Re: New Cubic Atomic Model explains electron energy levels and bonding

From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 02/04/05 

Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 06:30:51 +0000 (UTC)

<franklinhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107493917.566385.68460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Morituri-|-Max wrote:
> > franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > I have been working on an atomic model which assumes that atoms
are
> > > made up of alternating series of protons and electrons.
> >
> > Why do you arbitrarily assume this? What have you observed that
> would
> > benefit from this arrangement?
>
> The benefit is simplicity. I am working towards a model of the atom
> which can be understood in purely classical mechanical (billiard
ball
> etc.) concepts where the "why" something happens can be clearly
> observed from the mechanical structure. For example, the bonds that
> form with Oxygen are at a high angle > than 90 degrees. Why doesn't
it
> form a linear bond like that seen in CO2? The Cubic Model shows that
> the avaliable bonding sites for Oxygen are at 90 degrees to each
other
> and not 180 degrees as can be found in Carbon.
>
> It is also simple in terms of what we know about protons and
electrons.
> A hydrogen atom can be thought of as nothing more than an
alternating
> series of proton/electron. A hydrogen H2 molecule would also be
> similar. The Cubic Atomic model throws in an additional binding type
to
> form neutrons, but it is the logical extension of just gluing
together
> hydrogen atoms. Also, if the electron is not orbiting the proton and
is
> in fact just sitting static on the proton, this eliminates the
problem
> that one would expect an electron moving about the proton would
radiate
> energy. I have seen/heard/read/debated all about the various
> explanations of how an electron moving about the proton doesn't
radiate
> energy and I find none of it convincing. It usually just boils down
to
> "that's how it works stupid" - which isn't much of an explanation.
If
> the electron moves about the proton, it must radiate energy plain
and
> simple. Since we observe that it doesn't, it must be static in
relation
> to the proton as is assumed in the Cubic Model.
>
> When a electron is, in fact, allowed to freely roam about the
proton,
> this means it has been ionized and is released from the atom and in
> this case, we do observe the electron giving off the expected
energy.
> The energy this gives off is governed by the rules of spherical
> harmonics which (as near as I can tell) the usual QM formulas are
based
> off of. So I think that there is no contradiction between what is
> observed and predicted for QM, because what you are dealing with is
the
> behavior of electrons which have been ionized and whether an atom
> contains a large nucleus (Cubic Model) or a small nucleus
(Rutherford)
> doesn't matter since all charges act if they were concentrated in a
> point anyways. But once you allow the atom to come back to the
ground
> state, the electron mates back up with its proton in a static
position
> and everything about QM observations are meaningless since you don't
> observe anything happening with an atom at ground state.
>
> One thing I do not understand (and hopefully someone can clarify) is
> how you can determine the electron energy levels from the spectrum
> released by ionized atoms. It doesn't seem like the line spectra
fall
> into patterns that would suggest the electron shell configuration. I
> can see how the electron shell levels can be derived directly from
the
> ionization data.

Try making use of the Ritz combination principle.

Are you aware of the theorem which says that no system of charges can
be in static equilibrium under the action of electrostatic forces
alone?

Franz

Relevant Pages