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

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 03/03/05 

Date: 3 Mar 2005 04:57:45 -0800

Dr. Photon wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:<1109647420.337750.221240@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
> [snip]
> > > It seems to me that your model would contradict QMs prediction of
> > > electron orbital shapes. Is that correct?
> > ------------
> > hey Mr
> > you cant just mumble
> > you have to be more specofic in your assertions
>
> note that I was asking a question in order to get a specific response
> from you, as it was not clear from your website
>
> > at least as i am specific
>
> glad to hear it

------------
there are seems to me too many questions
so we have to deal with them one by one and not get lost:
i was asking you:
if you claim that 79 electrons can ocupy the same volume as 14
you have to show it by calculations not just statsments
thereis no reasobnable reason who it will happen
now you have to do it with all the 'pyramid of el;ectrons'
ie with all that alleged 'hyrarchy of 2 8 16 etc ,.....
and then come to that one of 32
and i didnt mention the mutual repulsion of those shells
do you thing anyone ever did it (listen carefull)
for a heavy atom??!!! i dont argue about light atoms !!
do you think anyone can do it acording qm while qm didnt decode the
atom much
further than the Iron element??
and the punch question on top of all the others:
where is the experimental evidence for 32 electrons in a shell??
can you pr amyone else suply it??
and if not how can you even starrt to make that calculation
(to prove that 79 eelctrons oculy the same volume as 14??
-------------------

>
> > as you could see my electron presentaon is very abstract
>
> so you are not specific then
not specific about the electron presentation but more than ever
specific
on the nuclear presentation!!
you dont have my book but had you have it you would realise it is
verymuch
verified and cross verified.
------------
>
> > in the alpha model it is jjusr a dottet line so ..
> > th eelctron is not the main issue in my model
>
> so in fact you are very non-specific
see above
th eelectronis not my main model.
>
> > besides;
> > see my thread
> > 'where has the 32 electrons in one shell gone'
> >
> > if you can snswer it than comone!!
> > and you get the Nobel!!
> >
>
> I thought they were still there, though I haven't checked recently.
ok betetr do it !!! it is vwery important i would say cricially
important
and please note that no one untillnow could answer it !! 

--
>
> >
> >  But as these orbitals have
> > > been measured, where does that leave your model?
> > i donr know what is your 'measured'
>
> Measured means experiments were done that depended on the charge
> distribution in an atom, and it is found that this distribution
agrees
> with QM's orbitals. For example, the N2 bond was studied by
> tomography.
very nice - on ligh telements not on big ones
and as i could see there i your quote it is very vague.
you know that being abstarct is a good way of not being wrong
but the more abstract you are the leess useful you are .
-------
>
> See also
> http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~frioux/momentum.pdf
> where orbitals in H (1s), He (1s), H2 (bonding), Ar (3s and 3p), Al
> (thin film) and Al2O3 (bonding) are measured
> and
> http://www.nasa-academy.org/magazine/issue3/campbell.html
> where Ca (ionized electron) is measured.
>
> These have less eye-catching pictures, but still are measurements of
> orbital parameters. And they all agree with QM too.
very nice but still i dont see the contradiction to my model!
--------
>
> > on th eother hand it seems that you unsestood nothing
> > of my table no 2 and 3
> > abouth the relation between atomic weights
> > and specific weights.
>
> how does this help as regards electron orbital shapes?
you can realise by simple data as specific wight and atomic weight
that the Al and Ag and Au atoms have practically the same volume!1
btw only experts on lattice structure know that the avrage volume
of atoms does not prove the distance between atoms becuse
atoms of the latice listen carfully) have different distances beween
them in different direction iow it is not spheres.
seein my file the close compact structure.
btw it is not only in pure elements it is as well in compunds
(an electron with a constant length (more or less) between
metal latices units but still not in any direction you measure it!!
so agin - not spheres.
------------
>
> > >
> > > I won't even mention the nuclear part of your model which must be
> > > totally contrary to any scattering measurements for over 100
years
> > scattering shmatering
> > where do you see the contradiction
>
> Lets stick to orbital shapes for this discussion, as others have
> "discussed" scattering with you: Note that the orbital structure is
> correctly predicted by QM but is entirely dependent on the existence
> of a central positive charge which creates a spherical potential well
> for the electron. Without this, the results totally disagree. Hence
> there is a nucleus of positive charge.
----------
if you have a central positive charge of 79 electrons in the Gold atom
you must have 79 electrons around it with .....
the famous pyramid shell  including the 32 shell
so ....
where is the experimental prove of that pyramid structure?
lets take as a start the shell of 32 electrons .........!!!
----------------
>
> > btw is Dr Photon is you real name ???
> > what is your real name??
>
> real name is Brendan Roycroft,
nice to meet you
you seem to be a serious and curious person!
---------------
 > > interesant??
>
> I would like to answer this, but don't know what it means. Try asking
> it in English.
----------
someone who have a private interset in it
(mostly with a negative conotation of being biased !)...hope it is not
the case.
----------------
>
> > because i heared that nonsense argument
> > from someone elese??
>
> maybe s/he had a point
we will se about it
----------------
>
> > are you sure *you unserstans the scattering experiment??
> >
>
> well enough for most purposes
i suggeste dlately to do that experiment with ......
uncharged particles !!
to show that it is the mass of the hitted particle in the latice
that is doing the job not the chagre.
-----------------
>
> > i saye dit many times that is you take a mass
> > suported on springs in the right directions
> > and bombard them with some conxtant mass
> > you will get exactly the same resutls as
> > rutherfored scatterings.
>
> seem like scattering experts here don't agree with you
not at all my above sugestion was never afaik tested in the above
context.
-----------
>
> > > > BR
> > you cant dismiss such massive svidense
> > that you dont have even a part of it in your hands
> > just by hand waiving
>
> I was asking a question. As your proton/neutron structure disagrees
> totally with QM,
----------
why ???
 then it seems probable that your electron structure
> also disagrees. Or as I said before "It seems to me that your model
> would contradict QMs prediction of electron orbital shapes. Is that
> correct?".
not at all it contardict only partsof it like the asumption
that in a heavy atom the number of electrons is the same as that of the
protons in it!!
the lack of ability to 'find' 32 electrons in a shell is just one
example of
the wrong asumption of qm.
btw i anm not sure that once my claim will be accepted thatqm cannot be
fitted
to it iow i guess that it could be adjuasted to my claim
------------
>
> So what is the answer?
se above i forgot what was youirone of many questions
becoming old  (:-)
----------
>
> > that sounds to me an apriory interesantic attitude.
> > see for instance the thread:
> > 'isotope decay chains'
> > in which a much long and detailed discussion
> > of it was done!!
>
> if this is the thread starting on Jan 23 2005, I didn't read all 114
> posts, and all I could see remotely relevant was some discussion of
----------
not at all
only a sound model anunprecedented one could do the unprecedented
predictions i did there and thisis not the whole lot !!
-----------
> chemical properties. However, my question is different, as the charge
> distributions of individual orbitals have been measured, as have the
> momentum distributions. Not only have they been measured, but they
> directly imply that central positive charge must exist to cause these
> distributions (ie a nucleus must exist which contains *all* the
> positive charge).
about central charge of Z charges see above
in our place they call it ;
to build a scarcrew and then --- to fight it!!
forst of all you invsdent 32 electrons in a shell
and then you demand *from me * to prove that it is right (:-)
i demand it from you first since you have the 'dominant theory'
let me tell you how i understand it :
not all the protons in nuc are positively charged !!
it is shocking news but become more and more clear1
the lack of posibility to prve the pyramid of shells is an indication
to it .
if yoi ask me how come that a protonin the nuc is not charged
may be yoy can guess what will be my answer??
----------
>
> > dont mumble  first of all try to understand
> > what is that model and only then come in
> > by specific discussion
>
> Seeing as you know your model better than I do, you could speed up
> this process with a simple answer.
----------
i am trying . somwetimes it i snot *only* my fault that people do not
get me ...
----------
> all the best
Y.Porat
-------------------

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New Cubic Atomic Model explains electron energy levels and bonding
    ... > where is the experimental evidence for 32 electrons in a shell?? ... > not specific about the electron presentation but more than ever ... > that the Al and Ag and Au atoms have practically the same volume!1 ... >> of a central positive charge which creates a spherical potential ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: electron energies in covalent bonds
    ... the hydrogen sees the electron as being ... bunch of atoms which happen to be in the same place. ... whole molecule, not just belong to an individual atom. ... orbitals deriving from the previous, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: space between electrons and nuclei
    ... >>> The electron is everywhere in its orbital, ... > 2) there is nothing between the electron and the nucleus ... > and atoms are decidedly quantum. ... These orbitals *include* the nucleus ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: C14 in diamonds
    ... valid for most of the typical states you find atoms in. ... average speeds of electrons in atoms are not directly ... expectation value of the velocity of the electron in some ... of distance divided by time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: My New Website
    ... Describing heavy atoms requires more computational time than ... > in pioneering scince at the beginning we are not 'nit pickers' ... Did I ever mention "lots of free parameters"? ... But what I have seen are e.g. observations of the electron density ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast