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

franklinhu_at_yahoo.com
Date: 02/20/05 

Date: 19 Feb 2005 23:39:29 -0800

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:
> > 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.
>
> You have not really answered the question. What have you *observed*
> which would lead you to this hypothesis?
>
> Theories in science are built on observations. Which observation led
you
> to postulate that atoms are composed of an "alternating series of
> protons and electrons"?
>

The most simple and fundamental of observations that a proton is
attracted to an electron. If these 2 types of particles were to be put
next to each other, it is intuitive that they would stick together like
2 magnets. The most logical array that produces the most neutral and
low energy arrangement would be a alternating array.

Now you say that this is not a stable arrangement because I have not
explained what is the force that keeps the electron and proton separate
like how magnets are repelled by their electrically charged outer
surfaces. I would argue that there actually is no "force" separating
the proton and electron. Rather, that the reason why they do not merge
into exactly the same place in space is due to the fundamental property
of space that objects which fill space cannot both occupy the same
space at the same time. I think this is a rather intuitively obvious
statement that 2 objects cannot occupy the
same place in space. So if you have 2 billiard balls and you push them
together, you would argue that the negative replusion of the atoms is
what is keeping the balls from merging into each other. I would argue
that there is no such replusion going on. You could put 2 billiard
balls right next to each other (touching at the atomic level) and
measure zero repulsive force between the 2. If there were such a
repusive force keeping the balls apart, then you'd might think that
there would be a point where if you applied enough force, this could be
overcome and the surfaces would merge past each other. But this doesn't
happen, the ball would rather shatter than merge. I would
argue that protons and electrons are as "hard" as a billiard ball even
at the atomic level. Now you can choose not to believe something that
can be intuitively demonstrated at macroscopic level, but I think it
far more likely than believing something which cannot be demonstrated
at the macroscopic level. My goals are to explain everything in terms
which can be demonstrated at a macroscopic level. The concept that 2
particles of finite size cannot occupy the same space no matter what
the attracting force between them is
something that should be intuitively obvious to the most causal
observer.

>
> > For example, the bonds that
> > form with Oxygen are at a high angle > than 90 degrees.
>
> Huh? Which bonds do you mean? The ones in water?

I would be referring to most compounds of oxygen which contain 2 other
atoms like water. Based on information in www.webelements.com, these
types of compounds form bonds in the vicinity of 90 degrees (like
around 107).

>
>
> > Why doesn't it
> > form a linear bond like that seen in CO2?
>
> Because in the water molecule, there are single bonds,
> whereas in the CO2 molecule, there are double bonds.

I'm not sure if CO2 forms double bonds - I would presume single bonds
based on lewis-dot diagrams. But even if it did, why would a double
bond indicate a linear bond?

>
> Hint: using the Schroedinger equation, we can actually
> *calculate* the bonding angles.
>

Do you have any web references on this?

>
>
> > 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.
>
> How does one recognize the "available bonding sites"
> in your model?
>

Bonding sites are identified as those parts of the atom which cannot be
part of an alpha particle (or helium). For example Lithium can be
though
of being made out of a helium and a deturium atom. The deuturium cannot
be part of a second helium particle, so it is avaliable for bonding.

> BTW, above you said "> than 90 degrees"; now it's suddenly
> simply "90 degrees". Make up your mind!
>

The actual bond angle is a product of angle formed by the atom (90
degrees) and the amount of repulsion between the attached atoms. The
repulsion between the attached atoms (like hydrogen in water), do push
the bond further apart than 90 degrees.

>
>
> > 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.
>
> And you still have not explained why neutrons, which according
> to you have the same structure, behave so differently.
>

This is correct. The fundamental difference bewteen hydrogen atoms,
neutrons
and neutrinos must still be postulated.

>
> > A hydrogen H2 molecule would also be
> > similar.
>
> I.e. a hydrogen molecule should have a proton at one end
> and an electron at the other. I.e. it should not be
> symmetric.
>
> Why has this never been observed somehow? For example,
> why don't we see a dipole moment for the H2 molecule?
>

I would predict that an H2 molecule lines up as an alternating array
and everything cancels each other out.

I haven't been able to find any data for the dipole moment for a
solitary H atom, but you can see that the magnetic moment is
quite large, indicating that this may not be a symettric
arrangment.

>
> > The Cubic Atomic model throws in an additional binding type to
> > form neutrons,
>
> "additional binding type" explains *nothing*.
>
> It is pure empty handwavy speculation.
>
> I have asked you several times how a different type of
> binding would explain the many difference between a H atom
> and a neutron. You have not even explained *one* of the
> differences up to now!
>

We can't adequately describe what gravity is either, but it
doesn't stop us from doing useful work by only knowing "how"
it works. While it would be better to be able to explain these with
precision, such differences do not prevent the further
development of the cubic theory while these properties
remain postulated.

>
> Hey, I could as well say "apples have the same inner
> structure than peaches - they only look different from
> the outside because their inner parts are bond differently
> together". That would make equally much sense!
>
>
> > but it is the logical extension of just gluing together
> > hydrogen atoms. Also, if the electron is not orbiting the proton
>
> Err, standard QM does not say that the electron orbits the nucleus.
> This has been told to you many times already. When will you finally
get it?
>

I was referring to the old problem which QM was supposed to solve by
saying we don't know what the electron is really doing.

>
> > and is in fact just sitting static on the proton,
>
> Not possible, unless there is a repulsive force between
> a proton and an electron for small distances - and something
> like that has never been observed, despite decades of scattering
> experiments.

As I explained above, there is NO repulsive force. This arrangement
occurs as a fundamental principle of solid objects in space.

>
>
> > this eliminates the problem
> > that one would expect an electron moving about the proton would
radiate
> > energy.
>
> This problem was already solved 80 years ago by Schroedinger. You are
> a little late.
>

By saying we cannot describe the motion of the electron about the
nucleus
hardly seems to be an answer to me.

>
> > 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.
>
> What have you read, specifically? Some pop science accounts,
> or actual textbooks on atomic physics and/or QM?
>
>
> > It usually just boils down to
> > "that's how it works stupid" - which isn't much of an explanation.
>
> If you haven't noticed: your own explanation boils down to
> the same.
>
> Question to you:
> "Why do protons and electrons have hard surfaces and do not
> overlap, but bind to each other in a fixed state?"
> Your answer: "that's how it works stupid."

My answer, look at what you see in the macroscopic world, apply that to
the atomic world. Doesn't seem like too much of a leap whereas QM would
require to to completely ignore the macroscopic world. There is a
difference.

>
>
> > If the electron moves about the proton, it must radiate energy
plain and
> > simple.
>
> No. Only if there is a time-dependent electromagnetic
> multipole moment, there has to be radiation.
>
>
> > Since we observe that it doesn't, it must be static in relation
> > to the proton as is assumed in the Cubic Model.
>
> Non sequitur.

Hardly, if you cannot describe the motion of the electron with some
precision you cannot tell whether it should be radiating or not. There
are definitely
motions which would radiate, so this would favor a model which is
static in
configuration.

>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> You really have almost no clue what you are talking about.
>
> What does "spherical harmonics" mean, in your opinion?

Sperical harmonics describes the motion of a particle around an
attractive point source. This is exactly the case that we have for a
hydrogen atom where the electron has been ionized from the atom and is
freely roaming the vicinity of the proton. From

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chem81/thps/Ylm.html

The Spherical Harmonic functions Yl,m are the wavefunctions for any
particle that is free to move in the spherical polar angles theta and
phi (i.e., that has no dependence on these angles in the particle's
potential energy function, as in the hydrogen atom).

The equations and plots for spherical harmonics is exactly the same as
those
given for the hydrogen orbitals. I really couldn't find anything that
would suggest that the Schroedinger equations were doing anything
different than what spherical harmonics would suggest.

>
> Hint: they have almost nothing to do with the ionization energy.

Of course it doesn't have anything to do with ionziation energy. But
what I am
saying is that the atom must be ionized in order for this situation
to apply.

>
>
> > 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.
>
> Huh???

This is my big point! The predictions made by QM (so far as emitted
spectra
are concerned) are absolutely correct because they are simply
describing
what a free electron would do in the vicinity of the hydrogen's proton
in
a classical mechanical sense. When you discharge electricity through
hydrogen,
you get ionized hydrogen atoms and all of the resulting spherical
harmonic
motion of the flowing electrons around them produce the spectra that
are observed. This is a wildly chaotic situation and the math required
to
describe this is justified due to this situation.

My even bigger point is that this can happen even if you accept the
cubic
model as fact. This is because as electrons are ionized, they don't
care
if the atom is a tiny spec or a big cubic model atom. It only cares
about
the net charge coming from the atom to determine its behavior according
to spherical harmonics.

>
> Have you ever heard of myonic atoms?

Nope, can't seem to find any web references either - can you point me
in the right direction?

>
>
> > 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.
>
> Absolute nonsense. Have you ever heard of Stern&Gerlach,
> for starters?
>

OK, Stern & Gerlach is part of QM which justifies to concept of spin
without
the atom in the ionized state. However, this only justifies spin, it
does
not explain spectra or anything about the bulk structure of an atom. I
would
have to clarify that everything in QM regarding spectra is meaningless
when applied to atoms in their ground state. Atoms in the ionized state
are not representative of the atom at the ground state. In particular,
a hydrogen atom at the ground state would be presumed to be a proton
surrounded by a spherical electron cloud 1s arrangement. However, this
is only a presumption. Everything that tells you the QM structure can
only be derived when the atom is ionized. The ground state atom is
still a black hole.

The Stern & Gerlach experiment does however, make some sense in the
cubic model. There is a strange phenomenon whereby if you pass a beam
of atoms through the experiment,it splits it into 2 beams, lets call
them + and -. If you then take the + beam and you run it through the
same experiment oriented at 90 degree angles to the first experiment,
you find that it again splits into a + and - beam.

This is described by the web site: http://www.weylmann.com/spin.htm

How can this be? If the beam was entirely + to begin with, how could it
then
split back into + and - beams when there was no - character spin
electrons
to start? The web site simply states that there is no classical analogy
and
that it simply happens as a matter of quantum mechanics and that the
transition simply occurs. That's not much of an explanation.

However, if you consider the cubic model, it says a hydrogen atom is a
linear
arrangement of proton and electron. In some ways it acts as a tiny bar
magnet.
We know from NMR that when a hydrogen atom is put into a strong
maganetic field, it will line up in 1 of 2 ways, either along the
magnetic lines or against it. This corresponds to the proton pointing
either up or down in the magnetic lines of force.

If we run a beam of randomly oriented atoms through the experiment,
they will
immediately align themselves with the magnetic lines of force (hydrogen
has a
large magnetic moment) and about half will have the proton point up and
the other half have the proton point down. Now I am a bit sketchy as to
whether the protons would then be immediately attracted to the poles of
the magnet, but I am going to presume that they are. This may have to
do with the asymmetric magnet arrangments. This is what causes the beam
to only split into 2. The magnetic field somehow polarizes the hydrogen
atoms and they are drawn equally to the opposite poles of the magnet.
Now if you pass the beam through the experiment oriented in the same
direction again, you see that if you have a + beam where the protons
point up, they will come out the same way with no - beam (which would
correspond to the protons pointing down). However, if you put the +
beam into the experiment oriented at 90 degree angles to the first, you
will have the atoms go into the experiment in a horizontal orientation
with the proton neither pointing up or down. At this point, the atoms
will reorient themselves to the magnetic field by going from horizontal
to vertical, and will randomly have the proton point up or down. This
causes the beam to split again into both + and - character beams
eventhough, there were only + character particles to begin with. I
think this is a far more likely explanation for how this experiment
works rather than attributing this to "electron spin".

Relevant Pages