Heavy element production in MM

If you can "push" an electron into a proton then you have a "neutron".

The problem with the standard atomic model is that you need to push an electron into a proton when in fact you should not need to push because a positive charge is attracted by a negative charge. It goes to the question:
why electron doesn't fuse with proton to form neutron. Where does the energy needed to separate the electron from the proton in the neutron decay come from ?
My two cent

I think Tom summed it up in Dark Matter that linking the MM into quantum ideas is difficult because of our lack of understanding of the subatomic world. All of the questions and argument here is sound and it is hard for any of us to come up with ideas that are evidenciary based. My understanding of fusion products formed during bomb explosions comes from source materials like "Spectrographic Analysis of Fallout Materials 1947-1962" This one was on the shelves at NCSU. Other titles like that are to be found as well. They all pretty much concentrate on pure data with very little analysis. However, I will say that the elements identified by photoelectric effect are the ones predicted with current atomic models.

I think we need to separate fact and speculation more closely and look at the actual data instead of making statements based on other notions.

In atomic decay, the particles break loose due to unstable configurations of charges. Remember that positives repulse one another and the nucleus cannot arrange too many protons too closely without interspersing neutrons in a lattice format. Formats that are not stable lead to an escape of particles based on the individual unique nuclei or element.

mark

Mark Vitrone

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>

I think we need to separate fact and speculation more closely and look at the actual data instead of making statements based on other notions.

Remember that positives repulse one another and the nucleus cannot arrange too many protons too closely without interspersing neutrons in a lattice format.

Mark Vitrone
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ok. Here is some data and evidence:

Deuterium is stable but tritium is very unstable. Too many protons?

There are hundreds of radioactive isotopes which have more neutrons than the major stable isotope of the respective elements. Too many protons?

Examine bonding valences of the elements in the Periodic Table. They bear no relationship to the number of electrons. And if an element, such as nitrogen, needs to only satisfy the 8 outer electron rule, why does it have eight different valence (bonding) states? And since it can have five bondings in HNO3, why doesn't NH5 form?

Logic can be applied to the data (evidence) and to the prevailing theory. If there is a contradiction, then the prevailing theory is incorrect.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The problem with the standard atomic model is that you need to push an electron into a proton when in fact you should not need to push because a positive charge is attracted by a negative charge. ...
Where does the energy needed to separate the electron from the proton in the neutron decay come from ?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
A neutron is formed from a proton by the emission of a positron (anti-electron) ... if ... sufficient energy is supplied to make up the mass deficit.

An electron cannot be "pushed" into a proton because of the uncertainty and exclusion principles which MM does not subscribe to.

The energy needed to separate the electron from the proton comes from the neutron rest mass converted into energy. And ... the electron is not considered to be "in" the neutron. It is created at the instant of decay (along with the appropriate neutrino).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The problem with the standard atomic model is that you need to push an electron into a proton when in fact you should not need to push because a positive charge is attracted by a negative charge. ...
Where does the energy needed to separate the electron from the proton in the neutron decay come from ?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
A neutron is formed from a proton by the emission of a positron (anti-electron) ... if ... sufficient energy is supplied to make up the mass deficit.

An electron cannot be "pushed" into a proton because of the uncertainty and exclusion principles which MM does not subscribe to.

The energy needed to separate the electron from the proton comes from the neutron rest mass converted into energy. And ... the electron is not considered to be "in" the neutron. It is created at the instant of decay (along with the appropriate neutrino).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't subscribe to the uncertainty principle either as an explanation of the mechanism(s) behind electrons staying out of a nucleus it should be strongly attracted to. If the uncertainty principle can act as a physical cause, why doesn't it cause the attraction between electrons and protons as well? Or how about we use it as the cause of green frogs, bald eagles, daffy ducks, flying beagles, Carolina panthers, and chocolate cats? The latters may sound a little absurd but the line of reasoning is
the same, no?

How does limitations in knowledge, or maybe we should call it
ignorance, become a cause of a physical phenomenon? Does the traffic light not turn green for a color-blind driver because if it did,
the color-blind driver would lose his colorblindness? Does a blowhorn not honk when a deaf girl presses on it because if it did, she would become not deaf? And finally, forgive me for being
repetitive, but does the limitation in our ability to determine the
exact momentum and position simultaneously of an electron prevent it from being attracted to the nucleus because if it did, we would lose this limitation?

I think any reasonable person would agree that if a traffic light did not turn green, it is because the bulb went out; if the blowhorn did not sound, it's because of a blown fuse; and likewise, if the electron does not fall into the nucleus, it's because something physical is stopping it from doing so. I don't believe a
math formula or some esoteric statement can achieve enough force to prevent an electron from falling into an attractive nucleus...I really don't.

1234567890
That's exactly what I think!