subatomic level... So you want to just dodge the question. Anyway, we have lots of experimental evidence that the weak and strong forces are realised in nature. Any theory you propose would have to fit this data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeping Troll Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 No, not dodging the question, I just thought that the "dance" explanation answered your inquiry also. This "dance" does not need to be perfect, but it has to be close enough that the atom holds together, hence bound states. Also the "dance" becomes more critical with heavier atoms, so, no need for the weak force to account for atomic decay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Can you quantifiy 'distant point' from the nucleus? The gravitational force between the two central neutrons and the neutron at the 'distant point' is not going to be significant. If the distant point is a nanometer (10-6 ) the gravitational acceleration between the three neutrons is about 3.72 x 10-54 m/sec2 . That's physically insignificant. Since a neutron is about 10-18 meters in radius, that's as close as they could get. Which would give a contact gravitational acceleration of 3.72 x 10-30 m/sec2. Again, not much there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeping Troll Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 So glad we got to this! Yes, gravity becomes a huge problem! I cannot tell you how long I suffered trying to find the answer... Suppose that gravity rather than being a force acting within this universe was a force acting upon this universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 So glad we got to this! Yes, gravity becomes a huge problem! I cannot tell you how long I suffered trying to find the answer... Suppose that gravity rather than being a force acting within this universe was a force acting upon this universe? If it is an external force acting uniformly upon the universe, it would be subject to the shell theorem, and we'd never notice its effects. OTOH, we know that it is a 'force' (it isn't really) acting within the universe, generated by mass (end energy), and subject to the inverse square law. When you say 'suppose that ... rather', you're saying lets ignore the last 600 years of experimentation, observation and calculation. Any new idea you come up with must conform to what we know, OR provide a better explanation than current theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeping Troll Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/press.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Yes, old news. What does this have to do with the subject under discussion? Dark energy and the acceleration of cosmic expansion has nothing to do with the strong and weak nuclear force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeping Troll Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 If the universe and everything in the universe where expanding at an accelerating rate, how could you detect that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) If the universe and everything in the universe where expanding at an accelerating rate, how could you detect that? Because not everything in the universe is expanding. Space is expanding, but that only takes effect outside the local galactic supergroups at over 200 milllion light years. That's the limit of gravitationally bound objects. Closer than that, gravity overwhelms cosmic expansion. And certainly nothing material is expanding, the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces so overpower cosmic expansion that expansion might as well not be there at all. The force driving cosmological expansion is incredibly weak, and becomes a factor only when it acts over even more incredible distances. Edited September 4, 2013 by ACG52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeping Troll Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 So says our present understanding... of course our present understanding also says that force extends to infinity at a strength determined by the inverse square... well that is except for the strong and weak nuclear forces. do you have a pen or pencil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) of course our present understanding also says that force extends to infinity at a strength determined by the inverse square... Gravity does, not the energy driving cosmological expansion (Dark energy). The rate of cosmological expansion is a metric scalar. It increases at the rate of 78 km/megaparsec (3.26 million light years) of course our present understanding ... If you are going to either extend our present understanding, or replace it with something else, the new paradigm must provide testable predictions which are either as accurate, or more accurate and more comprehensive than our present understanding. If it can't meet that standard, it's discarded.. Edited September 4, 2013 by ACG52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeping Troll Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 I believe I have found the source of (Dark Energy), but we are still a long way from that... I believe it will be worth your while to bear with me! If gravity were so strong as you say, then the Big Bang would have collapsed before it started! Ahh, the strong and weak nuclear forces have saved us all! Grip that pen (or pencil) between your thumb and forefinger and let it go... If everything in the universe were expanding at an accelerating rate, things would seem to attract one another. Also 78 km/megaparsec (3.26 million light years) is static... http://www.nobelpriz...2011/press.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) If gravity were so strong as you say, then the Big Bang would have collapsed before it started! You don't seem to get it. Gravity is incredibly weak. It's just everywhere. The effects of gravity on the expanding universe are homogeneous. There's no center of the universe, there's no point that gravity is pulling everything too. If everything in the universe were expanding at an accelerating rate, things would seem to attract one another. Read post 13 again. Edited September 4, 2013 by ACG52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeping Troll Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 OK, then I have some questions... If there is no center is there an edge? When did time begin? If the universe is a finite entity, where is the back pressure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 If there is no center is there an edge? No. Therre is the observable universe, which is as far as we're able to see, given that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and has been expanding for that length of time. The observable universe is a sphere, 48 billion light years across, but that's from ANY point, not a central point. When did time begin? T = 0 was the beginning of the initial expansion. If the universe is a finite entity, where is the back pressure? The universe can have a finite origin, and still expand infinitely. Why would there be any 'back pressure', and from what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeping Troll Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) What is the universe expanding into? A little experiment... looking to the north you spot a super nova near the edge of the observable universe, looking to the south you spot another super nova near the edge of the observable universe. Would super nova (a) exist for an observer on super nova (b)? No. Therre is the observable universe, which is as far as we're able to see, given that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and has been expanding for that length of time. The observable universe is a sphere, 48 billion light years across, but that's from ANY point, not a central point. T = 0 was the beginning of the initial expansion. The universe can have a finite origin, and still expand infinitely. Why would there be any 'back pressure', and from what? http://www.nobelpriz...2011/press.html T = 0 is a point in ... ? I don't know, what? If the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate then 13.8 billion years old is an erroneous figure. The beginning of time is an oxymoron. doesn't the universe include that "what"? These aren't stupid questions, they are questions that need answers! I tend to agree with Aristotle, "The universe has always been pretty much as it is now and it always will be." The consequence of this is that the universe is infinite. If the universe is infinite then there could be no Big Bang. The only way we could perceive a big bang is if the universe and everything in it were expanding at an accelerating rate. If we look back from a point on a parabolic curve we will perceive at the limits of our instruments of observation a beginning... this would be an illusion! Edited September 4, 2013 by Sleeping Troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 I realized at this point that the "dance" that I described above was more complex, and that electrons were periodically falling through the nucleus. That's already part of quantum mechanics. It's not enough to explain how you form the bound system we observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeping Troll Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) There would be limits on variations of the (let's call the "dance" a system) system. If the system were not within these parameters the atom would not be coherent. (sorry, no, I don't have the parameters) My realization was not only that electrons were falling though the nucleus, but rather that in a rythmic system we might detect electrons moving at high velocities through the nucleus and some of the associated protons as different particles with a slightly greater mass than that of the proton and electron, namely "neutrons". Actually no atom would be permanently coherent, given enough time even the most stable, simplest atom would eventually fall apart I think that average time for a given element is called "half-life"? Also in my current model, protons are free to repel each other away from the nucleus, there is interaction between the electrons and the nucleus and the whole thing is a pretty loose conglomeration of particles, I think perhaps bound states are the only hope for a working rythmic system that can be called an atom or molecule. Perhaps the strong force is our perception of this rythmic system of energies and particles? I say my "current model", that was then, now I have a much different view on things. At one point I was ready to call quantum physics hog wash... now I think I may be seeing Higgs in all its colors... and the source of Dark energy! But our discussion is still at "then". Edited September 4, 2013 by Sleeping Troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Can you find the scattering cross section of a gold atom showing your working using your "model"? If not, why are is this not in the scope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) My realization was not only that electrons were falling though the nucleus, but rather that in a rythmic system we might detect electrons moving at high velocities through the nucleus and some of the associated protons as different particles with a slightly greater mass than that of the proton and electron, namely "neutrons". None of this matches any observation of experiment. Actually no atom would be permanently coherent, given enough time even the most stable, simplest atom would eventually fall apart Again, that's not what we see. Primordial hydrogen is 13+ billion years old and shows no sign of any unstablility. Also in my current model, protons are free to repel each other away from the nucleus, But they don't do that. You don't really have any kind of model here. None of it matches what reality shows us. Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" Edited September 4, 2013 by ACG52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 (edited) OK, then I have some questions... If there is no center is there an edge? When did time begin? If the universe is a finite entity, where is the back pressure? Hang on... I though we were talking about your model. You clearly have lots of misconceptions about cosmology, but this is besides the point. You don't seem to have a model and even if you did, in what way is this better than the established atomic and nuclear theory we have that is based on quantum mechanics? And then if there is no strong or weak force (is that what you are actually claiming?) how do we understand the results of collider experiments? In particular quarks & deep inelestic scattering and the discovery of the W and Z bosons? Edited September 5, 2013 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now