Re: The electron shell model is in challenge

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 08/31/04 

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:17:06 +0200

Y.Porat wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cgvbog$cgq$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cgl0f7$anl$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>why are the deviation from a straight line??
>>
>>I explained that below.
>
> -------------
> i was not convinced

What, exactly, was unconvincing about my explanation, which pointed out
explicitly that if one takes some additional effects into account in the
theoretical explanation, the results agree perfectly with the observations?

> 2 show all the elements not just the 'cherry of the cake'

The results are there in the literature, lazybone.

> anyway
> the problem is not only to me
> once i raised some questin marks
> serious scintists have to 'pick the glove'
> if not may God bellsthem and let they go on live
> in thisr paradize (undosturbed happyly ever after...)

Everytime a crackpot raises some question marks, scientists have
to rush to check the claims?

[snip]

>>>>>may be you can tell me
>>>>
>>>>As I told you several times now: I am not here to spoon-feed you.
>>>>The derivation of Rutherford's formula can be found in thousands
>>>>of books and on thousands of web pages. Look it up yourself, lazybone.
>>>>--------------
>>>
>>>obvious evation!!
>>
>>Yes, by you. It's easy to find the derivation of Rutherford's formula.
>>You refuse to look for it for yourself.
>>----------
>
> no it is not easy

It is. Doing a Google search with "Rutherford derivation", the eighth
result is this derivation of his formula using classical physics:
<http://spallation.physics.sc.edu/~blanpied/research/chase/ruther.htm>

The third result is a derivation of his formula using QM:
>http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/~kaiser/p4h/nuclear-lecture-05.pdf>

That did cost me about one minute, lazybone.

> and i didnt bother to do it
> i told you once that unlike you i am a frank man
> what i dont know i dont know and sometimes even dont bother to know
> necause i know to 'get the bull in his horns'
> (and not his balles.....)

Why do you ask where the Z^2 in Rutherford's formula comes from,
but are not willing to look the answer to this question up for yourself?

>>>now you deserve a paersonal insult....
>>>90 years ago there were no computers
>>>*it is a computer work*
>>
>>Nonsense. The recoil of the lattice can be studied easily without
>>computers. Essentially one only has to use conservation of energy and
>>momentum.
>>
>>
>>[snip more ramblings]
>
> you are rumbling ther were no computers and the calculation ability
> was limited

As I said above: The recoil of the lattice can be studied easily without
>>computers. Essentially one only has to use conservation of energy and
>>momentum.

[snip]

>>>2 the quote you broght ios only of a few elements
>>>we can guess that if all the results would be presented
>>>we could fing a lot more unexplained deviations
>>>it is only (*a partial presentation* not convincing enough.
>>
>>What's the basis for that guess?
>
> have you heared the story of
> 'the mouse in the house' (of thye farm???

No.

> to put it the sortest:
> the Canadian farmers tell that story:
> if you go at middle of night with a torch
> ans see a mouse at the warehose--- you have one mouse in your farm
>
> 2 if you sit at night and suddenly you see a mouse--
> you have probably a 100 mouse in your farm
>
> 3 if you see at the middle of day a mouse running neer your
> armchair
> you probably got a 1000 of them in your farm!!
> will you remember that story??
> we in our inspectoion jobs at the building site
> are telling that story again and again
> anyway a nice sroty isnt that ........ got ther hint????

Nice. And now please tell me what that has to do with Rutherford
scattering.

> while you are studying me you have a similar
> (double) standard...

Huh?

>>And why *are* there only so few deviations in the presented results?
>>Pure luck?

Hello? You *still* have not told me why 48 of the 54 points agree
with the theoretical predictions perfectly. Pure luck?

>>>>am being even generous here!). So, 48 of 54 points *do* lie
>>>>perfectly on the theoretical lines (and for the remaining
>>>>6, one can 1) give arguments *why* they do not lie on the lines
>>>>and 2) we can't judge if the deviation is significant, since no
>>>>error margins are given!). Further, in the graph 4-11, *all*
>>>>the points lie perfectly on the line. Why on earth do you call
>>>>that *not* a nice agreement?
>>>
>>>-----------
>>>bring all the known data not only the 'cherries of the cake'
>>>bringing partial statistics migh twell be cheting.
>>
>>Do you claim that Geiger and Marsden presented only the data for the
>>elements where the results agreed well with the theoretical predictions?
>>Or that they by pure luck chose only to test the elements where the
>>results agreed well with the theoretical predictions? Or what?
>>-------------
>
> yess why not ???

Err, which of the two possibilities mentioned above you mean?

[snip]

>>Err, *your* model uses several (a lot) free parameters. Rutherford's
>>formula uses *no* free parameters. So, how likely is it that it
>>nevertheless agrees just accidentally with the experimental results?

Hello?

[snip]

>>>2 may be it is somehow imitates reality but i have no doubt that a few
>>>formulas cannot cover all real posibilites it is much more complicated
>>>fo ra few equations.
>>
>>What's the basis for that claim? Show the data!
>>------------------
>
> my model

*sigh* No comment.

> besides
> i showed you that with not too much thinking about it
> after that you negged me about a year while i dint know
> what you are talking about
> so in a short thinking i could suply an alternative model
> at least qualitatively

The important point in physics is that it is a *quantitative* science.

"Angels push the planets around the sun" is also a *qualitative*
explanation which fits the observations. That does in no way show that
this explanation is true!

> and if other people with the new computers will make an effort
> they migh tbring other models as well

You *still* have not explained why the *old* model works so well.

> but the only comdition for acuracy all along
> is a lot of imout data not just one formula
> reality is much more complicated to be formulated
> in one forula

Err, Rutherford's formula works well. And it works even better if one
takes the beam profile and multiple scatterings into account.
Despite your constant denials.

>>>intruduceing factors is no fraud if you do it and anounce it.
>>>it is legitimate in equation building in physics
>>
>>Well, Geiger and Marsden did *not* announce in their paper that they
>>introduced fitting factors. So you *do* indeed accuse them of fraud.
>>
>>[snip]
>
> -----------
> no i beleive they were decent and sinsere sintists
> but theit means were limited

You said that they introduced fitting factors. They do not mention this
anywhere in their paper. Using fitting factors without mentioning that
*is* fraud. So you are accusing them of fraud, plain and simple.

>>>>>>Well, please present the calculation.
>>>>
>>>>I am waiting.
>>>
>>>nees a lot of work with a lot of motivation that i miss at this point.
>>
>>Unless you can present a calculation which reproduces Geiger and
>>Marsden's results at least as well as Rutherford's formula, their
>>experiments are *still* evidence that the charge of a nucleus with Z
>>protons is Z*e.
>
> i tilsd you it has *little to do with charge*

Rutherford's formula is based on charge. It fits the results very nicely
(especially if one takes additional effects like the beam profile and
multiple scattering into account). That soundly disproves you.

> even neutraly charged masss will repell a hitting mass
> in different directions.

That is a totally unsupported assertion.

>>>in a regular structural computer program as i sayed
>>>and you didnt got it still
>>>with the right springs and the right factors
>>>yes factors are legitimate here.
>>
>>You don't have that program yet, so how do you know that it explains the
>>deviations in recoil in different angles?

Hello?

>>>>3) admit that I am not worth of my PhD title and that Heidelberg
>>>>university should be ashamed of me
>>>>4) admit that the "fertz" was a totally stupid idea
>>>>5) admit that electromagnetic radiation is caused by resonance,
>>>>and sound waves, too
>>>>6) etc., whatever you want
>>
>>I notice that you are not man enough to take up this challenge. You
>>even snipped the first part of it! (without marking, as usual)
>>-----------
>
> i didnt even bother to undestand what you sayed

***.

> not remevant to the issue it is personal
> and not advancing us anywhere

It is fully relevant. It is the topic of this thread: can you reproduce
Rutherford's results *quantitatively* or not? As long as you can't do
that, his interpretation stands, and the results are evidence that the
charge of a nucleus with Z protons is indeed Z*e.

>>What are you afraid of?
>
> ---------
> afraied ??? i dont even afraied to call myself a crackpot

If you are not afraid, why do you not take up my challenge? It would
be nice for you seeing me admit that I am wrong, you are right, your
model is marvelous, I am a shame for Heidelberg's university, etc.,
wouldn't it?

>>>and that you obfuscated the fact that you were erong
>>>by saing that the hbomb fuel is hydrogen
>>
>>I am still right on that. Deuterium and tritium *are* hydrogen (isotopes!).
>>--------------
>
> so you should say hydrogen isotops!!

Oh my goodness. Isotopes of an element *belong* to that element.
Hydrogen isotopes *are* hydrogen.

Say, what do *you* think why encyclopedias like wikipedia list deuterium
and tritium in the entry "hydrogen"?

> now lest s test your frankness: (realy frankness ans see if you
> are brave and frank as a scintist should be
> while you sayed thwe above at the first place--
> did you have in mind isotops or palin hydrogen??
> can i get a frank answer??

I didn't think about it. It was entirely irrelevant for the point.
Remember, the point was your question where the electrons come from
in the explosion of a hydrogen bomb...

> or else as i know you as a wery maticulate man
> that is nagging for any spelling mistale-
> would you neglect the difference between
> hydrogen and .... isotops of hydrogen?

There *is* no difference.

> btw i think that triton is more an isotop of the right alpha particle!!!!!
> right ???!!!

Wrong. Total nonsense.

>>>>Now, that is a promise, isn't it? Wouldn't it be nice for you seeing
>>>>me doing all these things? So, care to present the derivation of
>>>>the formula from your model?
>>>
>>>wich part of my model
>>
>>Whatever you like.

Ignored.

>>>a lot of it was not done by formulas but
>>>listen carefully:
>>>by trial and error calculations!!
>>
>>*sigh* In other words, you fiddled around until finally the right
>>results came out.
>
> -----------
> yess

And the fact alone that you had to try several possibilities until
you finally found one that fitted didn't tell you something?

BTW, why do all the *other* possibilities not occur in nature?

> but that is what you didnt get
> that 'fiddling was untill say half the way of all the elements
> further away ... guess what???
> there was no much fiddling!!

"no much"? How much?

> the rules were established and i could do it much quicker
> based on the rules i founded
> for instance
> once i found that the say prpton quartet is of ... x bindinfg energy
> i could use irt saflt all along

And when it didn't work anymore, you simply invented the "holes"
and the "satellite waves". How convenient.

> 2 fo rinstance once i founf that always
> an alpha proton quarted is always compned to say an alpha proton
> quartet i could combine thewm succesively and 'blindly
> withouth tthe need to guess things from the start
> etc etc
> that was just a shrt tip
> the list of rules is quite long but staedy and
> (reletetive!!!!!!!)
> gotit ???

You did not mention most of the rules above anywhere in your book.

> that is not written in your book nor in any one i guess!!!
> thats a new book in the history of scince
> (yo9u hold an unknown treasure in your hands
> a ptiity yhay you dont know to appreciate it !!!

Yet another instance where you act as if your model were the absolute truth.

[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Quantcast