'Edge' of the Universe

Jim,

On several occasions recently you have gone out of your way to explain to us that you do not have a technical background.

We understand what this means. It is not necessary for you to provide an example of how shallow your understanding of science is. Most people that are interested in a subject (as you appear to be interested in science) spend a good bit of time and effort learning about that subject. It is disappointing that you haven't followed this trend.

[Jim] "This model should show how silly all this model theory really is."

Of course it is silly. No one has ever seen an atom, so the best we can do is imagine what they might look like if we could see them. Since atoms almost certainly don't look like solar systems, there is an endless stream of variations of the solar-system-model that don't make sense. The one you mention above is a good example.

Although it is not possible to completely rule out the possibility, few if any scientists believe that atoms look like solar sytems. A better way to use a model like this (a non-silly way) is to use it to show how atoms are <b>different</b> from solar systems. For example, if we magnify a hydrogen atom so that the proton is as big as Sol, then the big electron in that big hydrogen atom would be 10 times farther away from that big proton than the planet Pluto is from Sol.

This is a big differece, and suggests that atoms have a lot more empty space in them than solar systems have. Especially if electrons actually do something that resembles orbiting.

LB

From the viewpoint of chemistry, there is no evidence that an atom is arranged like a solar system. Instead, there is immense evidence that electrons do not move in orbits. Chemical bonds have very specific locations, angles and lengths. Linus Pauling's last thought on the matter was that electrons move in and out from the nucleus. Since electrons are repulsive, the idea that they make chemical bonds is very unlikely. Chemical bonds may occur where there is no electron.

Research in university laboratories over the past 15 years have resulted in one common conclusion: the proton is highly asymmetric in shape and behavior. You can think of this as minus and plus charge if you like. But I think of it as repulsive and non-repulsive positions on the proton.

There is considerable evidence that an electron acts like a cloud. Perhaps it is a cloud - of elysons. Perhaps on one side (or end) of a proton there is a highly repulsive electron cloud, and on the other side there is no repulsive electron cloud. If this were true, it would have an amazing difference in the field of nuclear fusion.

Gregg Wilson

So, what if the electrons in an atom don't orbit the nucleus of that atom?

===

Here is a model of atoms I've been tinkering with lately. I don't have a name for it yet. (Seems like a waste of time to name something that will probably get shot down soon. That is what happens to most new models.)

===

If, as MM supposes, electrons have a large but negative surface gravity, then at some point as an electron approaches a proton a balance point might be reached with the attractive force between electron and proton.

The electron would just sit there, "hovering".

===

In this case, a hydrogen atom might look like this:



If the electron gets any closer, its negative gravity pushes them apart. (Since an electron is smaller than a proton, it should also be more dense. And if it is more dense it ought to absorb/scatter a larger percentage of the gravitons that come its way. Thus its surface gravity, whether positive or negative, ought to be stronger than the surface gravity of a proton.)

If the electron gets any farther away, the attraction created by the high and low pressure elysium regions pulls them closer.

LB

From a distance the two charges cancel. But up close there are still two very active force fields, with some left over binding energy. So a naked hydrogen atom would probably combine with one of its neighbors to form a hydrogen molecule.


And that hydrogen molecule might look like this:



The angles might or might not be 90 degrees. The spacing might or might not be closer than in the case of a singlet atom. And it ought to be a 3D structure, probably something like a tetrahedron.

The particles (protons and electrons) actually can, and therefore do, move relative to each other. But not in the traditional ballistic orbits of the solar-system-model. Whatever motion is present is more likely to be random, or perhaps some function of the most recent collision with a neighboring molecule.

Zero relative velocity of all four particles is possible but not likely.

===

This two-atom molecule now presumably does not have enough excess binding energy to capture a third atom for more than a brief time. If it does occasionally capture a third atom then one of the three would likely be ejected as a result of the energy input from the next collision.

LB

A water molecule?

We know that that the two hydrogen atoms attach to the oxygen atom at a 120 degree angle. Why would they do that if the electrons are all running around in (more or less) circular orbits?

But if, instead of orbiting, electrons hover at various balance points, it is possible to imagine that certain geometric arrangements will have lower overall energy than other geometric arrangements. And nature does seem to prefer low energy solutions to high energy solutions.



Motion of the three nuclei and the various electrons within the water molecule is still possible (and therefore still occurs), but it will be somewhat constrained by energy considerations. For example, the angle is probably not always exacly 120 degrees, but over time it will average 120 degrees.

Water molecules have a dipole moment. That means the center of negative charge is different than the center of positive charge. That seems to be what the 120 degree bend is all about.

If we neglect the thickness of the electron shells, a water molecule would be a 2D structure - the three nuclei define a plane.

===

Does anyone know if hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) has a dipole moment? This molecule might be like a water molecule with the "hollow" area occupied by a second oxygen atom. That would make it a symetrical molecule (in 2D) and thus it should not have a dipole moment.

I guess other arrangements are possible, though. The 3D tetrahedron comes to mind again, which might allow for some charge-center separation (IOW, a dipole moment).


LB

Hi Gregg,

I remember some of your speculations about cone shaped protons and such from a year or so ago. That, combined with TVF's negative gravity speculations about electrons, started me thinking along the lines of "hovering" electrons.

Cool stuff.

I don't suppose you have anything new to share?

LB