A Structured Nucleus: An Energy-centic Approach

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by InnerSpace, Apr 12, 2022.

  1. InnerSpace Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    Have been out of the Sciforums loop since Easter. In that time all 3 STEM Development papers have been updated with adjustments made to many figures. Several reported discrepancies have been fixed - probably still quite a few lurking. Exchemist might be pleased with the modified use of the term 'energy' and the introduction of the concept of 'energen'.

    The 3 papers cover the topics of atomic structure; the nature of light and other forms of EMR; and electrons, electricity and magnetism. They are all linked and cross-referenced, so you can start with any one of the 3.

    All the latest releases are timestamped May 2022. The links are the same as before- just the content has changed. Those links by topic are: Atomic Structure; Electrons and Electricity; The Nature of Light.

    Please have (another) look.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,607
    No thanks. Could you post anything you think is worth noting and we could discuss it here?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. InnerSpace Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    How about discussing the existence of positive holes; those quasi-particles considered to be positive charge carriers when in reality they are fixed cations that can only be turned on (i.e. lose an electron) or off (i.e. gain an electron), but cannot physically move.

    Another possible topic is the historical development of the orbital atomic model from the planet-like Bohr model to the probabilistic orbitals defined by the wave equations. Could orbital electrons be a historical misconception harking back to 1913, and not necessarily part of an atom’s structure? What are the alternatives?

    What are your views on these topics?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,607
    This sounds interesting. Are you saying electrons aren't part of an atom?
     
  8. InnerSpace Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    I am saying that orbital electrons are not part of an atom; in my humble opinion, they are simply an unfortunate historical aberration stemming from the 1913 Bohr model consisting of a positively charged nucleus being orbited by negatively charged electrons. The comforting features of the Bohr model at the time were its simplicity and similarity to our own planetary system, with a Sun being the equivalent of a nucleus and the orbiting planets the electrons. The main difference, apart from size and scale, is that the planets are held in orbits by gravitational pull whereas electrons are allegedly by opposite electric charge attraction; and there is the slight problem that the mutual repulsion between protons within the nucleus should cause it to explode.

    Discrepancies soon between predicted and measured energy levels related to emission and adsorption spectra became problematic, and the Bohr model has since been upgraded to the Orbital Nuclear Atomic Model (ONAM). For ONAM the nucleus is represented by a cluster of nucleons (positively charged protons and neutral neutrons); with electrons considered to act like electromagnetic waves rather than particles; and the shell-like orbitals of electrons replaced by weirdly shaped probability distributions around the nucleus as determined by the wave equations. However, the planetary system analogy persists as does the concept of electrons are held within orbitals by the electric field attraction between protons within the nucleus and electrons.

    The first time that I came across a theory that suggested that electrons do not orbit around an atomic nucleus was the 2003 online version of Professor P M Kanarev’s 'The Foundations of Physchemistry of Micro World'. As I was a firm believer in the orbital nuclear model that had been fed to me since school days, although his experiment results and associated mathematical modelling seemed thorough, I was most skeptical of Kanarev’s claims and did not pursue them.

    Initially I worked upon the energy-centric hypothesis that there is only one type of energy generating material (dubbed energen) with respect to electrons. All fundamental particles have a spin component and thus angular momentum, albeit intrinsic, which suggested that concentrated energen would involve circular flow or movement. My research into electron characteristics led me to believe that the best physical model for an electron was a variation of the toroidal model. Then, when it came to the structure of the atom, a similar toroidal model seemed to be the appropriate building block (or candidate for being the illusive preon).

    This led to a suggested structure for up and down quarks in terms of concentrated energy sources (CESs). CESs have a similar structure to that of an electron, but are larger and contain much more energen. The quarks built into nucleons, and nucleons into atomic nuclei that seemingly has no need for electrons. Electrons do exist within some atomic nuclei, but in a pre-electron form called a bitron. However, in this atomic model, electrons per se are not needed, and are certainly not orbital electrons. Electrons are considered to be derived from bitrons within chemical bonds, when the bonds are damaged or broken, and from some fission processes.
     
  9. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    Ok. I have read your presentation of STEM.
    Not so bad but perhaps too "computer like" or "lego like" particles here.
    Therefore i can perhaps help : First, i think you could use some understanding about why we think a particle is also a wave.

    What is a wave ?
    It is a particle who tend to occupy some space.
    Because the particle is not in contact with anything, it occupy his own space.

    Therefore, the time occuring in this space is disconected with the time of the space around this inner space.
    To say it simple : 1 second outside the space is equivalent to almost (not sure if almost) an infinity of seconds in the inner space.
    Take a photon : It is a ponctual exitement of the void, spacetime organised in some sort of rotating (oscillation) torus. This "element", the particle, will travel, like a particle, in the void.
    He bounce into his inner space and the expansion (the same we observ at cosmological scale) of the void (very slow relativ to the boucing speed inside this inner space) permit him to expand inside the outer space.
    Therefore, what you see from outside, the wave of the photon, is only the average of the extremly fast (relativ to outside) bouncing back and forth of the photon inside the inner space.
    You will see "some wave" because there is a relation between the oscillation inside and the expansion outside.

    You can also have 2 photons in the same space, and they can only be together if they are complementary (or they can not maintain themselves, so we dont generaly speak about those anihilated photons).
    We talk here about intricated particles.

    Therefore, if you interact with one of the photon, the other is actually (now...) at the opposite (they are complementary) position of the inner space and you will have the complementary value of the photon at illimited distance inside the inner space (1 second in outside space is almost infinity of seconds in the inside space).
     

Share This Page