Re: The electron shell model - is far from being 'The story'
From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 11/06/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Almost Everything is Expanding"
- Previous message: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: The electron shell model - is far from being 'The story'"
- Next in thread: FrankH: "Re: The electron shell model - is far from being 'The story'"
- Reply: FrankH: "Re: The electron shell model - is far from being 'The story'"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 5 Nov 2004 23:56:19 -0800
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cmdqnv$dol$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> FrankH wrote:
> > maporat@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message > Hi Frank thank you for your very interesting information
> >
> >>yet while you mentioned the MIT people
> >>1 lpease get to their attanetion the starnge fact that
> >>the shelll model is not confirmed experimentally
> >>for heavy elements
>
> Please note that this is wrong. Porat simply does not understand
> science. He thinks that as long as we don't have every tiny little
> detail experimentally checked, we are not allowed to say that a theory
> is experimentally confirmed!
------------------
Hi Franklin
actually i like that situation in which the young parrot cannot answwer me
directly (acording to his commitment to kill file me)
that lets me the option to shake him out of my back
while he is just nagging
yet i can answer him once he is talking thinks that
'even look like 'reasonable and right ' (just look like that)
because Feuerbacher is a young 'thrue believer'
i would say * a blind beleiver* in the existing situation
one of his serious disadvantages is ....
that he lacks * a sense of proportion*!
ie to say that a theory does not need to respond for all *tiny*
discrepancies' (that is my free transtation to his claim)
so the *tiny discrepancies*
are indeed 'very tiny' ..... (:-)
if you take Franks assumption that even Krypton does not
fit properly to the experimantal data than
a reasonable scintist should understand that
beyond krypton ther is a vast ocean of missind data
of those elements heavier than Krypton.
one of the basic physics that Bjoern didn understood
though his 29 yrars old is :
*that physical equations rules assertins etc etc etc....
has thier LIMITS!!!
that is one of the most important differences between matemathics
and PHYSICS!!!
it seens that too many parrot phisicists do not realise it because.....
they came to physics from ..... *the mathematiccs school*!!
in mathemathics yoy can strech your formulas rules etc
as far as you like
in physiocs it is not like that
if the LOrentz factor is right for ordinary masses
no one on earth can asure you that it is right for the photon as well!!!
because .....
in the physical world any phenomena *has its limits*
and onew of the freat tasks of a real physicist is ...
to find those limits
once the shell model works for elemrnts say untill krypton
that deas not mean it works beyond it!!
unless you are a hasty irresponsible scintist that is ready to
JUMP TO CONCLUTIONS and jumping to conclutions is
a heavy crime in scince.
if it works untill krypton (and that is as well in doubt as franlikn
noted)
than listen carefully:!!
*the burdain of prove is not on the skeptic
but on the thue beleiver*!!!
because the standard theory is a *dominant theory*
it is an obliging situation to confront any raied question
and doubt!!
or else *it is a questinable theory*
now
why was it just me who is so decisive against the shell
model for heavy elements??!1
it is not just because there is no verifications for the heavier elements
waht gave me the self confidence that it is wrong is .....
that i found other evidence and a model that shows that
*the shell model is a fairy tale for heavy elements*
ie in my model we can manage nicely whithout all those
dosens of electrons and shells and subshells
that has nothing to do with reality
ie
the assumption that all protons are positively charged
is a false assumption
it is right only for light elements
starangely enough it didnt occure to any scintist
that the protons once in the inner structure
*loose their charge in the binding process that creates the nuc*
(may be that once you attack it and collide it with external
forces and particles some of them might get back their charge
so the stripping process of electrons is not the ordinary
stabel situation that exists in the 'ground position' of the atom)
so in my model that i got by an *independant scintific way
(that is completely orriginal) i found that
all this story of one electron for one proton
is a wrong jump to conclusion- for the heavy ones
(franklin if you like i can send you a pdf file
that summerise my model- if you like)
----------------------
now one thing that i dont like is that this article becomes too long
it has to be more concise (or else no one is going to read it ...
----------------
>
>
> >>*and yet no one was blinking an eye about it !!
> >>
> >
> > Exactly what do you mean by "heavy" elements?
lets take your word and say - beyond Krypton
---------------------
>
> He talks about elements above iron. Some years ago, he asked in this
> newsgroup up to which element QM works, and someone (I think Franz
> Heymann)
----------
it was not only FRANTZ it was others as well
with the stupid pretext that 'there is not enough computer power'
i say the problem is not with computer power
the problem is with human brain power and wrong assumption
that will never let it be solved because my moto in this case is :
*you cant find coconuts in the north pole... because .....
----------------
answered him that up to iron, the electronic structure of the
> elements was analyzed in detail. What Porat does not understand here
> (or, better, refuses to accept and understand) is:
> 1) Even for these cases, the analysis was done *theoretically* - by
> computer calculation. The results were *not* all, down to the tiniest
> little detail, checked experimentally.
tinyest !! eh ??? who is to decide what is tiny and what not
you have no righ tto call it tiny because it is not tiny
you cantr adopt a logic system in which any question you cant answwer
becomes 'tiny' once you do it *you are a tiny scintist!1*
---------------
> 2) It is no big problem today to use heavier elements than iron in
> calculations, and this is done quite often. There is a vast literature
> dealing with the chemical properties of molecules containing heavy
> elements. The most prominent examples are that one can explain the
> colour of gold and the liquidity of quicksilver, but there are hundreds,
> probably even thousands of other applications. Hey, my own brother did
> some work with platin halogenides!
---------
thousands of applications sounds like an irrsposnible hand waving
not to say demagogism.
and even if there wher thoudsands- probably it should not be
thosands but millions
and if you cant answer even some of them- your model is a questionable one
--------------------
> 3) This does not show in any way that QM does not work for elements
> heavier than iron, and it also does not mean that QM was not checked
> experimentally for these cases.
-----------------
if it works it works *partially* and probably in those cases
it works *it is not due to the assumption of an electron for
any proton*!!!!!!
---------------------------
>
>
> > I would say that the
> > electron energy levels are experimentally well confirmed for at least
> > up to krypton and this includes atoms which are fairly heavy (stuff
> > like iron, copper, etc.). Do you have evidence that it hasn't been
> > experimentally verified beyond a certain size atom?
>
> He does not bother to provide evidence. He simply repeats ad nauseaum
> what he was told years ago in this newsgroup (see above).
--------------
as i sayed above
the burdain of prove is on the dominant theory - not on the skeptics.
---------------------
>
> since it become too long i start to snipp
because things start to repeat themselves
---------------
> Oh, BTW, Porat seems to think that the "shells" are spatial structures.
> He does not understand that the "shell model" is essentially only about
> energy levels. Although I told him that several times.
if it just energy levels it means that the state of knoeledge
if poorer than i thought!!!
btw
Feuerbacher introduced the stupid idea
that the atom and nuc 'have no defint structure'
'based on the HUP'
that is indeed a parrot ignorant assertion ans tupid as well
-----------------------
>
anfd Franklin
i agree with all the skeptic questions you raised above
its time that decent people will wake up
-----------
Y.Porat
----------------------
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Almost Everything is Expanding"
- Previous message: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: The electron shell model - is far from being 'The story'"
- Next in thread: FrankH: "Re: The electron shell model - is far from being 'The story'"
- Reply: FrankH: "Re: The electron shell model - is far from being 'The story'"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
