Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / October 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Electron Bounce Model

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
rd - 05 Oct 2006 21:52 GMT
I continue to have problems understanding the current picture of the
Atom and its interactions with the electron, as explained by Modern
Physics. I prefer this model:

My thoughts are that an electron is continually trying to unite with
the positive charge in the nucleus. The more excited electrons are able
to exist farther from the nucleus. Also the electrons which are
considered valance electrons are traveling in random directions and can
easily migrate between atoms. In fact it is my understanding that the
shininess of metals is due to the free electron travel. However, as
individual electrons as pulled close to the atom and strike the
nucleons, which are all on the order of 2000 times the size of the
electron....depending on the size and makeup of the nucleus the impact
of the electrons with the surface causes the electrons to bounce off of
the nucleons. At all energy levels other than the ones which would
cause the resonant frequency or harmonics of the nucleus, the energy is
delivered back to the electron causing the electron to bounce back.
However at the resonant frequency and harmonics the nucleons vibrate
and oscillate which cause radiation or photon emission.  The more
energy the electron has the higher the bounce. Other factors play in on
the electrons rebounding , like the electron's angle of impact etc.

So the radiation is related to the resonance of the nucleus and NOT the
size of the atom which is closer to gamma rays instead of visible
light. This is also why the wavelength of the radiation is so much
longer than the traditional electron orbits or size of the atoms. This
also explains the probability points for the electron described by the
Quantum Physics folks.

The outer most point the electron bounces to, would be higher depending
on the energy level of the electron when it impacted the nucleus. The
valance electrons in their outer most points would be drawn back in for
another bounce, unless another charged ion pulled the electron into its
orbit.

Now consider the electron bouncing to its outer most position and then
being pulled into an adjacent ionic atom and bouncing back out and then
being pulled back into the original atom. In this way the atoms form
covalent bonds and then form molecules.

Also, the intense force of the electrons bouncing into the nucleus
would tend to keep the nucleus tightly bound as the random electrons
are constantly attempting to move toward the center of the atom but are
bounced back by the neutrons and protons in the atom.  The nucleons are
releasing energy (photons) by vibrating oscillating at only the
specific frequencies and harmonics determined by the makeup of the
nucleons.

Of course the frequency of the oscillations is determined by the energy
level imparted to the striking electron. This is how energy and
frequency get confused when we speak of light.  If I energize an
electron it smacks the nucleus harder.

If for example we strike a bell, and the bell rings at its resonance
modes. Normally if we strike it harder the bell rings at the same tone,
only louder. Now imagine a nonlinearity in the bell like a small crack
or deformity. We strike the bell and it rings normally. Striking it
harder we find, to our surprise, that the tone changes in frequency.
Striking it even harder, the tone changes even further in frequency.
This frequency shift is a manifestation of nonlinearity due to the
presence of the crack, or nonlinearity. My supposition is that the
nucleus contains nonlinearities and will issue harmonics based on the
nonlinearities in the nucleus. The difference in nonlinearities of the
nucleus make up the quanta characteristics of the Atom.

Any thoughts on this?
Autymn D. C. - 06 Oct 2006 09:51 GMT
No, the nucleòns are about 2000 times smaller than the elèctròn.
rd - 06 Oct 2006 12:45 GMT
The nucleons are the neutron and the proton which are ~1800 times
BIGGER.

> No, the nucleòns are about 2000 times smaller than the elèctròn.
Autymn D. C. - 07 Oct 2006 06:14 GMT
> The nucleons are the neutron and the proton which are ~1800 times
> BIGGER.
>
> > No, the nucleòns are about 2000 times smaller than the elèctròn.

Wrong, shithead, they are more massive which means they are smaller.
rd - 07 Oct 2006 23:45 GMT
> > The nucleons are the neutron and the proton which are ~1800 times
> > BIGGER.
> >
> > > No, the nucleòns are about 2000 times smaller than the elèctròn.
>
> Wrong, shithead, they are more massive which means they are smaller.

Yes the fact that the bowel movements eminating from your ears contain
more mass and yet are smaller only indicates the amount of compression
which must take place as the movement is pushed through your much
smaller crainial cavity, which no doubt happens as you attempt thought.

In the same gravity a bigger mass = a bigger size.
Autymn D. C. - 08 Oct 2006 05:38 GMT
>[snipped fantasy]

> In the same gravity a bigger mass = a bigger size.

Your link was crap.  Why don't you show me some equation or expression
that proves this?  I'll bet you $100 in PayPal that you're wrong.  BTW,
this is for the inner size of a body, not some size of a givven force
or the like.

-Aut
rd - 09 Oct 2006 15:17 GMT
> >[snipped fantasy]
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> -Aut

World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book.

"The diameter of an electron is less than 1/1000 the diameter of a
proton. A proton has a diameter of approximately 1/25,000,000,000,000
inch (0.000000000001 mm)."
rd - 09 Oct 2006 16:02 GMT
> >[snipped fantasy]
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> -Aut

equation:

e_size < p_size

Show me whay you think the proton is smaller.
Autymn D. C. - 10 Oct 2006 09:40 GMT
> > Your link was crap.  Why don't you show me some equation or expression
> > that proves this?  I'll bet you $100 in PayPal that you're wrong.  BTW,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Show me whay you think the proton is smaller.

That's ae inequality, you retard, not equation.  How old are you,
15?--you didn't take the bet.  The quote from World Book is wrong; it
also shows no work.  Look up the classic radius.  The protòn's radius
will be about 1800 folds smaller because of Coulomb's law.

-Aut
rd - 10 Oct 2006 16:37 GMT
> > > Your link was crap.  Why don't you show me some equation or expression
> > > that proves this?  I'll bet you $100 in PayPal that you're wrong.  BTW,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> -Aut

Look < i understand what the classic model radius is, but lets face it,
that formula is ridiculous. It shouldn't be called the radius, it
should be called the charge density. The typical formula is:

1/(4pi*perm of free space)  *  charge/m*C^2

In this equation all of it is a constant for both the electron and
proton except for the mass(m). And so the entire comparison is inversly
related to mass (1/m).

The term radius is obviously not what we typically think of as radius.
In fact if we used this formula for the neutron we would get a radius
of zero since it has zero charge.

Its like saying the more mass the samller the particle. This is
ridiculous. TWhat this radius is is the amount of charge density. Since
a proton has the same charge as an electron and they both have the same
charge, then the classocal radius of the electron is bigger than that
of the proton. Its NOT what it generally used for size. The mass is a
better measure of what the size probably is. I have never heard anyone
actually try and say the the electron is bigger than the proton.

You owe me $100.00 !!
Autymn D. C. - 11 Oct 2006 09:40 GMT
> Look < i understand what the classic model radius is, but lets face it,
let's
> that formula is ridiculous. It shouldn't be called the radius, it
> should be called the charge density. The typical formula is:

<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/browse_frm/thread/f
abbfa7b9dba68cc/b301dab5e2fabb81?lnk=st&q=Autymn+intransitive&rnum=2#b301dab5e2f
abb81
>

A radius is not a density, you illiterate chunk of junk.  If you want
to talk about the other radius, it is to the edges of the universe.

> 1/(4pi*perm of free space)  *  charge/m*C^2
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> In fact if we used this formula for the neutron we would get a radius
> of zero since it has zero charge.

Not quite, the charges are localisede to the quarks'.  And if we guessd
the neutròn's mass from the distances of its charges alone, we would
find that it has almost no mass--which is fake.  Thus it's the role of
its antineutrino to wedge open the elèctronuclear well so that it has
excess mass and ènèrjy.  So the neutròn needs more than Coulomb's
law to get a radius, and it has nothing to do with the provene radii of
particuli with charges.

> Its like saying the more mass the samller the particle. This is
> ridiculous. TWhat this radius is is the amount of charge density. Since
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> You owe me $100.00 !!

What else do you think everyone means by the 'radius" in "classic
radius"??  You hav no other size to argue from!  I know that you wantd
to argue from the size of a black hole, but the "hole" is not a thing
but a hap where the thing's strength meets some intermediate value;
that is, its body still lies beneath and ever smaller.  The inverse
laws for potentials should tell you that heftier motes are smaller.
You are a'handwaving like a fool.

The world owes me a fortune.

-Aut
rd - 11 Oct 2006 17:41 GMT
> > Look < i understand what the classic model radius is, but lets face it,
> let's
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> -Aut

I refuse to engage further in a battle of wits with someone so
obviously unarmed.
Autymn D. C. - 12 Oct 2006 13:19 GMT
> I refuse to engage further in a battle of wits with someone so
> obviously unarmed.

I unarm wits when I go to sleep.  I don't sleep-write, so you're wrong
anoth.
rd - 07 Oct 2006 23:59 GMT
> > The nucleons are the neutron and the proton which are ~1800 times
> > BIGGER.
> >
> > > No, the nucleòns are about 2000 times smaller than the elèctròn.
>
> Wrong, shithead, they are more massive which means they are smaller.

If you study this webpage real hard it might help you.... And lets
refrain from the sparkly language when we communicate.

http://www.phrenopolis.com/perspective/atom/index.html
Tim BandTechnology - 20 Oct 2006 21:12 GMT
> I continue to have problems understanding the current picture of the
> Atom and its interactions with the electron, as explained by Modern
[quoted text clipped - 62 lines]
>
> Any thoughts on this?

Neat theory rd.
Could valence electrons even be bouncing off of electrons that are in
their way?
This would make them freeer and hence support an electron cloud
vantage.
What protects the inner electrons from being absorbed away from this
atom?
I don't think the standard orbital intuition has any better support
here so don't worry if it's not easy. It's hard to see stability here.
Still, it looks like you could morph the harmonic oscillator math into
your model on face value; you still have periodic behavior.

-Tim
 
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.