 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / April 2006Everything riding its own sine wave.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/iwin4.GIF Look at the above picture. Using my model for the atom, I can do the same thing with every atom and molecule. This could be built in the real world quite easily. John Galaxy Model for the Atom http://users.accesscomm.ca/john > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/iwin4.GIF > Look at the above picture. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Galaxy Model for the Atom > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john Sure this picture can be done, but it is not a valid model of an atom. Electrons don't "orbit" the nucleas, they "exist around" the nucleas. You can't determine where they will be in the next instant just by where they were in the previous instant. So says Heisenberg. > > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/iwin4.GIF > > Look at the above picture. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You can't determine where they will be in the next instant just by > where they were in the previous instant. So says Heisenberg. It is true that Heisenberg said that describing the "orbit" of the electron "has no sense" (in "The physical content of quantum kinematics and Mechanics", 1927!) but it was said with respect to the uncertainty of two succesive measurements of the position of the electron, illuminating it with photons. Heisenberg recognized that he simply could not say anything sensible about the path of the electron around the nucleus. In John's model the measurement aspect is not tackled (as far as I have seen on his web site). It therefore seems to me very premature to invalidate such a model on the hand of a statement of Heisenberg taken out of its context. John's model has some interesting features, especially concerning the way how all the different orbitals spatially fit in a complementary pattern. -- Arjen Dijksman > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/iwin4.GIF > Look at the above picture. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Galaxy Model for the Atom > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john Interesting model. And if you use arrows in place of coins or point particles, you could describe it within a quantum theory framework. See http://materion.free.fr/physique/QMObservationMacroscopicArrows.pdf. -- Arjen Dijksman Yes, I would love to match the currently- used math to this particular form. Like being able to differentiate from a derivative to the actual formula once given the constant's value. Can something like the above be shown to describe these paths? I'm working on a carbon ring right now http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/cyclohexane1.GIF but I'm going to have alternate carbons precess opposite ways. Thanks for your nice words. Refreshing. John If we take your hydrogen simulation (http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/H.GIF), the path of your electron looks like the path of the tip of a freely rotating arrow (a vector). For your helium atom (http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/He.GIF), if you connect both electrons, you have a freely rotating dumb-bell. This type of motion (Poinsot motion) is well known in the calculations of attitude of earth satellites. Freely rotating arrows have two rotational degrees of freedom. The rotational motion of an arrow is the combination of two rotations: - a spinning rotation omega-s about the symmetry axis, also called the figure axis, - a precession rotation omega-z of the figure axis about a fixed precession axis, which is your z-axis. The time dependence |psi(t)> of the vector representing the arrow is given by equation (9) in http://materion.free.fr/physique/QMObservationMacroscopicArrows.pdf. An interesting suggestive feature is that the projection of omega-s on the z-axis is a constant. For an angle theta=pi/3 between the figure axis and the z-axis, this constant is 1/2 or -1/2. In other words, the projection of spin omega-s of |psi(t)> is quantized and may take only two values +1/2 or -1/2. This result is obtained with ordinary everyday objects, like arrows, needles or rods. There is nothing weird about such quantum behaviour. In response to Daniel Pitts above: > Electrons don't "orbit" the nucleas, they "exist around" the nucleas the tip of an arrow may orbit the nucleus while the hard matter of the arrow just exists around the nucleus. By the way, I noticed the similarity between your model (based on a curtate cycloid) and the hubius helix in http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265 and reported by fredifizzx (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/cb938d22dbc3d4f6/e8 08e1ad14004e58?&hl=en#e808e1ad14004e58). The Hubius helix is also generated by the tip of a freely rotating arrow. -- Arjen Dijksman -------------------------------- Materion physics, the search for a satisfactory explanation of natural phenomena at http://materion.free.fr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.