The Fundamental Forces

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby peter » Sat May 03, 2014 6:14 am

So why does the electron not continue to collapse into the nucleus ?


Well it was that question that started the whole Quantum Theory off.
The problem with Rutherford's Planetary model of the atom. The theory of electricity and magnetism predicted that opposite charges attract each other and the electrons should gradually lose energy and spiral inward. Moreover, it was reasoned that as a consquence atoms should give off a broad spectrum of colors as they do so. But no experiment could verify this rainbow.

In 1912 Niels Bohr suggested that since the electrons do not spiral into the nucleus there are some rules for what does happen. (This began a new scientific approach - rules need to be made up to fit the observation )

So Bohr said here are some rules that seem impossible, but they describe the way atoms operate, so let's pretend they're correct and use them.

RULE 1: Electrons can only orbit at certain allowed distances from the nucleus. Each orbit has a specific energy level
RULE 2: An Atom radiates energy (Light -EM) when an electron "drops" from a higher-energy orbit to a lower-energy orbit. Conversely an atom absorbs energy when an electron "leaps" from a low-energy orbit to a high-energy orbit. Thus Science took a Quantum Leap in the understanding of the atom.
peter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby tayga » Sun May 04, 2014 2:17 am

My beef with QM is not that it doesn't work as it most definitely does. Like an empirical equation it doesn't provide a mechanism but unlike the equation it doesn't suggest one either. In fact, the Copenhagen Interpretation denies that QM reflects physical reality at all.

I think that this constitutes an enormous piece of self delusion by a group of brilliant men. It fails to acknowledge that the wave/particle model is simply that: a model that isn't the underlying reality. Rather than accept that they simply didn't have a good model of reality these men suggested that it couldn't be understood.

All models are metaphors and better models refine our concept of reality. QM constitutes the empirical rules of an underlying mechanism that Physics has not yet identified.

I think it is a shame that a field of theory that treats on the wave nature of matter arrived at a time when the aether had recently been erased from the physical paradigm.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby jacmac » Mon May 05, 2014 11:47 pm

Some ramblings late at night.

Tayga said:

Maybe someone with a better visual imagination or understanding of mechanics than me could quantify how many dimensions would be required to sustain 4 unique vortex types (combinations of rotation about x, y, z... axes) for electron, proton, positron and antiproton. I think that's all you'd need to build a universe.


I do not think nature has dimensions. The three regular dimensions x,y,z are useful to describe things and their relationships; like magnetic field lines they are tools for our language but not real. As you might guess extra dimension reality, as in string theory or multiple universes, etc. is of no interest to me.

Tayga:

My beef with QM is not that it doesn't work as it most definitely does. Like an empirical equation it doesn't provide a mechanism but unlike the equation it doesn't suggest one either. In fact, the Copenhagen Interpretation denies that QM reflects physical reality at all.

I think that this constitutes an enormous piece of self delusion by a group of brilliant men. It fails to acknowledge that the wave/particle model is simply that: a model that isn't the underlying reality. Rather than accept that they simply didn't have a good model of reality these men suggested that it couldn't be understood.




I agree. They lost me with the cat being dead and alive at the same time until the wave function collapsed.

Tayga again:
On the subject of interactions, mainstream Physics has all forces being mediated by bosons


Where is the energy coming from for all these bosons? Do they keep this up forever? Is this a perpetual motion situation?
What am I missing on that one?


More Tayga:

Let's start with atomic orbital theory. It's obviously an over-simplfication to assume that electrons orbit the nucleus but it suffices for this discussion. There is a distance from the nucleus at which an electron possesses the least energy. The distance is non-zero so we are positing that there is either an electrostatic repulsion in effect at shorter distances (a concept I am rejecting due to its inconsistency with Coulomb's Law) or something else increases the energy of the electron.


It seems to me that within the nucleus and within the least energy of the electron distance everything changes. So, violation of Coulombs law might be ok.
Wilhelm Weber says that within that very small radius the proton repulsion switches to attraction. They work together. Thus the "strong force" is what is needed to pull them apart, not something that constantly overwhelms the repulsion forces. The protons(and everything else)are crammed together by the collapsing currents in space to create matter from the previously dispersed charged particles(and whatever else gets in the way)in the plasma.

Part of the reason being that I don't fully grasp what is going on but maybe if I lay out the ideas going round in my head we can formulate something


Tayga, this is what I am working on. I am not really in disagreement with much of what you have said.

Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby Sparky » Tue May 06, 2014 9:38 am

There is a mechanism that creates the force of gravity. Some believe it to be of an electrical nature. A strong magnetic field will overcome gravity. But, does that infer that magnetism is part of the equation?!

What if "electrical effects" are only related in a similar fashion? That is, current is suppose to produce a magnetic field. But what if an instantaneous current is produced by the magnetic field? Yea, I know what they teach, but what if the inferences are not as close as we think? Current, magnetism, E field, and electrostatic field may be in the same family, but 2nd cousins!

A capacitor has an electric E field, but no current nor magnetic field. If that is correct, then the electric E field is separate from those! What degree of separation could the others have from each other?

Moving charges are electricity. An electron is producing electricity all the time. It's not a flow of electrons, but it is a flow/force of something. Is the electron a dipole?
If it is, then I suggest that the alignment of the aether around the electron can be seen as a attraction to something with the alignment in the same direction.

Everything is built on aether, it's movement, distortion, and alignment.
ireallydonno :? :oops:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby tayga » Tue May 06, 2014 2:34 pm

jacmac wrote:It seems to me that within the nucleus and within the least energy of the electron distance everything changes. So, violation of Coulombs law might be ok.
Wilhelm Weber says that within that very small radius the proton repulsion switches to attraction. They work together. Thus the "strong force" is what is needed to pull them apart, not something that constantly overwhelms the repulsion forces. The protons(and everything else)are crammed together by the collapsing currents in space to create matter from the previously dispersed charged particles(and whatever else gets in the way)in the plasma.


One thing I haven't mentioned here is the Rutherford model of the nucleus where there are no neutrons, just protons and electrons. I think this was dismissed due to theoretical objections raised by Pauli although I don't know the details. Notwithstanding that theory can never forbid anything (see A P David's excellent talk at EU2014), the exclusion of electrons from the nuclear model necessitated the invention of the strong nuclear interaction the behaviour of which has still not been described by a formula to this day.

If Rutherford were correct, the nucleus might contain highly mobile negative charge sufficient to hold all the protons together in the absence of the strong interaction.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby jacmac » Tue May 06, 2014 9:33 pm

Tayga:
If Rutherford were correct, the nucleus might contain highly mobile negative charge sufficient to hold all the protons together in the absence of the strong interaction.


Are you suggesting that the nucleus might not have neutrons ?

Wiki says:
Rutherford became Director of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University in 1919. Under his leadership the neutron was discovered by James Chadwick in 1932


Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby tayga » Wed May 07, 2014 9:31 pm

jacmac wrote:Are you suggesting that the nucleus might not have neutrons ?

Wiki says:
Rutherford became Director of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University in 1919. Under his leadership the neutron was discovered by James Chadwick in 1932


Jack


Chadwick discovered free neutrons which, incidentally have a mean lifetime of under 15 minutes. When they decay we observe a proton and an electron and, allegedly (because we need to, see below) a neutrino. I haven't seen evidence that neutrons actually exist inside the nucleus. Unstable nuclei hardly ever emit neutrons. They generally shed alpha particles, electrons or positrons.

One reason for which the neutrino was posited is to conserve spin in neutron decomposition. The neutron has spin 1/2 and its decomposition yields two particles, a proton and an electron, each having spin 1/2. In order to balance the equation, it was suggested that another particle, the neutrino, having spin 1/2 and no mass, was also produced. (Neutrinos have recently been assigned mass to fix a different theoretical problem although experiments to measure this have estimated it at less than a 1 x 10^-10 the magnitude of the mass of the electron. In other words, zero as far as experiment can tell).

In QM formalism, the spin of a particle is measured relative to its z-axis. It is acknowledged that spin is a vector. I cannot understand how it is assumed that the z-axis of a composite particle, the neutron, is necessarily the z-axis of both of its components. Even In a 2-dimensional model, two vectors of magnitude 1/2 if added at 60 degrees to one another produce a resultant vector of 1/2 at 60 degrees to each of the components. The vector diagram would have the form of an equilateral triangle.

Given this, why couldn't a neutron comprise a proton and an electron with a mutual offset between their spin axes of 60 degrees? Did all the QM geniuses of the 1920s really overlook this possibility? Is it because vector matrices are mathematical symbols and they forgot to relate their maths to any physical reality (the QM problem again)? I have no doubt that a QM true believer would tell me that I've got it all wrong because yada yada yada but if there is any physical reality to spin (there is per the Stern-Gerlach experiment) then it must behave in a physical sense.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby 601L1n9FR09 » Wed May 07, 2014 10:28 pm

The strong force is an excuse for the protons in the nucleus defying repulsion. It is a label that sounds better than we “do not know”. I think there are not four but three forces. This goes along with other triads like the three primary colors, roll-pitch-yaw, past-present-future, positive-negative-neutral and the like. By the way, I am absolutely clueless on what the weak force is supposed to be. So what then? Positive force, negative force and gravity is the best I can come up with.
I guess I see it as the electrons not being excluded from the nucleus. They stitch the protons together in the like likes like scenario. The protons are repelling one another as they naturally would when an orbiting electron passes between them neutralizing the repulsive force. Two electrons orbiting would tend to alternate and synchronize to accommodate their own repulsion. There would be certain patterns for larger atoms some more stable than others. Who is to say neutrons do not decay into hydrogen atoms? Does a neutron have a greater mass than a proton? Is a neutron simply a proton with an electron stuck to it? Maybe a proton with an electron so close the electron remains in the nucleus. How can electrons remain in orbit around a stable and essentially neutral nucleus? Never mind the protons refusing to repel one another in the nucleus, well don’t never mind that… What is the expression a thousand, billion, billion, billion times stronger than gravity? Did I miss a billion in there? Forgive me Saint Sagan. These electrons are doing light speed or damned near and do not escape the nucleus? It cannot be gravity keeping the electrons from escaping; it must be something billions and billions of times stronger. The strong force is no better than dark matter as far as I am concerned. Look, I do not need to have the right answer (and I don’t) to know the ones I am being fed are RONG. Maybe somebody with a few more brain cells should climb out of the box and build a more plausible model of the atom. I don’t mean to rush you but hurry up! I now return myself to my regularly scheduled lurking.
601L1n9FR09
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby Sparky » Thu May 08, 2014 7:26 am

RULE 1: Electrons can only orbit at certain allowed distances from the nucleus. Each orbit has a specific energy level
RULE 2: An Atom radiates energy (Light -EM) when an electron "drops" from a higher-energy orbit to a lower-energy orbit. Conversely an atom absorbs energy when an electron "leaps" from a low-energy orbit to a high-energy orbit. Thus Science took a Quantum Leap in the understanding of the atom.


Applying "rules" does not answer the questions of , why? :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu May 08, 2014 7:47 am

Electrons can only orbit at certain allowed distances from the nucleus

Is it really an orbit?
Using just Coulomb's law I would need a speed of 7E20 m/s to make an electron orbit
at this distance. Certainly something else is going on here ;-)
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 992
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby Sparky » Thu May 08, 2014 7:54 am

Certainly something else is going on here


Agreed! ;) It may be the model! ;) The model may have no real mechanical relation to what is going on. ;) We need to gather all information and start from scratch... 8-)

Electron: A strange bit of energy that is omni present, which has ?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby tayga » Thu May 08, 2014 11:24 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Is it really an orbit?
Using just Coulomb's law I would need a speed of 7E20 m/s to make an electron orbit
at this distance. Certainly something else is going on here ;-)


Orbiting is obviously a wrong model. There's no Brehmsstralung for a start. And then there's the fact that QM works. That means that 'particles' are probably standing waves and confinement causes quantized states which are harmonics of the lowest energy state.

Returning to the forces. I'm pretty sure there is only one. I've seen empirical proof that strong and weak interactions don't exist. Gravity is probably, as Thornhill suggests, a long range version of Van der Waals, induced dipole type. That makes it one: the electrostatic interaction.

In my sketchy model of a universe there is 1 interaction and 4 basic particles. The greatest mystery to resolve is what is charge?
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby Sparky » Thu May 08, 2014 11:50 am

That means that 'particles' are probably standing waves and confinement causes quantized states which are harmonics of the lowest energy state.


New insight for me... ;)

what is charge?

Interacting spins?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu May 08, 2014 1:31 pm

Sorry to bring this back up.
But this is a simple example for which we have all the data.
After we solve this problem, we can look at the other forces.

Zyxzevn wrote:Using just Coulomb's law I would need a speed of 7E20 m/s to make an electron orbit
at this distance.


Was just a bit off. 3E11 m/s (1000 times speed of light - c=3E8)
Adding some calculations:
S-band "orbit" for 1 electron around N protons.

orbit: a=v*v/R
electric force: F= E*C*(C*N)/(R*R)
And: F= m*a
Code: Select all
R= 0.0529E-9
m=9E-31
C=1.6E-19
E=8.99E9
V*V= E*C*C*N/(R*R*m)
V= 3E11 * sqrt(N)

That is still a bit too much.
1000 times the speed of light for one proton.
And 10,000 the speed of light for an atom with 100 protons.

Quantum-physics would not change it. Even in quantum-mechanics there is speed.
If I make a proper Hamilton operator it would contain the electric field.

Relativity would increase the m.
The m should be 1000,000 times larger, because of the square root.
That means the weight of the electron would become 9E-25, which is
100 times more than the weight of the proton (1.6E-27).

Anyone has an idea how to correct this calculation, with something that
does give a realistic speed value for the electron for all kinds of atoms?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 992
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: The Fundamental Forces

Unread postby Sparky » Thu May 08, 2014 5:08 pm

Anyone has an idea how to correct this calculation, with something that
does give a realistic speed value for the electron for all kinds of atoms?


Drop the obit model! ;)

What if an electron is a shell/sphere? And each shell/sphere outward is the harmonic (tayga model) of the lowest shell? With a shell, the electron's influence upon the nucleus is expressed evenly, and the energy shell is explained by the harmonic space.

There is no need for speed, just the vibrations of each shell and the nucleus.

Should I go set in the corner now? :oops:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests