Re: Video of cubic atomic model explains all

On Sep 15, 12:51 am, frankli...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Classically, if an electron were in orbit around a proton, it should
radiate energy and fall into the proton. So, why can't it? Is the
proton and the electron going to explode or something? I see nothing
wrong with the idea that the electron falls directly on the proton and
they get attached like two magnets.

Rutherford experiment disproved it more than a century ago. Your model
is a variant of the "plum pudding" model of the atom, at least in
terms of scattering experiments. Rutherford showed that any of a broad
class of theories of this type are strictly ruled out.


This is the starting point of the cubic atomic model which is designed
based on the assumption that electrons and protons gather naturally
into the nucleus to form atoms. In this model, the electrons are bound
up in the nucleus and it eliminates the need for the strong force to
hold the protons together into a dense positively charged nucleus.
This is not your 'plum pudding' model - the protons and electrons
alternate in a checkboard pattern and they produce specific shapes
which create 'docking' ports where chemical activity occur. This can
be somewhat difficult to visualize so I have created a youtube video
showing the basic construction of the atoms from hydrogen to neon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGz-D04iIg4

It shows why atoms have the bonding angles that they do and why they
join together with specific numbers of other elements in a way that is
as simple to understand as tinker toys. It is one of the few models
which allow a simple and complete visualization of the atomic
structure. Instead of electrons flying about in odd doughnut shaped
clouds that somehow meet together to form covalent bonds, we have a
very simple docking port structure which permits the mating of the
atom extremities.

Since all of this is based on nothing but the electrostatic force, we
should be able to make much more accurate calculations of chemical
bonding than we do now. Currently we only have 'rules of thumb' with
regard to chemical bonding. But an actual physical model would allow
exacting calculations and could prove extremely useful in calculating
whether certain compounds will form and what their characteristics
will be. Ultimately, this could be used to prove the correctness of
this theory and would prove to be a boone to the chemical/nuclear
industry.

The model is called cubic because it can be modeled using six sided
cubes. By studying the periodic table of the elements, you can see a
pattern emerge of groups of 4 and groups of 2. Group 1A and 2A is a
grouping of 2. 1B and 2B is also a group of 2. 3B-6B form a group of
4, etc. What this really corresponds to are the 4 sides of a cube and
the top/bottom of a cube. Atoms form by wrapping layers around an
initial cube with filing in 4 sides then capping the top/bottom and
then repeating.

If this turns out to be the true model of the atom, it would show that
physics made an incredibly bad turn when it accepted the Rutherford
atomic model and we have been in the dark ever since. The Rutherford
atomic model was built by trying to figure out the outward invisible
characteristics of the atom and then fitting an atomic model to it.
This model gave us no access to the nucleus and gave us a very
'epicycle' like explanation of electron orbits. Just like the Earth
centered universe required that the planets follow curly-cue orbits,
we have electron clouds in all sorts of shapes that we cannot figure
out why they would do that. Nor can we visualize how all these
electrons get shared to produce an attractive and lasting chemical
bond.

The cubic atomic model goes the other way, starting with the
characteristics of electrons and protons and working our way out to
figure out the format of the atom. This model has undergone several
refinements and the video shows the latest version which most
accurately reflects what we know from experiments. These previous
revisions (now obsolete) and additional information can be seen at:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/frankhu/buildatm.htm

This is part of my TOE which can be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html

-fhuatom

.

Loading