Re: The electron shell model is in challenge

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 08/24/04 

Date: 24 Aug 2004 00:50:40 -0700

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cgckm9$4b3$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cg4dap$p63$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
>
> >>>>Who are you to judge this? You don't know the heap of literature
> >>>>of applying it to the heavy elements. You do not even know a single
> >>>>one of those thousands of articles!
>
> You keep ignoring this argument.
-----------------
a lot of bla bla bla that has to be snipped:

>
>
>
> >>>and who are you dto judge it while your understanding of physics
> >>>led you to the FERTZ invention??!!!
> >>
> >>*sigh* Did you notice that you are *still* the only one who thinks
> >>that that shows *any* problems with my physics education?
> >
> > --------------
> > you are lucky enough that not too many people heared about it
> > or else you would become the joker of the town
>
> Unsupported assertion. How do you know?
>
>
> > and i didnt mention yet your superfertz
> > so better keeep quite about it!!(for your sake)
>
> There is no reason to keep quiet about this, since there is
> no problem at all with this.
>
>
> Err, if this idea that EMR is caused by resonance is so well-known
> as you imply here, then how could you get a copyright on it?
>
>
>
> >>>we are geting no where with every one in his stand
> >>
> >>We could be getting somewhere if you would finally tell me where
> >>you got that idea from.
> >
> > only from myself
>
> And what makes you think you are qualified to judge if this idea
> is right?
>
> What is your education in electrodynamics? For starters, do you
> know Maxwell's equations?
-------------
at leat i am not aparrot like you
-----------
>
  
>
> > the fact that there is Au 79 does not prove that
> > there is no Au 80
>
> *sigh* Thousands of calculations were based on the assumption that
> gold has only 79 electrons. All these calculations yielded results
> which are consistent with the experimental tests.
>
> How do you explain that?
-------------
bla bla
--------------
>
>
>
> > that there are protons inside the nuc that are not
> > electrically charged
>
> That contradicts Rutherford scattering, for starters.
>
> If you can explain Rutherford's results ***QUANTITATIVELY***
> *without* using the assumption that the charge of the gold
> nucleus is 79+, feel free to do so. Unless you can't do that,
> this experiment is evidence that the gold nucleus indeed
> *has* this charge.
-------------
lets see you first using the Rutherford in caculating
the 79 charges
---------------
>
> And, BTW, protons which are not electrically charged would
> yet again contradict charge conservation.
---------------
if you coock youself with your own juice you are right (:-)
you didnt notice that you made here an sssumption based on the same ssumption
how do we call it in the logics scince ? i forgot.
----------------
>
>
> > the electric charge can be only on an edge proton
> > a proton that is connected to other neutrons
> > inside the nuc lost its edge orbital - the electron.
> > that is part of the binding energy
> > binding energy is matter that got lost to space.
>
> A bunch of unsupported assertions, contradicted by the evidence.
> What's new?
we will see about it in future
>
>
>
>
> > ----------
> > take it or leave it
>
> Support it or drop it.
to drop it or mot is my bussiness not yours.
-----------
>
>
> > for me it is not experiments- it is the interpretation of those
> > experiments
>
> If you can explain Rutherford's results ***QUANTITATIVELY***
> *without* using the assumption that the charge of the gold
> nucleus is 79+, feel free to do so. Unless you can't do that,
> this experiment is evidence that the gold nucleus indeed
> *has* this charge.
> ----------------
surprise !!!! i can do :
btw i dont know why you call it 'predictions of rutherford
he di dhis experiment at rhe beginning of the 20th century
Geiger did this nonsense physically calculation many decadeslater

the mass of a nucleid is 188 times that of an electron
4 of them are about 7000 times more massive
ie all your 79 electrons around the nuc are like a fly to an elephant
so it is not the electrons but the nuc.
now the nuc is very small no matter if charged or not
acording to the 4 relations at the end of your rutherford quote
paragraph no 3
the scattering per atom of foil differs aproximately (aproxymately?)
as a square of the atomic weight
 
the elctric force afaik if linearily proportion to the
electrich intensity so
why as a square of the atomic weight ??
can you expalin that ??

so let me bring an alternative explanation
as you know the devil is in the interpretations!!
it is not just merly an electric problem
ios is as well a mechanical problem!!
you neglected conpletely the real situation ina methal latice:
it is not a 'rock solid little sphere that repels the colliding
alpha as if it was a rock solid body

it is an elastic situation in which *the impact and momentum has to be
taken into acount!!**
the mopre correct model is of a solid sphere (or whateber it is not relavant
the exact shape at this stage)
thst body is suspending with 'springs' to its neighbours !!!
if that is the case *the mass of that body is palying a major roll
in the results:
if it is a small nuc colided by an alpha
*it retreats back and sideways* during the collition
therefore less chaces for a full recoil of the coliding alpha:
if it is a more massive nuc at the foil
more chances for back retreat of the alpha
we have to use here a model of a mass suspended on springs
and use the momentum laws.
that is only the beginning of my interpretation that i drawed
out of my sleeve by say an hour thinking.
to do it numerically needs much more time
but this is the beginning of the revolusion in interpretation......
--------------------

>
>
>
>
>
> > you have to wory first for (your' model.
> > to be completed while obviously it is not.
> > ant serious scintist wil admitt it,
>
> *No* physical theory is *ever* completed! What on earth do you
> mean?
-----------
so just lye (and lie) down on your olympic laurals!!
----------
>
 
>
> > certainly youi dont deny that there is an error margine.
>
> No.
>
>
>
> >>>but again we can repeat that forever
> >>>others has to judge
> >>
> hould
> >>>>>>be (i.e. how many particles should be scattered in which directions,
> >>>>>>how this depends on the charge of the nucleus etc.) One then compares
> >>>>>>these predictions with the observations. The agreement is *very* nice,
> >>>>>>justifying the initial assumption that the laws of electrodynamics
> >>>>>>indeed hold.
> >
> > --------------
> > nice
> > but does it cover all the particles ans subparticles there
>
> Huh? Rutherford scattering depends merely on the total charge of
> the nucleus. The details of how the nucleus is structured are irrelevant
> for Rutherford scattering, since those can only be seen for higher
> energies of the projectiles. Try reading up on the Rosenbluth formula...
> -----------------
see above
-----------------
>
> > and 2 what are the error margines?
>
> See the link.
i cant see it
i can see for instance that in figure 4-12
the results fior gold and silver are too close!!
there is even one point (the one just befor the top one
that neerly coincide for gold and silver!!
--------------
my above imterpretationexplaines as well
the influence of thickness at the adjacent figure.
-----------
>
>
>
>
> Because scattering experiments provide evidence that
> the charge of the nucleus is indeed the same as the number of protons
> in it.
>
> Spectra also provide such evidence, but it is more indirect.
more indirect but much more acurate !!!
----------
>
>
>
> >>>>A heavy nucleus has no electrons in it.
> >>>
> >>>so go learn something new
> >>>even neutrons contain electrons.
> >>
> >>That's a totally unsupported assertion which contradicts vast heaps
> >>of experimental data.
> >
> > --------------
> > vat heaps is your interpretation.
>
> No. Try looking at Hofstadter's data and tell me how on earth they
> are compatible with electrons inside the neutrons.
----------------
i have no access to it
>
> Merely *asserting* that the interpretation is wrong is not enough.
> *Prove* this.
>
> Also, this contradicts Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. But
> unfortunately, you don't understand it...
-----------
bls bla bla
-----------
>
>
> > acording to my interpretation there is a vast heap of evidence
> > that the nuc contain huge mumbers of electrons.
>
> Well, present a few pieces of that evidence, please-
>
>
> > btw during a nuclear hydrogen bomb blast
> > is there Em radiation???!!!
>
> I don't know for sure, but I would guess yes.
so where from are the electrons there??
-----------
>
>
> >
> > ---------------
> > i think i read it in past
> > and i saw there nothing of a prove for 79 electrons per
> > Au ie no one more no one less!!
>
> Err, for the 50th time: experimental science is about evidence,
> not about prove.
>
> By assuming that the nucleus of gold has a charge of 79+, the
> experimental results can be explained quite nicely. If you can
> explain the results *quantitatively* *without* that assumption,
> feel free to do so. If you can't do that, the experiment is
> evidence that the nucleus indeed *has* that charge.
--------------
and it hase 80 as well can the rutherford scattering
prove tha thter is no Au 80 ?
feel free to show it.
----------
>
> > not relevant to our dispute
>
> Entirely relevant. That you think that it is *not* relevant shows
> nicely that you have no clue how this is done.
>
>
> > you have to know only the exact nomber of charges of the proton
>
> And this is obtained using Rutherford scattering, among other
> things. Result: the nucleus of gold has a charge of 79+. If you can
> explain the results *quantitatively* *without* that assumption,
> feel free to do so. If you can't do that, the experiment is
> evidence that the nucleus indeed *has* that charge.
-----------
not at all
you can finf the mass of gold that is chared only Au +1 !!!
much simpler than do it with Au +79
only in your dreawms they did it with au 79
they are not crazy .....
in short forget about this argument
-----------
--------------
>
>
>
> > *you test* it must not be neither its maximum charge
> > noe its minimum charge!!!
>
> Rutherford scattering shows that the charge of the gold nucleus
> is precisely 79+.
nothing like that it is not acurate to that extent
and i brought an alternative explanation to it
mass momentum and elesticity calculations.
-------------
>
>
> > yet we are looking for the maximum number of electrons per Au
> > remember?
>
> Since the charge of an electron is -1, the number of electrons
> has to be equal to the charge of the nucleus.
------------
again cooking youyself in your own juice
---------
>
>
>
> > -----------
> > it is relavant because
> > the number of protons andneutrons might change even for the same nuc.
>
> When beta decay occurs, the nucleus *changes*. It is *not* the same
> one anymore.
but not al;ways you can folow the quick changes
and my argument was that we cannot know all what is inside the nuc
(all did you got what does it mean all??)
only arrogant people pretend to know all!! guess whom do i mean.
-------------
>
>
>
>
>
> > is it possible ?.......
>
> Yes, indeed it is possible to solve 100 equations with 100 unknowns.
> But that is entirely irrelevant here.
>
>
> > if not see my book!
> > how does even a computer solves 100 equations with 100 unknowns?
>
> Depends on the equations. If they are all linear equations (and in
> the problem above, they indeed are, as far as I can see, simple
> matrix inversion can be used.
>
> Didn't you even know such totally basic stuff???
you undestood nothing about how i was building my model!!!
you are a zero pioneering scintist.
-------------
>
>
>
>
>
> > so ???
> > they were not torn but vibrate and resonate!!
> > whats th eproblem??
>
> Even if it were right that the radiation comes from electron-electron
> collisions (which it isn't): how would that produce a *continuous*
> spectrum? Have you ever heard the terms "resonance frequency",
> "Breit-Wigner resonance" and "Lorentz spectrum"?
---------------
there are thwere many electrons with different self frequency
and they vibrate even for a shrt timeand resonate ans stop
vibrating
-----------
>
> (Hint, where I am aiming at is: a resonance spectrum looks *totally*
> different from the bremsstrahlung spectrum)
-----------
how do you know how in a n element no 79 electrons
each one of them behaves and all of them with cross
mutual interaction effects??
-------------
  
> > not suddenly so what just deccelerated in a shrt time ok?
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> Since you based your argument on this "suddenly stopped", it was
> *not* a triviality.
but i corrected it is not an imeduiate stop it takes a shrt time
-------------
>
>
>
>
> >>>it vibrates the iers are frickshoned
> >>>ion a railroad while you stopp suddenly on the railes
> >>>you can see fire under it
> >>>it is fierce feiction and vibration
> >>
> >>Well, what is the analogue to the railroad in bremsstrahlung?
> >
>
>
> >> > even the sound of break is a rsult of resonationg the air.
> >>
> >>Absolute utter nonsense.
--------------
for a parrot
--------------
> >
> > -----------
 
>
> Or tell me what the resonance frequency of the air in this example is.
> And why the resulting sound spectrum is not a resonance spectrum.
we are speaking about a methaphore
yet is it not clear to you that any sound is created by resonance??
-------------
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Huh? Which irrelevant issue?
>
> It was *you* who brought up the point of deviations between the
> predictions of your model and experimental values, not me.
---------------
i never mentioned my model *before you* croock
and it is you who entered my thread
i never interfere in youtr threads
you have 2 motivations to interfere in my threads
1 revance of a personal enemy
2 after all you finf it some how interesting
btw from time to time i find our disputes constructive and even useful
in spight the very unsympathic general atmosphere!!
---------------
Y.Porat
-------
>
>
>
> > *because you thaght that it might hit me (gore me)
> > that is the only possible reason why you did it now
> >
> > ----------------
Y.Porat

Relevant Pages
Quantcast