A New Model of Atom

dl10c

Reference:

Propagation of Light

Disturbance Levels of Space

.

An atom is the smallest unit of matter that defines the chemical elements. Atoms are very small. The modern atom is visualized as a small nucleus surrounded by an electronic region.

All the mass of the atom is concentrated in the nucleus, which is made up of still smaller particles called nucleons. The surrounding electron cloud is made up of particles called electrons. Atoms attach to each other by sharing electrons in their outer shells.

In solids, the atoms and molecules are packed much more tightly. They form a rigid structure. Even then the electrons in outer shells of atoms in materials called metals can flow as electric current.

atom2

Many properties within the atomic structures, when expressed as ratios, appear impressively as ordered sets of integers. This has led to the assumption that the atomic structure consists of smaller particles. This assumption is reinforced by the appearance of particles in atomic and nuclear reactions. However, these same sets of integers can be explained in terms of resonances among electromagnetic waves, without assuming the presence of subatomic particles within atoms.

So, there are subatomic particles that are generated during atomic and nuclear reactions. There are also properties of atoms that can be expressed in terms of orderly integer ratios. But this does not necessarily justify that atoms are made of subatomic particles.

It is very likely that an atom is a homogeneous entity with no discrete particles existing inside it. There need not be electrons circling around a nucleus that is made up of protons and neutrons. The interactions at the surface of atom may suffice to generate electrons. Similarly, other interactions with the atom may suffice to generate protons and neutrons.

If we do not assume subatomic particles to reside within an atom, we can express the atomic structure in terms of rapidly condensing wave-frequency of electromagnetic disturbance.

Inertia may be described as the natural tendency of any motion to maintain itself when no external force is acting on it. Because of this inertia an internal resistance is generated when a change in motion is attempted by force. A wave-frequency can be said to have inertia because it tends to maintain itself.

The higher is the frequency of electromagnetic disturbance, the more it tends to maintain itself. We may say that electromagnetic disturbance of higher frequency has higher inertia.

The electromagnetic disturbance has a large spectrum that extends from extremely low frequencies of radio waves to extremely high frequencies of gamma rays. This range of frequencies may be described as disturbance levels (exponent of 2) from 1 to 67 and higher (see the reference above).

The atom may be modeled as a “sink” for wave-frequency inertia. This means that the atom provides a location where wave-frequency inertia may condense and terminate as mass (See the graphics at the beginning of this article).

In other words, the disturbance levels increase rapidly as the electromagnetic disturbance enters the electronic region of the atom and moves towards its center. These disturbance levels are the same that appear at the upper end of the electromagnetic spectrum.

There is a threshold frequency at which the disturbance becomes rotational and forms an electronic region. There seems to be another threshold frequency within the electronic region at which disturbance collapses from wave-frequency into particle-mass form of inertia. The particle-mass formation appears as the nucleus at the center of the atom.

In this model of atom, the electronic region is like a rotating “whirlpool” within the ubiquitous electromagnetic field in space. The electronic region consists of rapidly increasing disturbance levels toward the center. The extremely high disturbance level at the center collapses into mass forming the nucleus of the atom.

The Bohr’s model of atom has helped provide insight into the Periodic Table; but, it soon becomes very complex when describing the atomic structure beyond the simplest hydrogen atom. The “Disturbance” model of atom outlined in this article is intended to provide a deeper insight into the structure of the atom with simpler math.

In the Disturbance model of the atom, there are “oscillators” in the electronic region of the atom instead of electrons. These “oscillators” achieve characteristic resonances when irradiated with energy. These resonances then emit characteristic radiation and electrons.

In a blackbody, the atomic configurations consist of “oscillators” over the whole range of frequency spectrum. When a blackbody is heated, it emits radiation at all frequencies. Radiation at high frequencies is limited because it requires increasing energy to activate high frequency oscillators.

Energy required to activate an oscillator is proportional to its frequency, E = hf. The proportionality factor is the Planck’s constant h.

The Planck’s constant ‘h’ may be defined as the energy involved in each cycle of oscillation.

In the photoelectric effect, the metal surface emits electrons. Electrons are rotating electromagnetic fields spun off from the electronic region of the atomic configuration. The metallic surface seems to act as a lens to concentrate the wave front of the falling radiation at oscillators within the surface.

The photon seems to be created right at the metallic surface and may not exist in space. Thus, light may just be a wave phenomenon. Its only discrete element may be a frequency cycle containing the energy ‘h’.

Electrons and atoms are stable configurations of extremely high disturbances in space. A free electron may be looked upon as an “atom without a nucleus”.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 7:34 AM

    Here are some of my conjectures regarding the charge of an electron.

    An electron is a homogenous particle that carries mass. The “center of mass” of an electron is likely to exist at its center. The mass of an electron is most likely concentrated at its center, otherwise it would have to be distributed evenly throughout the electron. If the mass is distributed evenly throughout the electron then it would have to be part of the electromagnetic disturbance that makes up the electron. But the electromagnetic disturbance does not carry mass.

    Therefore, the mass of an electron is concentrated at its center even if it has no nucleus. Because there is no nucleus, there is also no positive charge at the center. This “center of mass” is surrounded by electromagnetic field. If this field is oscillating then it is likely to generate a charge. The electron shall have a net negative charge because there is no positive charge at the center to balance it.

    This tells us that the property of negative charge is somehow connected to the oscillation of an electromagnetic field.
    .

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 7:37 AM

    In an atom, there is a nucleus that has positive charge, which balances the negative charge in the electronic region. This positive charge is likely to be generated somehow by the rotation of the nucleus.

    This tells us that the property of positive charge is somehow connected to the spinning motion of the nuclear mass.
    .

    • Richard  On May 16, 2015 at 9:58 PM

      Absolutely not, you can have a spin on one side or the other and still the charge of the proton is +1. I read your other comments, you have a very unproven knowledge of physics, it just does not make sense at all.

      • vinaire  On May 17, 2015 at 5:08 AM

        These are not claims. These are conjectures put on the table for discussion.

        Here I am talking about “spinning motion of the nuclear mass” or the rotation of the nucleus as a whole, and not the rotation of a proton as an isolated particle.

        I do not think that a proton as a particle is the same thing as the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. There are similarities for sure, but they are not the same thing.

        Besides, “rotation” needs to be defined better for an atom. The model of an atom made up of particles rotating and revolving like a solar system is an old model no longer accepted even by physicists.

        So, I see lot of assumptions in play here that needs to be inspected more closely.

      • vinaire  On May 17, 2015 at 5:37 AM

        Primarily, the conjecture here is “oscillation versus spinning motion”. Wave oscillates and mass spins. Here we are looking at “wave” and “mass” as different forms of inertia, with two different kind of motions, and two different kind of charges.

        Thus, difference in charges seems to relate to the difference in these two kind of motions. How these two motions are defined at atomic level, we don’t know. This needs to be an area of research.

        My conjecture is simply that charge is related to some form of motion at atomic level.
        .

      • vinaire  On May 17, 2015 at 5:44 AM

        Charges appear to be two different kinds of motion that are complementary to each other. These motions also have a definite structure that can be quantized.

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 9:01 AM

    I tried to understand the nature of the “charge of an electron” by searching on the Internet. The Wikipedia article on Elementary charge gives a value in the units of coulomb, but it provides no clue to the nature of charge.

    Another Wikipedia article on Electric charge describes charge in terms of electromagnetic interaction. It speaks of charge as quantized; that is, it comes in integer multiples of individual small units called the elementary charge, e, which is observed on free-standing electrons. Particles called quarks have charges that are integer multiples of e/3, but free-standing quarks have never been observed. Apparently. the interactions of charged particles are mediated by photons.

    Another Wikipedia article on Charge (physics) goes into the abstract mathematical description of charge that seems to lose touch with my reality.

    Charge seems to be defined in terms of its property of attraction and repulsion that depends on the square of distance between charged particles. Charge has a discrete nature, which was first noticed by in electrolysis experiments by Michael Faraday. According to Wikipedia:

    “Charge taken from one material is moved to the other material, leaving an opposite charge of the same magnitude behind. The law of conservation of charge always applies, giving the object from which a negative charge has been taken a positive charge of the same magnitude, and vice-versa.

    “Even when an object’s net charge is zero, charge can be distributed non-uniformly in the object (e.g., due to an external electromagnetic field, or bound polar molecules). In such cases the object is said to be polarized. The charge due to polarization is known as bound charge, while charge on an object produced by electrons gained or lost from outside the object is called free charge. The motion of electrons in conductive metals in a specific direction is known as electric current.”
    .

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 9:35 AM

    It appears that

    (1) Negative and positive charges are manifestations of two distinct phenomena.

    (2) Negative charge seems to be related to very high level of electromagnetic disturbance as in an electron.

    (3) Positive charge seems to be related to electromagnetic disturbance that has collapsed as in the nucleus of an atom.

    (4) Two opposite charges have a tendency to attract each other. This means that rapidly oscillating electromagnetic disturbance has affinity for spinning mass.

    .

    • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 9:53 AM

      Negative charge seems to be related to wave-frequency inertia just before its collapse.

      Positive charge seems to be related to particle-mass inertia just after its formation.

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 11:57 AM

    The question in my mind is

    What is the relationship of electron with electromagnetic radiation?

    .

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 4:54 PM

    Photoelectric effect:

    Ultraviolet light can force electrons out of an electrically neutral zinc surface. Are these electrons formed as they are emitted? Do these electrons already exist in the metal? Can these electrons be formed out of an interaction of light with the surface of the metallic atom?

    The photon does not have enough energy that is converted into the mass of the electron. Apparently, the material that forms the electron comes from the atom.

    The radius of zinc atom is 1.4 x 10^-10 m. The radius of an electron is 2.8 x 10^-15 m. The ratio of radii is 2 x 10^-5. The electron is very small compared to the atom.

    How does the electron get its mass when emitted? Maybe the electron is more spread out in the atom, than it is as a stand-alone particle. This material gets very concentrated when the electron is formed.

    This material seems to be electromagnetic in nature. Its disturbance level will be lowest at the surface of the atom, but radius is the largest.

    This atomic material must shrink to 4 x 10^-10 of its size (radii ratio square) to form the electron. This may considerably boost up the disturbance level within the electron. Thus, some wave-frequency inertia may collapse into particle-mass inertia.

    If the electron has a nucleus, it is 1/1836 the size of a proton, and would carry negligible positive charge due to spin, Thus, electron shall have a net negative charge due to oscillations of its disturbance level.

    Thus, it seems likely that mass is created when an electron is generated in photoelectric effect, due to compression and collapse of disturbance levels.

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 5:49 PM

    It seems that all stand-alone particles must have a stable center of mass, simply by definition.
    .

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 7:11 PM

    Asimov: “Matter-waves entered the realm of atomic theory, too. The Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger (1887-1961) tackled the problem of interpreting the structure of atoms in terms of particle waves, rather than of particles alone.

    “Schrodinger pictured the electron as a waveform circling the nucleus. It seemed to him that the electron could then exist only in orbits of such size that the waveform occupies it in a whole number of wavelengths. When this happens, the waveform repeats itself as it goes round, falling exactly on itself, so to speak. The electron is then a stable standing wave.”

    .

    That is the correct approach, except that electrons inside the atom may not exist as being discrete from each other. The “electron” closer to the nucleus may have higher frequency and shorter wavelength compared to the “electron” at the periphery of the atom.
    .

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 7:25 PM

    Asimov: “If the electron gains a bit more energy, its wavelength decreases slightly and the orbit no longer contains a whole number of wavelengths. The same is true if the electron loses a bit of energy, so that its wavelength increases somewhat. If it is assumed that the electron cannot possess an amount of energy that will force it to circle a nucleus in a non-integral number of wavelengths, then the electron cannot gain or lose just any amount of energy.”

    .

    The electron should be able to manage any changes in energy by changing the radius of its orbit. Why does that not happen?
    .

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 7:58 PM

    Asimov: “The electron must gain (or lose) just enough energy to decrease (or increase) the wavelength to the point where an integral number of wavelengths can again fit the orbit. Instead of, say, four wavelengths to the orbit, there would be five somewhat shorter wavelengths to the orbit, with a gain of a specific quantity of energy, or three somewhat longer wavelengths, with a loss of a specific quantity of energy. If enough energy is lost and the wavelength increases to the point where a single wavelength fits the orbit, this is ground state and there can be no further loss of energy.”

    .

    There seem to be more factors involved here with excitation than just the integral number of wavelengths fitting the orbit.
    (1) Increase in frequency
    (2) Decrease in wavelength
    (3) Increase in inertia
    (4) Possible decrease in speed
    (5) Electron occupying a 3D shell rather than a 2D orbit
    (6) Change in radius of the shell
    (7) Change in interaction with the nucleus
    .

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 8:56 PM

    Asimov: “The different energy levels, then, represent different standing waves. Schrodinger analyzed this point of view mathematically in 1926, working out for the purpose what is now called the Schrodinger wave equation.

    “The analysis of the details of atomic behavior on the basis of the Schrodinger model is termed wave mechanics. Since the energy can only be absorbed or given off in quanta of given energy content, designed to maintain standing waves, it can also be called quantum mechanics.”

    .

    We are working backwards here because we know from experiments that only certain solutions for energy levels are possible. I must admit that I have not understood the postulates and ensuing mathematics, which resulted in the Schrodinger model and equation. It was at this point that I was getting lost in my studies at MIT (1969-1971).

    I do have some fundamental disagreements here about the definition of a particle. As far as I can see, only an entity with a “center of mass” may be treated as a particle. A location of a particle in space can be defined only in terms of the location of the center of mass. A wave entity does not have a center of mass. It is spread out over a region. Therefore, it cannot be located in space, the way a particle may be located. A wave entity cannot be treated as a particle. Probability distributions to locate wave entities rely on distribution of possible point locations. I don’t understand its usefulness.

    Basically, we are trying to understand the structure of the atom, so we can make predictions about the atomic and nuclear phenomena. We have been successful to some degree with the Bohr’s model and also with the Schrodinger model. However, these models rely on a complexity of math that limits the solutions to only very simple atoms. For the rest we just have guesses and approximations.

    We are missing a simple model for atomic structure that provides solution for all elements and even for molecules.
    .
    .

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 9:10 PM

    Asimov: “In principle, it would seem that quantum mechanics offers a complete analysis of the atom and that all facets of chemical behavior can be accounted for and predicted by means of it. In actual fact, however, a complete analysis is impractical, even by present-day techniques, because of the sheer difficulty of the mathematics involved. Chemistry is therefore far from being a completely solved science.”

    .

    This is the crux of the problem. Physics has become completely dependent on mathematics, while mathematics has become too complex to lead to practical solutions. There are some solutions, but that is not enough.
    .

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 9:17 PM

    Stand-alone electron may have mass, but I don’t think we can assume electron as a mass particle inside the atom. Even if assume the electron to be a standing wave as per Schrodinger Model, we cannot assign the same mass as that of the stand-alone electron.

    It seems that elecron acquires mass only in its stand-alone state.

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 9:30 PM

    Asimov: “Another important consequence of the wave nature of the electron (and of particles generally) was pointed out by Heisenberg in 1927. You can see that if a particle is viewed as a wave, it is a rather fuzzier object than it would be if it were viewed as a particle only. Everything in the universe becomes slightly fuzzy, precisely because there is no such thing as a particle without wave-like properties.

    “A particle (or its center) can be located precisely in space –in principle, at least–but a wave form is somewhat harder to think of as being located at a particular point in space.”

    .

    I believe that there is a threshold at which wave-frequency inertia transitions to particle-mass inertia. This is not a wide band. So, for practical purposes, we can locate stand-alone particles even if they have wave characteristics, as long as they have a center of mass. Wave packets can be managed better if their inertia can be worked out in terms of disturbance levels.
    .

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 9:38 PM

    Asimov: “Thinking about this, Heisenberg advanced reasons for supposing that it is not possible to determine both the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously and with unlimited accuracy. He pointed out that if an effort is made to determine the position accurately (by any conceivable method, and not merely by those methods which are technically possible at the moment) one automatically alters the velocity of the particle, and therefore its momentum. Therefore, the value of the momentum at the moment at which the position was exactly determined becomes uncertain. Again, if one attempts to determine the momentum accurately, one automatically alters the position, the value of which becomes uncertain. The closer the pinning down of one, the greater the uncertainty in the other.”

    .

    The common characteristic that underlies both wave and particle is inertia. For particle, inertia is expressed in terms of mass. For waves, inertia can be expressed in terms of disturbance level. The mathematical relation for these two forms of inertia needs to be worked out. This shall help overcome the difficulty caused by uncertainty in location and momentum
    .

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 9:55 PM

    Asimov: “Philosophically, this is an upsetting doctrine. Ever since the time of Newton, scientists and many nonscientists had felt that the methods of science, in principle at least, could make measurements that were precise without limits. One needed to take only enough time and trouble, and one could determine the nth decimal place. To be told that this was not so, but that there was a permanent wall in the way of total knowledge, a wall built by the inherent nature of the universe itself, was distressing.

    “Even Einstein found himself reluctant to accept the principle of uncertainty, for it meant that at the subatomic level, the law of cause and effect might not be strictly adhered to. Instead events might take place on the basis of some random effect. After all, an electron might be here or it might be there; if you couldn’t tell, you couldn’t be sure exactly how strongly a particular force at a particular point might affect it. “I can’t believe,” said Einstein, “that God would choose to play dice with the world.””

    .

    Heisenberg’s principle need to be understood in correct light. Location is determined by the “centeredness” of inertia. As mass increases, the inertia gets more centered. It acquires a precise location. As Disturbance levels decrease, inertia gets more spread out. Here location cannot be described by a dimensionless point. The location can be defined only by a continuous patch with dimensions.

    Space can no longer be defined in terms of points. Space needs to be defined as a continuous infinite region that may be filled by point locations of mass, as well as by patch locations of disturbance levels. There is no loss or precision with this treatment.

    The uncertainty appeared only because we did not have the correct definitions for space and location.
    .

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2015 at 10:23 PM

    Summary

    The inertia may be pictured over a scale that extends from zero to infinity. This picture may look like Gabriel’s Horn.

    When inertia is zero (left end of the scale) its “location” is the whole continuous space. This space is a continuous entity on its own right. It may be filled with points but it is not a set of points.

    When inertia is infinite (right end of the scale) its “location” is a dimensionless point. This point is a discrete entity on its own right.

    Somewhere in the middle of the scale the inertia transitions from the “disturbance level” (wave) to “mass” (particle).

    In reality, this transition occurs inside the atom at the interface between the electron region and the nucleus.

  • vinaire  On April 13, 2016 at 9:32 AM

    The main post has been updated as follows:

    If we do not assume subatomic particles to reside within an atom, we can express the atomic structure in terms of rapidly condensing wave-frequency of electromagnetic disturbance.

    Inertia may be described as the natural tendency of any motion to maintain itself when no external force is acting on it. Because of this inertia an internal resistance is generated when a change in motion is attempted by force. A wave-frequency can be said to have inertia because it tends to maintain itself.

    The higher is the frequency of electromagnetic disturbance, the more it tends to maintain itself. We may say that electromagnetic disturbance of higher frequency has higher inertia.

    The electromagnetic disturbance has a large spectrum that extends from extremely low frequencies of radio waves to extremely high frequencies of gamma rays. This range of frequencies may be described as disturbance levels (exponent of 2) from 1 to 67 and higher (see the reference above).

    The atom may be modeled as a “sink” for wave-frequency inertia. This means that the atom provides a location where wave-frequency inertia may condense and terminate as mass (See the graphics at the beginning of this article).

    In other words, the disturbance levels increase rapidly as the electromagnetic disturbance enters the electronic region of the atom and moves towards its center. These disturbance levels are the same that appear at the upper end of the electromagnetic spectrum.

    There is a threshold frequency at which the disturbance becomes rotational and forms an electronic region. There seems to be another threshold frequency within the electronic region at which disturbance collapses from wave-frequency into particle-mass form of inertia. The particle-mass formation appears as the nucleus at the center of the atom.

    In this model of atom, the electronic region is like a rotating “whirlpool” within the ubiquitous electromagnetic field in space. The electronic region consists of rapidly increasing disturbance levels toward the center. The extremely high disturbance level at the center collapses into mass forming the nucleus of the atom.

    The Bohr’s model of atom has helped provide insight into the Periodic Table; but, it soon becomes very complex when describing the atomic structure beyond the simplest hydrogen atom. The “Disturbance” model of atom outlined in this article is intended to provide a deeper insight into the structure of the atom with simpler math.

    In the Disturbance model of the atom, there are “oscillators” in the electronic region of the atom instead of electrons. These “oscillators” achieve characteristic resonances when radiated with energy. These resonances then emit characteristic radiation and electrons.

    In a blackbody, the atomic configurations consist of “oscillators” over the whole range of frequency spectrum. When a blackbody is heated, it emits radiation at all frequencies. Radiation at high frequencies is limited because it requires increasing energy to activate high frequency oscillators.

    Energy required to activate an oscillator is proportional to its frequency, E = hf. The proportionality constant is the Planck’s constant h. The Planck’s constant may be defined as the energy involved per cycle of oscillation.

    In the photoelectric effect, the metal surface emits electrons. Electrons are rotating electromagnetic fields spun off from the electronic region of the atomic configuration. The metallic surface seems to act as a lens to concentrate the wave front of the falling radiation at oscillators within the surface.

    The photon seems to be created right at the metallic surface and may not exist in space. Thus, light may just be a wave phenomenon. Its only discrete element may just be a frequency cycle containing the energy ‘h’.

    Electrons and atoms are stable configurations of extremely high disturbances in space. A free electron may be looked upon as an “atom without a nucleus”.
    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: