The Real Atom?
The current model of the atom is the nuclear model where almost all of the mass is contained in a central nucleus which is surrounded by clouds of electrons. This model of the atom was a results of experiments where the directing of subatomic particles showed most of the particles penetrating with a few reflected by the central mass.
The central mass consists of protons and electrons with an excess of protons giving it a positive charge. In normal atoms this positive charge is neutralized by electrons surrounding the nucleus.
In the current model these clouds of electrons have different shapes and orientation from the atom’s nucleus, protruding from the nucleus in different directions. The s electrons have a circular orbit around the nucleus, the p electrons form clouds that are at the six perpendicular axis of the nucleus, and the d electrons are in clouds extending from the diagonals of the nucleus. The shape and direction of theses electron clouds was determined by calculating the probability of finding an electron in any area.
This is an interesting model of an atom but it does not exist on the Earth, in our solar system, in our galaxy, or in the observable universe. The calculations for determining the electron shell’s shape and position were done using an assumption that there was no magnetic field present. This is not true on Earth and certainly false in the sun where atoms are created. Why would you create a model using a assumption you know to be false and how can you treat that model as if it was a true representation of an atom?
In the presence of a magnetic field an electron will take a path perpendicular to the magnetic field and the probability of finding an electron in a p or d shell is zero. The appearance of the atom is the same as the solar system or a galaxy. The laws of physics are constant throughout reality and do not change because of the size relative to us.
If the atom has the shape of the solar system it will have directional forces coming from it. The magnetic field will be perpendicular to the electron disc surrounding the nucleus. The center will have a positive electrical field while the electrons in the orbiting disc will produce a negative electric field parallel to the magnetic field.
The reason these atoms do not form molecules that are long strings of atoms, that are held together by north pole–south pole forces, is because this structure also maximizes the repelling forces between the electrical fields. A more stable structure would be achieved if a lattice structure was formed. In the case of identical individual atoms a centered cubic lattice would form a more stable unit. Picture a cube with an atom in the center and an atom at each of the eight corners. The north pole of the center atom would be attracted to the south poles of the four atoms in the upper layer of atoms while its south pole would be attracted to the north poles of the bottom layer of atoms. This structure would minimize the repelling forces between the electric fields.
This structure would make an ideal medium for the transfer of electromagnetic waves through the structure. A disturbance to the central atom would result in either an increase in attractive forces or an increase in repelling forces to the atoms in the layers above and below the atom. The strength of the magnetic fields and electric fields would determine how close the atoms are to each other, the size of the atoms (determined by their fields), and the speed of the wave. An atom’s size varies with its fields and its fields expand until they encounter a field of equal strength from another atom or molecule. Contrary to accepted theory light travels faster in a liquid or a solid than in a gas because of the stronger magnetic attraction between atoms. The weaker the magnetic force the slower the wave travels.
This would explain the Zeeman and Stark effect where the spectra of light emitted by an atom changes in a strong electric or magnetic field. We think of the fields that cause this dividing of spectra lines as being strong but is very weak compared to the fields around an atom. The external electric and magnetic fields around the atom do not affect the atom, they change the distance between the matrix layers that are transmitting the light from the atom. This change in fields is the same as the changing fields that cause the red and blue shift in light coming from distant stars. It would also explain why when a scientist simulated the extreme vacuum and cold of deep space she was able to slow the speed of light to less than fifty miles an hour.
This structure would also make an ideal medium for the formation of covalent chemical bonds between atoms, without using the nebulous reasoning of some how sharing electrons. If a strong enough disturbance in the lattice caused an atom to flip the electrical repelling forces around it would hold it in position temporarily causing it to rotate in the opposite direction as other atoms in its layer. If the outer disc of a neighboring atom had the right gaps for protuberances in the outer disc of the atom, the two atoms could mesh like gears allowing their magnetic poles to become closer, forming a magnetic bond between the atoms and creating a molecule.
This theory would mean that helium would not be an inert element but the most reactive element, but because of its size the other elements it could react with would be limited. Maybe helium 1 is really helium di-hydrogen which would be identical to helium in mass and chemical non-reactivity.
A molecule formed between atoms would combine their fields producing its own magnetic and electrical fields which would then orient to the lattice. The fields of molecules could continue to combine with other atoms and molecules to form larger and larger structures. It would also explain why water molecules, with their small size and magnetic dipole can form stable hydrates with molecules without forming chemical bonds. It would explain different adherence and friction between molecules which an atom surrounded by a sphere of negative charges does not explain.
This would mean the law of entropy is false. If you put identical molecules in a closed system and isolate it from all other influences, the energy and electrical fields in the system will equalize creating an order rather than becoming more chaotic. The apparent lack of order and randomness seen in nature is from different forces trying to establish order. If you one person in charge of a job arranging object according to how big they are you will get an ordered set. If more than one person is doing the job, one may decide that big means how tall they are, another may decide mass determines big, and another may decide the number of each type is how big they are. It is different fields trying to organize atoms and molecules that create the apparent chaos but the fundamental impetus is to establish order.
The reason the asteroids in the asteroid belt did not coalesce into a planet is because the fields of Jupiter and the sun are trying to organize the matter into different systems. The existence of Jupiter and the asteroid belt means that the theory that the sun and planets all formed at the same time is wrong. Jupiter, with its large magnetic field, had to exist before the matter that makes up the asteroid belt came into the solar system. All the matter that makes up the planets and other objects in the solar system came form the sun. The sun burns creating larger elements and eventually these elements accumulate to a point where they need to be disposed of. The sun goes nova and throws the trash out into space forming the trash piles we call planets. This process happens many times in a sun’s life so the different planets have different ages.
By creating a model of an atom that is based on reality, rather than a false assumption, it is possible to provide reasonable explanations for the way things work in reality. Physicist may want to maintain the fantasy world they’ve created, based on false assumptions, but they should not call it physic and pretend it is a science based on reality.
Trackback from your site.
Robet Hanes
| #
I applaud the thoughtful commentary, however you should not use freshmen general chemistry arguments as the counterpoint to your new atomic theory. The first day of graduate school in chemistry you are told forget everything you know, it is not real. There is not such thing as a ‘chemical bond’ that shares electrons. However, molecular orbital theory, in particular is a very useful tool because it is highly effective at predicting chemical reactivity. While i think most chemists agree that the theories are not perfect, they do fit empirical observation over and over again. As one learns from resonance structures, none of them are real either, but they model well that which is observed from experiment. The modern desktop computer crunching through quantum calculations is equally valuable. The absence of a discussion of quantum effects also weakens your thoughts. At 20 years post graduate school, i still wrestle with the philosophical implications of real and observed vs. experiment and theory. I too strive for better understanding of atomic theory, but lets not dismiss the tremendous amount to experiment backed data that supports many of the useful rule of thumb models use effectively on a daily basis.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Robet and Herb,
Robet, you understand chemists and chemistry. Herb not so much.
Chemists are pragmatic; they make things and always have. And before any of the models reviewed by Herb, they made things. From their experimental results they had deduced the geometric structures of certain common molecules. I use to tell my students that Bohr had to have known that his model of the atom could not be a real model of an atom because it could never explain a snowflake. But when Schrodinger assumed that the electron might behave a ‘wave’, and did his calculation of the hydrogen atom and produced an atomic model which explanation what chemists already knew, they (Pauling) immediately embraced the new quantum mechanics and considered that freshman chemistry students could understand the concepts of this model without understanding the mathematics of the model. And the rest is history as Robet reviewed. Chemists are pragmatic and it does not matter to them if others consider the atomic model they embrace is real or not, they only know, as Robet reviewed, that it works.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Kenneth Hughes
| #
‘Interesting, new and very reasonable perspective on the atom. He may be correct but one thing is for sure, he’ll have a hard time convincing mainstream physicists to change their thinking.
Reply
Charlie
| #
This article has a great number of incomplete statements and errors, such as: “The central mass consists of protons and electrons with an excess of protons giving it a positive charge. In normal atoms ….” The central mass consists of protons and neutrons. “Normal” atoms? All atoms are normal; they are an atom. What then are abnormal atoms? Ions? Those are normal atoms. Isotopes? Those are normal atoms. Not sure I’ve ever heard of abnormal atoms…please explain. “This is an interesting model of an atom but it does not exist on the Earth, in our solar system, in our galaxy, or in the observable universe.” How do you know? Where is the evidence this is incorrect? If you mean nothing exists EXACTLY like that, no, of course not, it’s much more complicated; anyone past high school chemistry or physics knows this. That description is just a representative description for the sake of simplification in the intro courses. No one has EVER said it’s exactly like that. “If the atom has the shape of the solar system it will have directional forces coming from it.” It does not; who said it did? Bohr’s model/picture sort of shows that but we all know it’s not at all like planets orbiting, even Bohr. Why even mention this?
“The appearance of the atom is the same as the solar system or a galaxy.” No it’s not. No one has ANY evidence showing that nor has anyone but you even stated that. If this is what you have discovered where is your experimental evidence showing it? “The laws of physics are constant throughout reality and do not change because of the size relative to us.” In general that is true; macro physical findings through micro physics – such as General Relativity to Newton’s Laws gravity to Quantum mechanics, or special relativity to Newton’s laws – yes are all the same wherever we look. They all represent the best model we currently have for each of those conditions. You have to know which tool applies under which circumstance. “If the atom has the shape of the solar system ..” it doesn’t so what follows is irrelevant. “The reason these atoms do not form molecules that are long strings of atoms ….” Incorrect; atoms form molecular strings. There are millions of molecules: DNA, alcohol, hydrocarbons, and my favorite, caffeine. Thus, what follows is incorrect. “Contrary to accepted theory light travels faster in a liquid or a solid than in a gas” Never…but perhaps you have experimental results that show this? Reference, please.
“a scientist simulated the extreme vacuum and cold of deep space she was able to slow the speed of light to less than fifty miles an hour.” Really? That’s interesting. I’m not convinced so I’d like to read up on it. Where was that published and who was the scientist? “This theory would mean that helium would not be an inert element but the most reactive element” Helium is inert and not reactive, let alone the most reactive. So…..all this is incorrect. “This would mean the law of entropy is false.” Not at all, since everything that lead up to you saying this is wrong or only partially correct. Nevertheless, entropy has never been shown to be wrong. Ever.
“The existence of Jupiter and the asteroid belt means that the theory that the sun and planets all formed at the same time is wrong.” Who had THAT theory? No one. Why did you even say this?
“All the matter that makes up the planets and other objects in the solar system came form (sic) the sun.” From a sun. Not ours. “The sun burns creating larger elements and eventually these elements accumulate to a point where they need to be disposed of. The sun goes nova and throws the trash out into space forming the trash piles we call planets.” Well no, if a sun (star) goes nova/supernova anything in the vicinity is destroyed. “This process happens many times in a sun’s life so the different planets have different ages.” Nope, a star goes like that once, then it becomes something else…. You just said it turns all it’s fuel (hydrogen then heavier elements) so with no fuel left how can it do it again? That has never been observed or hypothesized. Until now, I suppose.
“By creating a model of an atom that is based on reality, rather than a false assumption, it is possible to provide reasonable explanations for the way things work in reality. Physicist may want to maintain the fantasy world they’ve created, based on false assumptions, but they should not call it physic and pretend it is a science based on reality.” That’s what we have now and it explains many things quite nicely. Here you have done a lot talking about some kind of alternative, yet you offer nothing that supports it, via hypothesis, theory, or measurements. (Not, we consider a ‘theory’ unproven until there is experimental evidence that supports it. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. Note, that’s Richard Feynman, saying that, not me, I just agree Richard is correct.) If you are proposing some other model or theory or have other measurements contrary to established science, that explains what we currently know better than current understanding and models, let’s see it. If not, I don’t understand your point in writing this.
Reply