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

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

Date: 4 Mar 2005 21:55:15 -0800

Dr. Photon wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:<1109926403.647801.203210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > ----------------------
> > lets concentrate on your last link
> >
> > 'nasa- academy'...........etc
> >
> > take again a look on that elecrtic distrubution there
> > and now go to my site and see for instance the iron atom
presentation
> > it is there in varius degrees of zooming
> > ie detailed nuc structre in 3d
> > a more sxhematic presentation
> > and even a zoom out' presentation of a litttle cube presenting the
> > main body of the nuc and atom while the emphasis is on the
> > '*edge orbitals* that are the most active and meaninful
> > in chemical crystaline etc properties
> > so what do you see there ?
> > you see a 'tube body' withextentions of 'arms' out of it !!
> > on the edges of those arms are the relevant electrons for
> > the main properties
> > now what is that general shape look like ??
> > is it like your picture in that link or not?
> > is it a spherical dsitribution or is it more
> > a two direction distribution to the fron pole and to the rare pole
??!!
> > ----------------------------
Hi Br (btw now you can see why it is not good to present youself
just with two letteers: one is calling himself br the other pd
the other fi and .... you get lost....
now it seems to me that untill now your were the best discusser
of the above issue
now just before geting into it i have a little suggestion to you:
call me privately to my e mail s at the top and get my book free
so in that way we can understand ouself much better!
----------------------
> > > ----------
> >
> >
> > >
>
> I don't mind at all lending you points in your favour, if that's what
> they are. The strange thing about that reference is that it was not
> measuring the electron in the atom, or the electronic structure of
the
> atom at all!!! (for some reason I can't access that site at the
> moment, so don't want to say too much about it from memory. But read
> it very closely!). They predicted a spherical harmonic Y(2,0) for the
> ejected electron, and they measured something close to it. This is
> actually not a measurement of the charge distribution in the calcium,
> and is certainly not one of the nucleus. However, it does show that
> orbital shapes (spherical harmonics) for electrons is a valid
picture,
> they have wave behaviour and so they are not just point particles
like
> planets around a sun. I am not saying that you say that they are only
> point particles, or don't have orbitals, but I am saying that this is
> a validation of the QM picture. As it is not a measurement of the
> calcium atom, then I don't think it counts as a validation (or
> disproof) of your theory. I included it to confirm QM's picture of
the
> atomic and subatomic world.

as i sayed it migh tbe that my findings are not so much in
contradiction
to qm findings
my suspicion is that that misunderstnadings and miss mactch
is more of the *interpretators* of that theory.
anyway good for you you did some serious home work that is worth
studying
but untill now as you realised it is not clear to conclude bottom lines
and not verdicts we have to sit on it seriously and one by one.
-----------
>
> What I think might shed more light on the subject is going back to
the
> N2 orbital:
> http://cibernautes.com/didaclopez/944/2670/
see the nitrogen in mysite
it is a tertaheder with 3 arms of onw kind and another one
of another kind - a 'deutron arm'
if the three arms of two N are connected it leaves the
two deutron arms to direct out(in two opposite directions) of that
combination
and you can get soening similar to the anymation that you showed later!
btw my model need a good 3d training do you have some of it ??
and i told you that N is different from asay Al because
it is not a rectangula pipe so while you compair
the mutual distances of 2N to that of 2 Al you are mingling
oranges with apples.....
---------------
>
> Compare this to theory, found at
>
http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/MOs/N2/2pz2pz-sigma/index.html
> ----------
if i remenber corectly it is French which i am too poor on it.

> How does your model compare with this?
>
> (btw, wow does this site have great pictures! My favourite at the
> moment is the 7f orbital collection
> http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/AOs/7f/index.html
> It also shows that people have solved (and could solve if they
wanted)
> pretty much any orbital you could want in H at least)

all those sites are very enlighting but still too abstarct!!

>
> This website also shows that ytterbium is the first element with 32
> electrons predicted to be in one shell
not at all
it is somebodys assumption based on his immagination
to fit tio the paradigma
not substantiated at all the 32 electrons in a shell

-----------
> http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Yb/econ.html
> all elements after ytterbium have 32 electrons in one shell.
> Note that they have calculated the filling order of the pyramid
> structure right up to 118, and it is not as simple as just getting
> some of the orbitals in "reverse" order, there are also "half
> reverses" every now and again. (maybe you take this as more
> confirmation of how useless QM is and the cheating that goes on!

*you sayed that * !!!!

> However, see Hund's rules (etc) at
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atomic/hund.html
> )
>
> I think the following is a killer though: take a look at the binding
> energies
> http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Yb/bind.html
> and check out all the other elements' binding energies. These show
the
> electron energy levels in the atom, and the 1s orbital of Yb has a
> binding energy of 61.332 keV. This is only possible if there is a
> *very* strong positive charge at the centre of the atom to bind the
> negative electron so tightly. How do you explain all the measured
> binding energies? In fact, what do you say of electron energy levels
> at all?
in my model there are
*differnet kinds of chaines of orbitals :
alpha protons free protons free neutrons free deutrons etc
and on both poles
now about energylevels
each of them has another energy level
and if you add on it the change in elecrron binding once
the nuc becomes bigger than you have many elergy levels
my explanation to the energy level is
the amount of vibration energy you have to 'shake' the electron
in order it will be cut off the main body
now in different conglomerations of nucs you get different
such energies
inmy concept it is always the *edge orbitals * that are sujectyed
to be torn off!
th e inner stay protested.
btw one of the surprising findings about the 'nuclear binding energy*
unlike the electron binding energy is .... that they-- all of them
remain *constant* no matter how bigg is the nuc !!!
----------------

>
> Take a look at the *measured* binding energies for all the 1s
orbitals
> in the whole periodic table (up to uranium):
>
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/properties/text/image-line/e-binding-energy-k.html
>
> IMHO, "binding energy" not only proves that all the levels actually
> exist (and they are where they are meant to be), but also prove that
> the positive nuclear charge must increase with Z. How else can you
> explain such an increase in binding energy? And this is experimental
> data all the way up the periodic table to uranium!!!
>
> Feel free to explore the binding energy data for all the atoms, its
> all there for *all* the energy levels. How do you explain this?

1 se above
2
you probably didnt get my remark that the way those findigs are
done is something problemetic since ....
you can extract electrons *even from the free neotrons around the nuc*
and once you extract electrons from those neutrons ....
the sky is the limit for the 'fiddling posibility!!!

anyway i suggest that you will consider my suggestion to get my book
so we can have a much better common language
thank you especially for the good serious 'home work' you do .
(unlike other mumblers .....)
TIA
Y.Porat

Quantcast