An atomistic theory of matter

And yet like our other alternative model pushers, you and your hypothesis languish in oblivion, on a inconsequential science forum open to any Tom, Dick, or Harry.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong. h is not in physics to describe just atomic shells, it's used in proton experiments all the time. The substitution of \(h \to \frac{h}{387.7}\) would not make nuclei bound in a universe that had only electromagnetism and gravity.

This claim is spurious -- all physical laws are well-demonstrated within their experimental domains. No physical law can be proven in the mathematical sense, so it sounds like an objection made from a physics outsider. It sounds like an example of false dilemma where you suggest if X isn't proven then Y is more likely to be true, which would be an argument from a logic outsider.

Quantum physics would agree with this statement.

This statement does not appear rooted in reality.

Incorrect, because the principle of parsimony means you can't ignore the phenomena your model doesn't predict -- you have to predict the same phenomena at least as well with a simpler model before Ockham's razor can go to work.

A straw man, because you are arguing against a speculative mathematical model, not one yet capable of modeling the phenomena under discussion in this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Instead of E = mc2 the inertial mass mi is at not too large velocities

mi = (NP+NE) mP + (Ne+Np) me – E(bound)/c2

for a body consisting of NP protons, NE eltons, Ne electrons and Np positrons. And the inertial mass is clearly different from the gravitational mass.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"h is not in physics to describe just atomic shells, it's used in proton experiments all the time. The substitution of h→h/387.7 would not make nuclei bound in a universe that had only electromagnetism and gravity."

This is complete nonsense!

 

Thank you for demonstrating that you rely on the relation \(E = mc^2\) when accounting for isotopic mass.

So you say, yet all the isotopic masses in chemistry were determined via their weight, because that is the most accurate measurement of absolute mass known to physics.

So you say, yet never have you demonstrated your claims. The physics I know has the value of actually describing much of the behavior of the universe we live in.

Take two protons, with repulsive force \(F = \frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2}\) -- how massive would a nucleus have to be to be gravitationally bound?

Let the nucleus be a sphere of diameter r. Then the surface acceleration would have to at least cancel the Coulomb repulsion. \(\frac{G(M-m)m}{\left(\frac{r}{2}\right)^2} \geq \frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2} \Rightarrow \frac{M}{m} \geq 1 + \frac{e^2}{16 pi \epsilon_0 G m^2 } \gt 3 \times 10^{35}\). The helium nucleus would have to have over a half million tons of gravitational mass to hold two protons to its surface, regardless of what their inertial mass was.

I don't think you have demonstrated that helium nuclei are on the order of \(10^{35}\) more massive than reported in the conventional media, so it appears you made a false assumption in claiming the universe only has classical electromagnetism and Newtonian gravity.

 

There exists a very interesting relation between h and the bound energy E(bound) of a proton + electron system with the reduced mass m’ = mP me/(mp + me)

h = e^2/2 c (m’c^2/2 E(1H,bound))^1/2

derived by Sommerfeld (who did not known that h is a Lagrange multiplier). The bound energy can be expressed with h^2

E(1H,bound) = m’c^2/2 (e^2/2c h)^2.

If you put the other LM h0 = h/387.7 in this equation instead of h, you get the bound energy of the stable neutron N0

E(N0,bound) = E(1H,bound) (387.7)^2 = 2.04 MeV !!!!

 

You don't have scientific imagination!

 

Why would I need imagination if your idea is scientific? I just compare the predictions of your claimed model for the universe with the already known behavior of the universe. But time and time again, you are the the one found to be shirking the duty to be the sober scientific and critical judge of one's own writing.

When fairly criticized, you don't even review the criticisms to see if they are worthy.

The claim that I am the one who lacks scientific imagination seems baseless when I have thought to apply your assumptions to many more physical phenomena than you did. Your argument is with the behavior of reality, not me and physicists. I have, in the past, tried to correct your misunderstandings of what a physicist is, but you have ignored me and the actual professionals I quoted and referred to.

 

I am not forced to ignore you, you are a scientific nobody.

 

So says another alternative hypothesis pusher, that lives in the fringes and eternal scientific oblivion.

 

Whereas you don't have scientific knowledge.

 

You have an imagination devoid of any science.

 

Translation in SI units:
1 Rydberg unit of energy is defined as: \(1 \, \textrm{Ry} \; \equiv \; = \frac{m_e e^4}{8 \epsilon_0^2 h^2} = m_e c^2 \cdot \frac{\alpha^2}{2} \) where \(\alpha \approx \frac{1}{137}\) is the fine-structure constant (aka Sommerfeld's constant) describing the strength of electromagnetism in perturbative quantum mechanics.
The ionization energy of the most common isotope of hydrogen is calculated from quantum theory to be:
\(E_H = \frac{m_p}{ m_e + m_p} \, \textrm{Ry} = \frac{m_e m_p}{ m_e + m_p} \frac{c^2 \alpha^2}{2} = \frac{m_e m_p}{ m_e + m_p} \cdot \frac{c^2}{2} \cdot \left( \frac{e^2}{2 \epsilon_0 h c} \right)^2 = \frac{m_e m_p}{ m_e + m_p} \cdot \frac{e^4}{8 \epsilon_0^2 h^2}\)
Thus if we can experimentally measure this energy, and we can by measuring the light emitted during reionization of low pressure hydrogen ions, we can measure h as:
\(h = \sqrt{ \frac{m_e m_p}{ m_e + m_p} \cdot \frac{e^4}{8 \epsilon_0^2 E_H} } = \frac{e^2}{2 \epsilon_0 c} \sqrt{ \frac{m_e m_p c^2}{2 E_H ( m_e + m_p )}}\)
Thus \(E_H = \frac{1}{1 + \frac{1}{1836.15267245(75)}} \times 13.60569253(30) \, \textrm{eV} = 0.999455679424472(222) \times 13.60569253(30) \, \textrm{eV} = 13.59828667(30) \, \textrm{eV} \)
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/reviews/rpp2014-rev-phys-constants.pdf
where the reduced mass correction adjusts Sommerfeld's constant of 1312.7 kJ/mol to the observed 1312.0 kJ/mol.

Without reliance on experiment or argument, Atomsz asserts that the (stable) Neutron is a bound system with binding energy of \(E_N = (387.7)^2 E_H = 2043976.011(45) \, \textrm{eV} \approx 2.04 \, \textrm{MeV}\). Is this a reasonable claim?

No. Because the conjectural stable Neutrons of Atomsz's idea has no relation to the observed physical neutrons. Take \(_{26}^{56} \textrm{Fe}\). Is it stable? Yes, it is one of the top five most energetically stable isotopes and the most common isotope of iron. Does it have neutrons? Yes, 30.
So how does it's isotopic mass of 55.9349375 u compare to the mass of 26 protons, 30 proton-electron pairs and 26 orbital neutrons?
\(56 \times \left( 1.007276466812(90) \, \textrm{u} \; \left( 1 + \frac{1}{1836.15267245(75)} \right) \right) = 56.4382026164(51) \, \textrm{u}\)
So it is missing 0.5032651 u of mass which is about 230 times \(E_N/c^2\) not close to the estimate of \(30 E_N/c^2\) as predicted by Atomsz's assertions.

\(_{26}^{56} \textrm{Fe}\) masses about 200 \(E_N\) less than an atom made of 26 protons, 30 Atomsz stable neutrons and 26 orbital electrons. Does that make sense?

Atomsz might make the claim that electrons have negative gravitational mass, but that does not repair the calculation, since then the sum of components is 56.3767616665(51) u and is missing 0.4418242 u which is still about 202 times \(E_N/c^2\)

 

Mister, once more again: the only valid quantum theory is based on the quantized source of the fields; the sources are the four stable particles e, p, P and E with two elementary charges. The fields are NOT QUANTIZED.

There does not make any sense to copy from standard books here the written invalid results of the invalid “quantum mechanics”.The quantum theoretists do not know what is really the Planck's contant h.

".. the fine-structure constant (Sommerfeld's constant) describing the strength of electromagnetism in perturbative quantum mechanics." No, no and no!
The strengh of the electromagnetic field is to be measured with the elementary electric charge e and for the perturbation we have to take into acount the emitted radiation as RAY.

Furthermore, there exist two kind of neutrons; the stable neutron N0 =(P,e) and the instable neutron N =(P,e,p,e). The binding energy of N0 is 2.04 MeV!

 

The 56Fe does not contain 30 “physically observed neutrons” N. The binding between 56 protons in the 56Fe nucleus can be via (e,p,e) or via (e). A priori we don’t know how many N neutrons and how many N0 neutrons are in the 56Fe isotope.

The relative mass defect compared to the gravitational mass of the 56Fe isotop is 0.784% !! That is the relative difference between inertial and gravitational mass!!

The inertial mass of the electrical neutral 56Fe isotop is, expessed with the masses of proton and electron

mi(56Fe) = 56(mP + me) + 2 N(e,p) me - E(56Fe,bound)/c^2

The unknown number of the (e,p) pairs is N(e,p) in 56Fe.

The gravitational mass of 56Fe is

mg(56Fe) = 56 (mP - me),

the number of the (e,p) pairs do not appear in mg(56Fe) because the gravitational mass of (e,p) is zero!

 

As I have already suggested, why are you here then? Why not write a scientific paper up on your claims and present them for peer review? Or are you also a conspiracy pusher?

In actual fact you and your silly hypothetical nonsense are in the fringe sections of a science forum.
You ain't going anywhere...what a waste!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Atomsz might make the claim that electrons have negative gravitational mass,.." It is not true!

The electron has NEGATIVE GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE, but POSITIVE ELEMENTARY MASS.
You have to learn that finally.

 

Atomz it seems makes many unsupported and ridiculous claims, but isn't that the way of most all our alternative hypothesis pushers that seek to undermine mainstream physics in one way or another?
This forum is the only outlet he has. He uses it to re enforce his view on his own credibility, or lack thereof.
He appears to be another constant theorist, or chinglu...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Have to give a wry smile when those two come to mind.

 

The inertial mass of the electrical neutral 56Fe isotope

mi(56Fe) = 56(mP + me) + 2 N(e,p) me - E(56Fe,bound)/c^2

does not support the E = mc^2 relation! The sum of the elementary masses is more than 99% greater than E(bound)/c^2!!

 

The mainstream physics has undermined ifself with invalid hypotheses and theories!