Title: Integrating Magnetic Force and Frame-dragging Effect (Force) to Establish a Determinative Atom Model
Wanchung Hu
PhD candidate,
National Taiwan University, Johns Hopkins University
Correspondence Email: whu@jhsph.edu; lukluk73_2006@yahoo.com.tw
Abstract
A determinative atom model is proposed considering magnetic force and frame-dragging effect. In the nuclear basal status, protons and neutrons are rotating separately in nucleus in opposite direction. All electrons are rotating in the plane of the middle of proton and neutron rotation plane. Protons’ electric force provides the centripetal force for electrons. There are three reasons for this phenomenon. 1. There is a blocking effect of neutrons to block Coulomb force between electron and proton when electrons deviate from the middle rotating plane. 2. Electrons tend to rotate in the same direction as protons or neutrons due to frame-dragging effect(force) (F=SJmW/r^2). 3. Because of Bremsstrahlung effect (P=uq^2a^2g^6/6piC, g=1/(1-Ve^2/C^2)^1/2), electrons deviating from the middle plane will receive acceleration due to frame-dragging force and radiate energy to fall into nucleus. The centripetal Coulomb force from the electron and proton’s interaction is equal to the centrifugal force due to the electron’s orbital movement. Thus, the electron has least acceleration as possible to prevent from losing energy and falling into nucleus. In addition, electron’s orbiting matches electron’s wave length and constitutes a standing wave to prevent electron from losing energy. Two electrons are in the same orbital position with different spinning direction because different spinning direction makes them to close each other like two small magnets. The magnetic force between the two electrons due to electron spin is F=(Vs^2/c^2)*Kq^2/r^2 (Vs=electron spin’s linear velocity). Magnetic force and electric force are well-balanced. For the interaction of two rotating electrons in the same orbit position, magnetic force provides attractive force against repulsive electric force. Electron linear velocity(Ve) is very close to light speed to overcome the repulsive electric force. The net force is F=(1-Ve^2/c^2-Vs^2/c^2)*Kq^2/r^2. According to Ampere’s law, paired electrons’ spin directions can also be decided. The new atom model can predict the electron position to explain atom magic numbers and release the complete limitation of principle of uncertainty. It can also solve EPR paradox and explain Pauli’s exclusion principle. Magnetic force and frame-dragging effect(force), which were neglected in Bohr’s model, provide insight into better understanding of the atom model.
PACS number: 31.10+z
The most accepted atom model currently was proposed by Dr. Bohr and by Dr. Schrodinger and Dr. Dirac subsequently [1,2]. However, many phenomenons cannot be explained by Bohr’s atom model. He used Coulomb electric force as the centripetal force to explain the rotation of electrons around nucleus. Another very important basic forces, magnetic force and frame-dragging force (spinity) , were neglected and not included in his atom model. In Schrodinger’s atom model, there are problems limiting the formation of correct atom model such as principle of uncertainty, Schrodinger’s cat, and EPR paradox [3,4]. In this study, a new determinative atom model is proposed to explain atomic phenomenon and to solve above puzzles.
According to a previous important research by Professor Ostuka T, protons and neutrons are rotating separately in an opposite direction in nuclear basal status [6]. This phenomenon can also be confirmed by the semi-empirical mass formula from liquid-drop nuclear model:
Eb=alpha(v)A-alpha(s)A^2/3-alpha©Z(Z-1)/A^1/3-alpha(a)(A-2Z)^2/A+delta(A,Z)
In the asymmetric term, the difference of neutron numbers and proton numbers will decrease the nuclear binding energy. This can be explained only when protons and neutrons are packed separately. If they are packed together, there will be no difference in the binding energy. Thus, there are proton subplace and neutron subplace in the nucleus. In addition, when proton group starts to rotate in one direction in nucleus, neutron group will need to rotate in the opposite direction in nucleus based on the conservation of angular momentum. In light atom, proton mass numbers are equal to neutron mass numbers. Thus, proton group angular velocity should be equal to neutron group angular velocity.
Frame dragging force (spinity) is a newly identified force. I propose here that “rest mass produces gravity, spinning mass produces spinity; rest change produces Coulomb electric force, spinning and moving charge produces magnetism”. Frame dragging effect was derived by Dr. Lense and Thirring to describe the procession of an orbiting object using general relativity [7]. Nobel prize winner Dr. LD Landau also derived orbiting object’s lagranian around central spinning mass using general relativity (reference). However, these professors didn’t point out that frame dragging is actually a new basic force which has close relation with gravity. When an object has mass, it will have gravity to attract its parts to the center. In order to overcome this continuously centripetal force, the object needs to spin to produce centrifugal force to balance gravity. When the object spins, spinity occurs. I propose to call this new force “spinity” because it is a combination of “spin” meaning origin of this force and “ity” meaning basic force. Frame dragging means a spinning mass can drag nearby space-time to rotate around the mass, so it is actually a force which can cause peripheral smaller object to orbit around the central mass according to the basic concept of general relativity Below is the summary of Professor Landau’s derivation from general relativity:
Vector g=(2G/c^3)Jr’/r^2 (J:central mass angular momentum ,r’=unit vector)
Lagranian L=-mc*ds/dt=L0+deltaL
deltaL=mc*g*V=(2G/c^2)mJ/r^3*V*r (V=r*W)
Thus, deltaL=(2G/c^2)mJW/r (W=relative angular velocity=Wc(central mass spinning angular velocity)-Ws(peripheral mass orbiting angular velocity))
Because deltaL=F*r
Thus, spinity F=(2G/c^2)mJW/r^2=(2G/c^2)mJV/r^3
Considering the angle theta between orbiting object and the equator plane of central spinning mass, the formula can be adjusted into:
F=(2G/c^2)mJWcosTheta/r^2=ma, S=spinity constant=2G/c^2
How do I know this formula is correct? We can actually confirm it by calculating the moon’s moving away from our earth. Our moon is moving away from our earth about 3.8cm each year by using actuate laser measurement. Current tidal force theory cannot calculate the 3.8cm correctly. I think moon’s moving away from earth is due to the effect of earth’s spinity. Because of earth’s spinity on moon, moon is accelerating in its orbiting and is moving away finally. We can use the following values:( S=2G/c^2=1.48*10^-27, Earth mass=5.9736*10^24, Earth radius=6378km, Earth spinning angular velocity=1/43200(1/sec), Moon orbiting period=27day, Angle thelta=20(cosTheta= 0.94), Moon’s distance from Earth is 384399km). After we get the acceleration a, we can calculate the moving distance by using S’=1/2at^2(t=31536000sec=1 year). Because circumference and radius has a relation (S’=2pi*r’), so r’=S’/2pi. Finally, we get the result r’=3.75149cm which is very close to the laser measurement 3.8cm. Thus, the spinity formula is correct.
While protons and neutrons are rotating separately in nucleus, we can deduct that all electrons are orbital-rotating in the middle of proton and neutron rotating plane due to the following three reasons:
1.Blocking effect of neutrons:
Because protons provide electric force for the centripetal force for electron rotation, all electrons are rotating around protons. Neutrons can only provide gravity for the electrons. Because of the great difference between electric force and gravity, neutrons will have blocking effect on the electrons when electrons deviate from the middle rotating plane. Then, electrons cannot rotate continuously around the nucleus.
2.Protons’ or neutron’s frame-dragging effect(force):
Because protons and neutrons are spinning, they will definitely produce frame-dragging force for the orbital-rotating electrons. The force is given by:
F=SJmW/r^2. (S=frame dragging (spinity) constant=1.5*10^-27, J=angular momentum of protons(neutrons)=2/5MRWc^2, M=protons(neutrons) mass, R=protons(neutrons) radium, Wc=protons(neutrons) angular velocity, W=Wc-Ws=protons(neutrons) spinning angular velocity minus electron orbital angular velocity, r=distance between electron and nucleus)
Thus, electrons will tend to rotate in the same direction as proton rotation or neutron rotation. Thus, it can help to maintain all electrons rotating in the middle plane of protons and neutrons rotating plane. We assume that electrons orbiting direction is the same as protons spinning direction first. Because electrons are orbiting near lightspeed, we need to use special relativity to adjust the relative velocity. We can deduct the net transverse force(Net Ft) when electrons are orbiting in the middle plane of proton group rotation and neutron group rotation. We will show you evidences why electrons need to move in the middle plane of proton group rotation and neutron group rotation..
Spinity F=(2G/c^2)mJW/r^2=(2G/c^2)mJV/r^3
NetFt=Fp-Fn=SmJp(Vp-Ve)/(1-VpVe/c^2)r^3 – SmJn(Vn+Ve)/(1+VnVe/c^2)r^3
(Jp=protons angular momentum, Jn=neutrons angular momentum, Vp=protons rotation linear velocity, Vn=neutrons rotation linear velocity, Ve=electron orbiting linear velocity)
When proton mass is equal to neutron mass and proton group angular velocity is equal to neutron group angular velocity, then Jp=Jn and Vp=Vn and the formula becomes:
NetFt=SmJp*2Ve[(Vp^2/c^2)-1]/(1-Vp^2Ve^2/c^4)r^3
Atom nucleus spins in a angular velocity equal to 10^20(1/sec) to 10^21(1/sec) and Bohr radius for minimal electron orbiting is 10^-11 m.
Vp=Vn=W*r=10^9~10^10m/sec>lightspeed 3*10^8m/sec
Because lightspeed is the maximal information transmission speed, Vp should be near equal to and very slightly less than lightspeed c. Thus, (Vp^2/c^2)-1~0 and NetFt~0
3.Proton’s Bremsstrahlung effect:
Because of the frame-dragging effect, electrons deviating from the middle rotating plane will receive Bremsttrahlung effect. The Bremstrrahlung formula is given by:
P=uq^2a^2g^6/6piC, g=1/(1-Ve^2/C^2)^1/2 (acceleration a is parallel to velocity)
The frame-dragging effect of spinning protons or neutrons will provide acceleration on the electrons. Because protons and neutrons are rotating in the opposite direction, the only possibility that electrons won’t be affected by frame-dragging is that electrons are in the middle plane of protons and neutrons rotating plane. If electrons deviate from the middle plane, they will receive acceleration due to either protons’ frame dragging force or neutrons’ frame dragging force, the electrons will then start radiation and fall into nucleus. Only when electrons rotate in the middle plane, the atom can maintain stable.
Thus, we know that all electrons are rotating in the middle plane of protons and neutrons rotation. According to Bohr’s deduction, electrons are rotating around protons because protons provide electric force as centripetal force. And the centripetal Coulomb force is equal to centrifugal force produced by electron’s orbital rotation movement. Viewing from an inertial reference frame, we find that there is a centripetal force during electron’s orbital rotation. However, we know the example of general relativity’s equivalence principle. Thus, the centripetal force observed from inertial reference frame is actually a centrifugal force acted on the electron itself(acceleration reference frame). In order to maintain the electron’s orbit, the centripetal Coulomb force must be equal to the centrifugal force due to electron’s orbit movement. The balance is very important because the electron’s net acceleration then is zero. Thus, the electron won’t radiate energy and fall into nucleus. We can deduct net inward/outward force: Net Fio.
Fc=KQq/r^2, (K=Coulomb constant=9*10^9, Q=proton charges, q=electron charges, r=distance between electrons and protons)
Net Fio=KQq/r^2-mrW^2= KQq/r^2-mV^2/r=0, (W=electron’s orbital angular velocity)
When angular momentum is quantized, then the formula is given following:
r=nh’/mVe, (n=major quantum number,h’=reduced planck constant=1*10^-34, m=electron mass, V=electron orbital linear velocity)
Thus, we can get:
KQq/r=mVe^2
KQq/nh’=Ve
For example: In hydrogen atom with n=1(innermost orbit) and Q=q=1.6*10^-19coulomb, the value Ve becomes:
Ve=2.3*10^6m/sec
Thus, electron orbital linear velocity is less and close to light speed (3*10^8m/sec).
Even the largest atom’s electron linear velocity is smaller than lightspeed. For the atom118, the Ve becomes(Q=118q and n=1):
Ve=118*2.3*10^6=2.7*10^8m/sec
Because Ve is still smaller than lightspeed, the formula 1-Vp^2Ve^2/c^4 is not equal to zero. Because the denominator is not zero and nominator is zero, the net transverse force is near zero.
Magnetic force plays an important role in the new atom model. In this new atom model, electric force and magnetic force are serving as two balanced force to control electron movement. In this deduction, two electrons rotate as a pair around the nucleus. For the interaction of rotating electrons in the same orbit position, magnetic force provides attractive force against repulsive electric force. The orbital rotation of one electron can produce magnetic field to the other coupled electron by Biot-Salvart Law:
B=(Ve/c^2)xE, E=Kq/r^2, (B=magnetic field induced by one electron, V=linear velocity of electron, x means cross product, E=electric field induced by electron,r=distance between the paired electrons)
The direction of B is vertical to the direction of Ve and the direction of E
The magnetic force on the rotating electron from the other paired electron is:
Fm=qVxB=(Ve^2/c^2)(Kq^2/r^2), (B=magnetic field induced by one electron, Ve=linear velocity of the other electron, x means cross product, q=electric charge of the electron).
According to Coulomb’s magnetic law, the magnetic force induced by two spinning charges is:
Fm=(u/4pi)*qV*qV/r^2=(K/c^2)q^2*V^2/r^2
If the paired electrons are spinning in the opposite direction, the magnetic force between them is attractive.
We can deduct net in-between force Fib:
Net Fib=Fc-Fm=(1-Ve^2/c^2-Vs^2/c^2)Kq^2/r^2 (Vs=electron spin linear velocity)
Electron orbital linear velocity (Ve) is very close to light speed to overcome the repulsive electric force. Thus, the net force between the two electrons is close to zero. Thus, the repulsive force between the two electrons is minimized. Thus, even Ve and Vs both are less than lightspeed c, Ve^2+Vs^2 can be still larger than c^2. Because the two paired electrons spin in the different direction, they can be coupled together like two small magnets. Thus, it can explain Hund’s law why unpaired electrons are arranged in an atom first.
Pauli’s exclusion principle is saying that no two electrons have the exactly the same quantum number [5]. If two electrons are in the same position, their spinning direction must be different. However, Pauli’s exclusion principle suffers from EPR paradox even the principle is effective. The EPR paradox is saying that: If we move away one of two paired electron to a far away distance. If we check one electron’s spinning direction, the other electron’s spinning direction can be decided at once. Thus, it disobeys the principle of locality of physics. In this new atom model, we infer that two electrons are in the same orbital position rotating around the nucleus. In addition, one electron is a little bit above the electron orbital rotational plane and the other one is a little bit below the electron orbital rotational plane.
Electron spin will let them become a small magnet. The spinning direction can decide the direction of magnetism. Thus, the two electrons have different spinning direction, so they can couple together as two small magnets. Thus, EPR paradox is solved. The different spinning direction of two electrons is because they use it to couple each other in the same orbital position. If the two electrons are separated, the spinning direction of the two electrons will be changed. It can explain why Pauli’s exclusion principle is effective.
From Bohr’s deduction:
Etotal=(-13.6eV)1/n^2
Based on the Ampere’s law, we can even know the spinning direction of the two paired electrons. If one electron is orbiting around nucleus, it will become a tiny current. Thus, it will produce a magnetic field around this tiny current according to Ampere’s law. In order to get the lower energy as possible, the other paired electron must be aligned to this magnetic field induced by first electron. Thus, this electron’s spinning direction is decided. In addition, the second electron also produces a magnetic field for the first paired electron. The first electron also needs to align the magnetic field induced by the second electron. Thus, the spinning directions of the two paired electrons are decided. Based on Ampere’s law, the two electrons’ spinning directions are opposite.
From the Etotal equation, we can infer that the relationship between radius and major quantum number (n). When n=1, r is called Bohr radius(r=1^2). When n=2, r=2^2=4 Bohr radius. When n=3, r=3^2=9 Bohr radius. When n=4, r=4^2=16 Bohr radius. We can also infer the radius of electron rotation. Form inner to outer orbit, the radius should be like 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36. Two electrons can be in the same orbital position. The circumference is 2r, so the magic numbers can be predicted: 2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32. It is because that one paired electrons are arranged in a 2 distance, and then another paired electrons are arranged in a distance.
According to the previous researches, four “quantum numbers” have been identified in atom model. Our new model is also consistent with the four quantum numbers. The first major quantum number n is used above to describe the electron radium. The second angular momentum quantum number p can be explained by the degree of ellipse orbits of our new atom model. The magnetic quantum number m can be explained because electrons can rotate in two possible direction(the one is the same as protons rotation direction, the other is the same as neutrons rotation direction) and produce different magnetic moments. The four quantum number s can be explained because paired electrons have exactly two kinds of spinning directions in the atom. Our new model has the advantage without the disadvantage of quantum mechanics.
Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty said that we cannot predict the exact electron position in the atom because photo will interfere electron’s orbit. Then, Dr. Schrodinger proposed his atom model by using wave probability function. However, the probability has severe limitation. It causes a paradox like Schrodinger’s cat that saying the strangeness and logical problems of the quantum mechanics. And, it is very difficult to imagine electrons can really rotate in strange orbital shapes such as dumbbell or double dounut from Schrodinger’s atom model. It is more reasonable that electrons are rotating in a circular or ellipse shape. Quantum mechanics needs Copenhagen interpretation saying that wave function collapse during observation. It says that subject’s measurement affects object’s physical law and fact. It is not realism and is not truth. In addition, quantum mechanics requires to assume absolute and discontinuous time which should be discarded according to special relativity. Quantum mechanics also allow to disobey conservation of energy which is the most fundamental law of physic. This new atom model proposed here let the atom go back to the classical physics. Principle of uncertainty is a limitation of observational physics, but it cannot be viewed as a law to governing real atom orbit. I believe this new atom model will provide an important insight into the current physics.
References
[1] N. Bohr, Nature 92, 231 (1914)
[2] N. Bohr, Philosophical Magazine 26,1 (1913)
[3] W. Heisenberg, Zeitschrift fur Physik 43,172 (1927)
[4] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen Phys Rev 47:777 (1935)
[5] D.J. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed) (2004)
[6] T. Otsuka, Phy Rev Let 71,1804 (1993)
[7] B. Mashhoon, F. W. Hehl, and D. S. Thesis, General Relativity and Gravitation 16, 711 (1984)
[8] L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields (1975)
With adapting your theory, do schrodinger equation is not needed?
And what is weak point in your theory?
And what is weak point in your theory?
Considering the relative velocity due to special relativity, I made a very important modification and deduction in my atom model. I think this is the final version. Schrodinger’s equation is not needed anymore.
How to replace schrodinger equation for atoms with more nucleaons and electrons?
Hi, DaviD,
Thank you for your reply. In larger atoms, the neutron numbers and the proton numers are not equal. But, when the proton group starts to rotate in nucleus, the neutron group will still generate an equal but opposite angular momentum. It is due to conservation of angular momentum. Thus, the spinity generated by neutrons or protons is still the same, and orbiting electron won't receive acceleration and becomes stable. I think this new atom model can still explain higher atom.
Regards,
Wanchung
Thank you for your reply. In larger atoms, the neutron numbers and the proton numers are not equal. But, when the proton group starts to rotate in nucleus, the neutron group will still generate an equal but opposite angular momentum. It is due to conservation of angular momentum. Thus, the spinity generated by neutrons or protons is still the same, and orbiting electron won't receive acceleration and becomes stable. I think this new atom model can still explain higher atom.
Regards,
Wanchung
And, it is important to point out that
I change the formula of frame-dragging force(spinity).
It should be F=SJWm/r^2 according to Professor LD Landau's energy term.
Thus, I cannot disprove dark matter.
But, I can still deduct the atom model and geomagnetism!
I change the formula of frame-dragging force(spinity).
It should be F=SJWm/r^2 according to Professor LD Landau's energy term.
Thus, I cannot disprove dark matter.
But, I can still deduct the atom model and geomagnetism!
QUOTE (wanchung+Mar 27 2008, 09:46 AM)
And, it is important to point out that
I change the formula of frame-dragging force(spinity).
It should be F=SJWm/r^2 according to Professor LD Landau's energy term.
Thus, I cannot disprove dark matter.
But, I can still deduct the atom model and geomagnetism!
It's a real shame you can't de-duct the pipeline of fecal material you channel into this forum.
I change the formula of frame-dragging force(spinity).
It should be F=SJWm/r^2 according to Professor LD Landau's energy term.
Thus, I cannot disprove dark matter.
But, I can still deduct the atom model and geomagnetism!
It's a real shame you can't de-duct the pipeline of fecal material you channel into this forum.
After I change the formula, the unit matches force(Newton).
So, I think it is correct this time!
I still hope there are nice discussions, not personal attacks!
So, I think it is correct this time!
I still hope there are nice discussions, not personal attacks!
Dear All,
I am thinking how to explain Hund's rule.
I think unpaired electrons with random spin direction is easier to be filled in compared to the specially oriented paired electrons.
Thus, Hund's rule says that unpaired electrons fill in first.
As for the repulsion produced by multiple electrons in the orbit, we can use special relativity.
In the same orbit, one electron will receive repulsive force from both left side and right side electrons.
Thus, this electron will not receive any force biased to left side or right side.
However, this electron will receive an additional outward force.
By using relativity, the electron velocity direction is close to distance direction.
Thus, x'=xr(r=gamma=Lorentz factor)
Thus, the Coulomb force between two close orbiting electrons in the same orbit could be
F=Kq^2/(rx)^2=Kq^2/r^2x^2=(1-V^2/c^2)Kq^2/x^2
Since electron is moving in lightspeed, the force can be minimized.
However, the additional outward force can be added into centrifugal force which balances the centripetal force produced by protons.
I am looking forward to your invaluable feedbacks!
I am thinking how to explain Hund's rule.
I think unpaired electrons with random spin direction is easier to be filled in compared to the specially oriented paired electrons.
Thus, Hund's rule says that unpaired electrons fill in first.
As for the repulsion produced by multiple electrons in the orbit, we can use special relativity.
In the same orbit, one electron will receive repulsive force from both left side and right side electrons.
Thus, this electron will not receive any force biased to left side or right side.
However, this electron will receive an additional outward force.
By using relativity, the electron velocity direction is close to distance direction.
Thus, x'=xr(r=gamma=Lorentz factor)
Thus, the Coulomb force between two close orbiting electrons in the same orbit could be
F=Kq^2/(rx)^2=Kq^2/r^2x^2=(1-V^2/c^2)Kq^2/x^2
Since electron is moving in lightspeed, the force can be minimized.
However, the additional outward force can be added into centrifugal force which balances the centripetal force produced by protons.
I am looking forward to your invaluable feedbacks!
I just ran into something about the idea of "spin" while reading the Brian Greene book THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE. It is the most clear explanation I have seen so far, and I immediately thought of your project because spin is a main theme in your writings. It is on pp. 170-172.
He said that for a particle to spin it would have to have more to it than just a point. Points have no real substance to do such an action. Electrons have magnetic properties; and in order for this to be, they have to spin (rotate and revolve). "...every electron in the universe, always and forever, spins at one fixed and never changing rate. The spin of an electron is not a transitory state of motion as for more familiar objects that, for some reason or other, happen to be spinning. Instead, the spin of an electron is an intrinsic property, much like its mass or its electric charge. If an electron were not spinning, it would not be an electron." He then goes on to say that all the particles spin at various rates. He then goes on and relates the spin to string theory. The string vibrates. The particles also have partners. All dance together in one great consistent choreographed performance. The general theme sounds similar to what you are doing.
There seems to be one difference. Yours emphasizes which direction they are spinning. Perhaps this is what you wish to develop further? Other than you I have not run into anything mentioning direction or the choreography of directions of various spins.
You would like this book. I only quoted just a little bit because I don't type so fast. The whole section was interesting and gave names of persons (who discovered what, etc.)
He said that for a particle to spin it would have to have more to it than just a point. Points have no real substance to do such an action. Electrons have magnetic properties; and in order for this to be, they have to spin (rotate and revolve). "...every electron in the universe, always and forever, spins at one fixed and never changing rate. The spin of an electron is not a transitory state of motion as for more familiar objects that, for some reason or other, happen to be spinning. Instead, the spin of an electron is an intrinsic property, much like its mass or its electric charge. If an electron were not spinning, it would not be an electron." He then goes on to say that all the particles spin at various rates. He then goes on and relates the spin to string theory. The string vibrates. The particles also have partners. All dance together in one great consistent choreographed performance. The general theme sounds similar to what you are doing.
There seems to be one difference. Yours emphasizes which direction they are spinning. Perhaps this is what you wish to develop further? Other than you I have not run into anything mentioning direction or the choreography of directions of various spins.
You would like this book. I only quoted just a little bit because I don't type so fast. The whole section was interesting and gave names of persons (who discovered what, etc.)
Hi, Empress Palpatine,
Thank you very much for your information. I 'd like to find out the book and read it.
I still think electron spin is like earth spin. Electron's intrinsic angular momentum is atually spining. Or, we cannot explain what is electron's intrinsic angular momentum.
I think spin is highly related to mass; gravity is related to spinity. So, I call it gravitospinity. Mass is the origin of spin. Thus, electron with mass also needs to spin.
Best regards,
Wanchung
Thank you very much for your information. I 'd like to find out the book and read it.
I still think electron spin is like earth spin. Electron's intrinsic angular momentum is atually spining. Or, we cannot explain what is electron's intrinsic angular momentum.
I think spin is highly related to mass; gravity is related to spinity. So, I call it gravitospinity. Mass is the origin of spin. Thus, electron with mass also needs to spin.
Best regards,
Wanchung
Empress Palpatine
Nice to speak with you again, it has been awhile. Thanks for mentioning the subject of spin by Brian Greene.
Mt electron model was based on a particle that went between a point and and extended state to account for spin, amoung other things. In my paper I also touched on the frame dragging effect. I will have to read The Elegant Universe now.
Wanchung
"In addition, electron's orbiting matches electron wave length and consititutes a standing wave to prevent the electron from losing energy." "The new atom model can predict electron position to explain atom magic numbers...and explain Pauli's exclusion principle." I could cite more points that you have in common with my atom model. My paper is under review for publication at this time. Some of my early work along this line was posted on this forum quite some time back. But from my point of view, you are on the right track. Best of luck.
Nice to speak with you again, it has been awhile. Thanks for mentioning the subject of spin by Brian Greene.
Mt electron model was based on a particle that went between a point and and extended state to account for spin, amoung other things. In my paper I also touched on the frame dragging effect. I will have to read The Elegant Universe now.
Wanchung
"In addition, electron's orbiting matches electron wave length and consititutes a standing wave to prevent the electron from losing energy." "The new atom model can predict electron position to explain atom magic numbers...and explain Pauli's exclusion principle." I could cite more points that you have in common with my atom model. My paper is under review for publication at this time. Some of my early work along this line was posted on this forum quite some time back. But from my point of view, you are on the right track. Best of luck.
Hi, Aireal,
Good luck to you for your publication. Thank you very much for your encourgement.
I am thinking about the electrn-electron repulsion in multielectron atom.
It is very tedious and requiring a lot of calculation considering all the electron-electron repulsive force. Recently, I found the concept of effective charge in chemistry can solve this problem.
It means that there are shelding effect which blocks the protons' Coulomb force due to the electron-electron repulsion in the inner orbits. Thus, only "effective" chrages of protons are useful. The formula is:
Zeff=Z-S (Z:proton numbers,S:valence electrons)
The total energy E=-Rh*Zeff^2/n^2
Using this concept, I can extend my atom model to multi-electron atoms. The radius is still proportional to n^2. And, electron linear velocity is proportional to 1/n. This effecive charge concept can accurately predict total energy to produce a good atom model.
Good luck to you for your publication. Thank you very much for your encourgement.
I am thinking about the electrn-electron repulsion in multielectron atom.
It is very tedious and requiring a lot of calculation considering all the electron-electron repulsive force. Recently, I found the concept of effective charge in chemistry can solve this problem.
It means that there are shelding effect which blocks the protons' Coulomb force due to the electron-electron repulsion in the inner orbits. Thus, only "effective" chrages of protons are useful. The formula is:
Zeff=Z-S (Z:proton numbers,S:valence electrons)
The total energy E=-Rh*Zeff^2/n^2
Using this concept, I can extend my atom model to multi-electron atoms. The radius is still proportional to n^2. And, electron linear velocity is proportional to 1/n. This effecive charge concept can accurately predict total energy to produce a good atom model.
Sorry!
A typo!
S=all electron numbers except valence electrons
A typo!
S=all electron numbers except valence electrons
Dear All,
This new atom model can also explain chemical bond. For example: C2H4. We can rewrite this molecule 2HCCH2. If one carbon nucleus is spinning from east to west in the space. Then, its west side and east side can connect to one hydrogen atom, respectively. The electrons form the two hydrogen atoms won't receive any frame-dragging force(spinity) because they are in the middle plane of protons rotation and neutrons rotation in carbon nucleus. On the north pole of carbon nucleus, it can connect to the other carbon atom. The two electrons from the other carbon atom still receive no frame dragging force(spinity) from the first carbon nucleus. It is because spinity F=SJmWcosTheta/r^2. When Theta=90degree, the spinity F=0. Thus, all electrons in the "chemical bonds" receive no frame dragging force and no acceleration. Thus, the new molecular compond is stable. And, the electrons forming chamical bonds do not need to rotate around nucleus any more. They can be hold by the two connecting atom nucleus.
This new atom model can also explain chemical bond. For example: C2H4. We can rewrite this molecule 2HCCH2. If one carbon nucleus is spinning from east to west in the space. Then, its west side and east side can connect to one hydrogen atom, respectively. The electrons form the two hydrogen atoms won't receive any frame-dragging force(spinity) because they are in the middle plane of protons rotation and neutrons rotation in carbon nucleus. On the north pole of carbon nucleus, it can connect to the other carbon atom. The two electrons from the other carbon atom still receive no frame dragging force(spinity) from the first carbon nucleus. It is because spinity F=SJmWcosTheta/r^2. When Theta=90degree, the spinity F=0. Thus, all electrons in the "chemical bonds" receive no frame dragging force and no acceleration. Thus, the new molecular compond is stable. And, the electrons forming chamical bonds do not need to rotate around nucleus any more. They can be hold by the two connecting atom nucleus.
QUOTE (wanchung+Mar 22 2008, 09:21 AM)
Title: Integrating Magnetic Force and Frame-dragging Effect (Force) to Establish a Determinative Atom Model
2. Electrons tend to rotate in the same direction as protons or neutrons due to frame-dragging effect(force) (F=SJmW/r^2).
I hate to be the one to bring you back to reality Wan...but among the many errors here.....lets start with the most obvious:
The force eqn. you gave (F=SJmW/r^2) is NOT the equation for Frame dragging .
First , to be a 'frame draging' equation it MUST contain the gravitational constant, G, other wise you cannot call it 'frame dragging'.....it's just something you made up.
2nd; you haven't even specified what each SYMBOL in your equation refers to....DUH?
3rdly, a dipole frame dragging field falls off as inverse CUBE of radius, NOT as inverse SQUARED as you have in your (obviously incorrect) forumla.
That's only the beginning.
Try clarifying THAT first.?
JW.
2. Electrons tend to rotate in the same direction as protons or neutrons due to frame-dragging effect(force) (F=SJmW/r^2).
I hate to be the one to bring you back to reality Wan...but among the many errors here.....lets start with the most obvious:
The force eqn. you gave (F=SJmW/r^2) is NOT the equation for Frame dragging .
First , to be a 'frame draging' equation it MUST contain the gravitational constant, G, other wise you cannot call it 'frame dragging'.....it's just something you made up.
2nd; you haven't even specified what each SYMBOL in your equation refers to....DUH?
3rdly, a dipole frame dragging field falls off as inverse CUBE of radius, NOT as inverse SQUARED as you have in your (obviously incorrect) forumla.
That's only the beginning.
Try clarifying THAT first.?
JW.
Hi, JW,
I did clarify the meaning of F=SJmW/r^2 in the text
S=spinity constant=2G/c^2 (c=lightspeed)
J=central object's angular momentum
m=surronding object's mass
W=relative angular velocity between central object's spinning angular velocity and surronding object's orbiting angular velocity
r=distance between central object and surronding object
The formula can be written as F=SJmV/r^3
But, now V=relative linear velocity between central object's spinning linear velocity and surronding object's orbiting linear velocity
I did clarify the meaning of F=SJmW/r^2 in the text
S=spinity constant=2G/c^2 (c=lightspeed)
J=central object's angular momentum
m=surronding object's mass
W=relative angular velocity between central object's spinning angular velocity and surronding object's orbiting angular velocity
r=distance between central object and surronding object
The formula can be written as F=SJmV/r^3
But, now V=relative linear velocity between central object's spinning linear velocity and surronding object's orbiting linear velocity
QUOTE (wanchung+Apr 28 2008, 02:20 AM)
Hi, JW,
I did clarify the meaning of F=SJmW/r^2 in the text
S=spinity constant=2G/c^2 (c=lightspeed)
J=central object's angular momentum
m=surronding object's mass
W=relative angular velocity between central object's spinning angular velocity and surronding object's orbiting angular velocity
r=distance between central object and surronding object
The formula can be written as F=SJmV/r^3
But, now V=relative linear velocity between central object's spinning linear velocity and surronding object's orbiting linear velocity
Thanks for clarifying ...however, that eqn. is STILL not equivilent to the standard gravitomagnetic (frame drag) eqn.
1. Are you aware of that?
2. You referred to that equation as 'frame dragging' in your 6 th sentence in your first post....
" Electrons tend to rotate in the same direction as protons or neutrons due to frame-dragging effect(force) (F=SJmW/r^2)."
THAT is NOT the frame dragging equation....nor its equivalent.
JW
P.S. If you want to be accepted in a referreed journal I suggest you use the correct standard formulation for gravitomagnetic field.
PS.S. I just noticed you say Landau derived the concept of spinity....please give the reference...from which you obtained these equations....from Dr. LD Landau
I did clarify the meaning of F=SJmW/r^2 in the text
S=spinity constant=2G/c^2 (c=lightspeed)
J=central object's angular momentum
m=surronding object's mass
W=relative angular velocity between central object's spinning angular velocity and surronding object's orbiting angular velocity
r=distance between central object and surronding object
The formula can be written as F=SJmV/r^3
But, now V=relative linear velocity between central object's spinning linear velocity and surronding object's orbiting linear velocity
Thanks for clarifying ...however, that eqn. is STILL not equivilent to the standard gravitomagnetic (frame drag) eqn.
1. Are you aware of that?
2. You referred to that equation as 'frame dragging' in your 6 th sentence in your first post....
" Electrons tend to rotate in the same direction as protons or neutrons due to frame-dragging effect(force) (F=SJmW/r^2)."
THAT is NOT the frame dragging equation....nor its equivalent.
JW
P.S. If you want to be accepted in a referreed journal I suggest you use the correct standard formulation for gravitomagnetic field.
PS.S. I just noticed you say Landau derived the concept of spinity....please give the reference...from which you obtained these equations....from Dr. LD Landau
I had stumbled upon a model that appeared to very closely predict isotope stability as well as showing 2 possible islands of stability (3 if you count subatomic particles in the mix), and it was interesting to see such a second possible "island of stability" mentioned in an article here.
The model was effectively just a 3-D vector moving at constant velocity and being rotated in proportion to the atomic weight (rotation on one axis) and charge/protons (rotation along an orthogonal axis). Some combinations of rotations would spiral back to the origin and indicate a stable element and others would diverge (for example, "corkscrewing" away from the origin) and not remain "stable".
I never quantized the rotations or scaled them to a 1 to 1 correlation with isotopes, but the stable points appeared to closely match this http://space.newscientist.com/data/images/...06/22064901.JPG, and a less stable area existed between these and a smaller area after it, matching the idea of an island of stability, though an even smaller and less stable area existed after that as well (which would correlated with a possible 2nd "island" of questionable stability).
The main reason I commented on this here was that this model would simply describe an atom as two orthogonal field strengths and the quantization of atomic properties as arising from rather chaotic distributed (semi)stable combinations of these. Subatomic particles could then be seen as orbitals in a single dimension (in effect existing within their own separate "island of stability" on this plot).
Again, I didn't delve as deeply as I should have constructing a 1 to 1 mapping with known isotopes but it's interesting to see both the recent mention of a second island of stability on this site as well as your deterministic model matching characteristics of it. Thanks for your post.
The model was effectively just a 3-D vector moving at constant velocity and being rotated in proportion to the atomic weight (rotation on one axis) and charge/protons (rotation along an orthogonal axis). Some combinations of rotations would spiral back to the origin and indicate a stable element and others would diverge (for example, "corkscrewing" away from the origin) and not remain "stable".
I never quantized the rotations or scaled them to a 1 to 1 correlation with isotopes, but the stable points appeared to closely match this http://space.newscientist.com/data/images/...06/22064901.JPG, and a less stable area existed between these and a smaller area after it, matching the idea of an island of stability, though an even smaller and less stable area existed after that as well (which would correlated with a possible 2nd "island" of questionable stability).
The main reason I commented on this here was that this model would simply describe an atom as two orthogonal field strengths and the quantization of atomic properties as arising from rather chaotic distributed (semi)stable combinations of these. Subatomic particles could then be seen as orbitals in a single dimension (in effect existing within their own separate "island of stability" on this plot).
Again, I didn't delve as deeply as I should have constructing a 1 to 1 mapping with known isotopes but it's interesting to see both the recent mention of a second island of stability on this site as well as your deterministic model matching characteristics of it. Thanks for your post.
Hi, JW,
Thanks for your post. But, traditional gravitomagnetism formula is wrong. That formula was from an analog of Lorentz force. It assumed that F=m(G+VB). However, no proof says that frame-dragging and gravity have the same pattern as Lorentz force.
The formula I used in this article was derived from Dr. Landau's textbook: The classical theory of fields. He derived the spinity(frame-dragging) energy(Lagranian term) from general relativity. Since W=FR, I think spinity formula should be F=SJmW/r^2. Because this formula is correct, I can accurately calculated the distance of moon moving away from earth 3.8cm per year.
Hi, StevenA,
My model can try to solve the problem of "island of stability". Especially in light atom, neutron numbers must be equal to proton numbers. Quantum mechanics cannot explain why neutrons need to be equal to protons. A false belief is neutrons are in-between the protons to reduce repulsive Coulomb force. However, no paper found that. Actually, Prof. Otsuka T from Tokyo University found that protons are neutrons are rotating separately and oppositely in nucleus. Thus, I proposed this new model. I think it is a correct atom model.
Thanks for your post. But, traditional gravitomagnetism formula is wrong. That formula was from an analog of Lorentz force. It assumed that F=m(G+VB). However, no proof says that frame-dragging and gravity have the same pattern as Lorentz force.
The formula I used in this article was derived from Dr. Landau's textbook: The classical theory of fields. He derived the spinity(frame-dragging) energy(Lagranian term) from general relativity. Since W=FR, I think spinity formula should be F=SJmW/r^2. Because this formula is correct, I can accurately calculated the distance of moon moving away from earth 3.8cm per year.
Hi, StevenA,
My model can try to solve the problem of "island of stability". Especially in light atom, neutron numbers must be equal to proton numbers. Quantum mechanics cannot explain why neutrons need to be equal to protons. A false belief is neutrons are in-between the protons to reduce repulsive Coulomb force. However, no paper found that. Actually, Prof. Otsuka T from Tokyo University found that protons are neutrons are rotating separately and oppositely in nucleus. Thus, I proposed this new model. I think it is a correct atom model.
Hi, StevenA,
Thank you very much for your feedback and encouragement. Really appreciate!
Thank you very much for your feedback and encouragement. Really appreciate!
The most successful achievement of Dirac's quantum mechanics is the electron's spin magnetic moment.
I think quantum mechanics is wrong, so I need to use calculus and classic mechanics to deduct electron spin magnetic moment.
Electron's magnetic moment: u=I*A=(Q/t)*A=(qV/2πR)*πR^2
q:charge, V:electron maximal spin linear velocity, R:electron's radius
When we consider the velocity V in the electron's spinning equator plane
The velocity extends to north or south pole is V*cosθ from 0 to 90
Integral cosθ ∫cosθ=sinθ from 0 to 90=1
The sum velocity from equator to north pole is V; the sum velocity from equator to south pole is V;the electron's equator spin linear velocity is V; thus, totally, the sum velocity is 3V
Peripheral 2πR 's integral is sphere's surface area 4πR^2
Area πR^2's integral is sphere's volume (4/3)πR^3
So, u=IA=[(q*3V)/(4πR^2)]*[(4/3)πR^3]=qVR=(q/m)*mVR=(q/m)*S
That is Dirac's electron spin magnetic moment
Please give me your invaluable feedbacks!
I think quantum mechanics is wrong, so I need to use calculus and classic mechanics to deduct electron spin magnetic moment.
Electron's magnetic moment: u=I*A=(Q/t)*A=(qV/2πR)*πR^2
q:charge, V:electron maximal spin linear velocity, R:electron's radius
When we consider the velocity V in the electron's spinning equator plane
The velocity extends to north or south pole is V*cosθ from 0 to 90
Integral cosθ ∫cosθ=sinθ from 0 to 90=1
The sum velocity from equator to north pole is V; the sum velocity from equator to south pole is V;the electron's equator spin linear velocity is V; thus, totally, the sum velocity is 3V
Peripheral 2πR 's integral is sphere's surface area 4πR^2
Area πR^2's integral is sphere's volume (4/3)πR^3
So, u=IA=[(q*3V)/(4πR^2)]*[(4/3)πR^3]=qVR=(q/m)*mVR=(q/m)*S
That is Dirac's electron spin magnetic moment
Please give me your invaluable feedbacks!
Schrodinger equation is wrong!
QUOTE (wanchung+Jun 9 2008, 05:25 AM)
The most successful achievement of Dirac's quantum mechanics is the electron's spin magnetic moment.
I think quantum mechanics is wrong, so I need to use calculus and classic mechanics to deduct electron spin magnetic moment.
Electron's magnetic moment: u=I*A=(Q/t)*A=(qV/2πR)*πR^2
q:charge, V:electron maximal spin linear velocity, R:electron's radius
When we consider the velocity V in the electron's spinning equator plane
The velocity extends to north or south pole is V*cosθ from 0 to 90
Integral cosθ ∫cosθ=sinθ from 0 to 90=1
The sum velocity from equator to north pole is V; the sum velocity from equator to south pole is V;the electron's equator spin linear velocity is V; thus, totally, the sum velocity is 3V
Peripheral 2πR 's integral is sphere's surface area 4πR^2
Area πR^2's integral is sphere's volume (4/3)πR^3
So, u=IA=[(q*3V)/(4πR^2)]*[(4/3)πR^3]=qVR=(q/m)*mVR=(q/m)*S
That is Dirac's electron spin magnetic moment
Please give me your invaluable feedbacks!
Why spin is quantized if it is classical? And if it is quantized in your theory, then how classical theory can explain this quantization? And what magnetic value you predicting for spin? As I know spin magnetic value of electron is twice bigger than orbital magnetic moment value (where electron spin I actualy mean "spin magnetic moment" and not angular moment, and how it is possible to compare angular moment with magnetic, huh?).
I think quantum mechanics is wrong, so I need to use calculus and classic mechanics to deduct electron spin magnetic moment.
Electron's magnetic moment: u=I*A=(Q/t)*A=(qV/2πR)*πR^2
q:charge, V:electron maximal spin linear velocity, R:electron's radius
When we consider the velocity V in the electron's spinning equator plane
The velocity extends to north or south pole is V*cosθ from 0 to 90
Integral cosθ ∫cosθ=sinθ from 0 to 90=1
The sum velocity from equator to north pole is V; the sum velocity from equator to south pole is V;the electron's equator spin linear velocity is V; thus, totally, the sum velocity is 3V
Peripheral 2πR 's integral is sphere's surface area 4πR^2
Area πR^2's integral is sphere's volume (4/3)πR^3
So, u=IA=[(q*3V)/(4πR^2)]*[(4/3)πR^3]=qVR=(q/m)*mVR=(q/m)*S
That is Dirac's electron spin magnetic moment
Please give me your invaluable feedbacks!
Why spin is quantized if it is classical? And if it is quantized in your theory, then how classical theory can explain this quantization? And what magnetic value you predicting for spin? As I know spin magnetic value of electron is twice bigger than orbital magnetic moment value (where electron spin I actualy mean "spin magnetic moment" and not angular moment, and how it is possible to compare angular moment with magnetic, huh?).
Hello, DavidD
Electron's spin magnetic moment u=(q/m)*S (S=mVR)
Since R=electron radius, m=electron mass, V=electron maximal spin linear velocity=lightspeed; the value S is fixed.
Thus, quantum mechanist called it "quantized".
In addition, paired electrons' spinning directions have only two ways: spin up or spin down.
Please read my main article. In summary:
When one electron is orbiting, it can create a magnetic field for the other paired electron.
So, the second spining electron must be aligned to the magnetic field produced by the first electron.
However, the second electron is also orbiting and produces magnetic field for the first electron.
Thus, the first spining electron must be aligned to the magnetic field produced by the second electron.
Thus, paired electrons have only two spin directions: spin up or spin down called by quantum mechanists.
Electron's spin magnetic moment u=(q/m)*S (S=mVR)
Since R=electron radius, m=electron mass, V=electron maximal spin linear velocity=lightspeed; the value S is fixed.
Thus, quantum mechanist called it "quantized".
In addition, paired electrons' spinning directions have only two ways: spin up or spin down.
Please read my main article. In summary:
When one electron is orbiting, it can create a magnetic field for the other paired electron.
So, the second spining electron must be aligned to the magnetic field produced by the first electron.
However, the second electron is also orbiting and produces magnetic field for the first electron.
Thus, the first spining electron must be aligned to the magnetic field produced by the second electron.
Thus, paired electrons have only two spin directions: spin up or spin down called by quantum mechanists.
Why in this http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/spin.html#c5 experiment spin only have probabilistic two quantized values? But actualy I have such proposition, that orbiting object can't have magnetic moment at all, becosue it is ridicolous. For example, imagine, that flying electron, then his direction of flying is
---->, then magnetism becoiming such: N---->S, maybe S----->N, but it's dont matter. if electron moving in orbit-circle, then he still have such combination, but if electron spining, then where is electron "fase" and where is "back"? So then magnetism simply can't be and this maybe can explain quantization. The same is with bosons in superconductors moving in circles it's like "closed" magnet... How you can close magnet? For example you have ironic magnet N--------S and you want to conect in circle N and S poles like Hercules, then if you will do this then magnetism disapear! But since electron is special then maybe he somehow probabilisticly acts. And there is very misleading asumption, that magnetism becoming through axis, about which electron flying or spining. It is wrong! Thus I would say, that classicaly imposible in principle to spin particle around his axis. And BTW, how you can explain classicaly neutron spin???
---->, then magnetism becoiming such: N---->S, maybe S----->N, but it's dont matter. if electron moving in orbit-circle, then he still have such combination, but if electron spining, then where is electron "fase" and where is "back"? So then magnetism simply can't be and this maybe can explain quantization. The same is with bosons in superconductors moving in circles it's like "closed" magnet... How you can close magnet? For example you have ironic magnet N--------S and you want to conect in circle N and S poles like Hercules, then if you will do this then magnetism disapear! But since electron is special then maybe he somehow probabilisticly acts. And there is very misleading asumption, that magnetism becoming through axis, about which electron flying or spining. It is wrong! Thus I would say, that classicaly imposible in principle to spin particle around his axis. And BTW, how you can explain classicaly neutron spin???
Hi, DavidD
In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, we can see the electron beam is divided into two beams. One is spin-up; the other is spin-down.
In my model, the paired electrons have only two spin directions: spin-up and spin-down.
Thus, I can totally explain why the electron spin is "quantitized".
In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, there is no orbital magnetic moment; however, there is spin magnetic moment.
Please see my main article for detail explanations.
As for neutron spin, it appears in nature.
In my theory, everything is spining. Spin is due to mass.
Mass induced gravity causes centripetal force.
Thus, mass starts to spin to induce centrifugal force to balance gravity.
In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, we can see the electron beam is divided into two beams. One is spin-up; the other is spin-down.
In my model, the paired electrons have only two spin directions: spin-up and spin-down.
Thus, I can totally explain why the electron spin is "quantitized".
In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, there is no orbital magnetic moment; however, there is spin magnetic moment.
Please see my main article for detail explanations.
As for neutron spin, it appears in nature.
In my theory, everything is spining. Spin is due to mass.
Mass induced gravity causes centripetal force.
Thus, mass starts to spin to induce centrifugal force to balance gravity.
QUOTE (wanchung+Jul 1 2008, 04:55 AM)
Hi, DavidD
In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, we can see the electron beam is divided into two beams. One is spin-up; the other is spin-down.
In my model, the paired electrons have only two spin directions: spin-up and spin-down.
Thus, I can totally explain why the electron spin is "quantitized".
In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, there is no orbital magnetic moment; however, there is spin magnetic moment.
Please see my main article for detail explanations.
As for neutron spin, it appears in nature.
In my theory, everything is spining. Spin is due to mass.
Mass induced gravity causes centripetal force.
Thus, mass starts to spin to induce centrifugal force to balance gravity.
So you claiming that for example neutrinos have spin, becouse they rotating and have mass? But all particles have diferent mass and same spin.
And in your model electron have one spin and it turns to some direction, right? But like you can see in my link if electron flying with random orientation of spin, then there must be some diferent distance when electron go down or up... Becouse in diferent position of spin need some timu untill it align to some direction, becouse need to rotate electron and to do some joules work. thus must be not quantized states. OF course this quantization can disapear if particle is to light (not heavy), but I doubt that calculations is wrong of sciencists (but how I know they can't understand magnetism without magnetic moment, to doubt is not so bad reasons
). But your mass cousing spin theory is pure magic, becouse no any consequence between mass and spin (in only one case that scincists somthing wrongly understanding about magnetism (like charge) size and magnetic moment properties )
My theory is that spin is not in superposition flying, but his quantization is decided before he spliting into two paths. So spin is probabilistic and not superpositionistic-wavevistic. Also in my theory electron is not a wave! Electron can't interfere with himself and don't have uncertainty principle. Even schrodinger equation can be explained that electron is wave, but schrodinger equation may be wrong and if it is even right it don't proving what electron have somthing to do with waves outside atoms orbits...
In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, we can see the electron beam is divided into two beams. One is spin-up; the other is spin-down.
In my model, the paired electrons have only two spin directions: spin-up and spin-down.
Thus, I can totally explain why the electron spin is "quantitized".
In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, there is no orbital magnetic moment; however, there is spin magnetic moment.
Please see my main article for detail explanations.
As for neutron spin, it appears in nature.
In my theory, everything is spining. Spin is due to mass.
Mass induced gravity causes centripetal force.
Thus, mass starts to spin to induce centrifugal force to balance gravity.
So you claiming that for example neutrinos have spin, becouse they rotating and have mass? But all particles have diferent mass and same spin.
And in your model electron have one spin and it turns to some direction, right? But like you can see in my link if electron flying with random orientation of spin, then there must be some diferent distance when electron go down or up... Becouse in diferent position of spin need some timu untill it align to some direction, becouse need to rotate electron and to do some joules work. thus must be not quantized states. OF course this quantization can disapear if particle is to light (not heavy), but I doubt that calculations is wrong of sciencists (but how I know they can't understand magnetism without magnetic moment, to doubt is not so bad reasons
). But your mass cousing spin theory is pure magic, becouse no any consequence between mass and spin (in only one case that scincists somthing wrongly understanding about magnetism (like charge) size and magnetic moment properties )My theory is that spin is not in superposition flying, but his quantization is decided before he spliting into two paths. So spin is probabilistic and not superpositionistic-wavevistic. Also in my theory electron is not a wave! Electron can't interfere with himself and don't have uncertainty principle. Even schrodinger equation can be explained that electron is wave, but schrodinger equation may be wrong and if it is even right it don't proving what electron have somthing to do with waves outside atoms orbits...
QUOTE (wanchung+Mar 22 2008, 09:21 AM)
Wanchung Hu
PhD candidate,
National Taiwan University, Johns Hopkins University
Correspondence Email: whu@jhsph.edu; lukluk73_2006@yahoo.com.tw
You know, here, we tend to know who is smart and who is dumb, by the knowledge that they show, and prove.
Apparently, just popping up and showing us complete and utterly useless crap while simultaneously (apparently useless) Providing your "proof" of intelligence wont help you succeed.
My, people ARE really stupid.
(ps, PISS OFF.)
Sandra
PhD candidate,
National Taiwan University, Johns Hopkins University
Correspondence Email: whu@jhsph.edu; lukluk73_2006@yahoo.com.tw
You know, here, we tend to know who is smart and who is dumb, by the knowledge that they show, and prove.
Apparently, just popping up and showing us complete and utterly useless crap while simultaneously (apparently useless) Providing your "proof" of intelligence wont help you succeed.
My, people ARE really stupid.
(ps, PISS OFF.)
Sandra
Somthing very is realy wrong with understanding about electron magnetism! Acording to classical expectation there must be lorece force and electron must rotates or fly to righ or left and not up or down like there http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/spin.html#c5 . Maybe this information is bullshitish? classical expectation in this link is completly wrong becouse it don't mach with lorenze force expectation. But if this description of classical expectation is wrong then wanchung don't have any chance with his (my?) model about don't existation of spin. But about model that there exist only one direction of spin for electron can be prety good, but for atoms and molecules, where is many quantized possiblities it may be more possible that wrong... But if electron have only like saying wanchung spins then atom must have only two quantizations instead 4 or 6 or 9 or 0 (some atoms don't have spin, how would explain it?). Somthing realy bad going on with this all experiments descriptions... How explaining quantum mechanic that atoms of Hg and Mg don't have spin?
P. S.Is realy all textbooks wrong?
P. S.Is realy all textbooks wrong?
Hello all
Here is a You-Tube vidio showing the Searl Effect Generator (SEG). What I find interesting is the displacement/orientation of the rollers as more and more rollers are added to the SEG. This can almost be a model for a two dimensional atom.
Here is a You-Tube vidio showing the Searl Effect Generator (SEG). What I find interesting is the displacement/orientation of the rollers as more and more rollers are added to the SEG. This can almost be a model for a two dimensional atom.
Hi, Montec,
Good film! The 2D model is like real atom model!
I am extending this new atom model to explain chemicals such as CH4.
It can explain its orientation and structure.
Amazing!
Good film! The 2D model is like real atom model!
I am extending this new atom model to explain chemicals such as CH4.
It can explain its orientation and structure.
Amazing!
QUOTE (wanchung+Jul 26 2008, 06:43 AM)
I am extending this new atom model to explain chemicals such as CH4.
Not surprized, a bullshittingly faking gasbag such as yourself must have a most comprehensive understanding of methane.
Not surprized, a bullshittingly faking gasbag such as yourself must have a most comprehensive understanding of methane.
QUOTE (wanchung+Jul 26 2008, 06:43 AM)
Hi, Montec,
Good film! The 2D model is like real atom model!
I am extending this new atom model to explain chemicals such as CH4.
It can explain its orientation and structure.
Amazing!
ye.. 2D model can be with spins... but I don't understand about is video... not very likely...
Good film! The 2D model is like real atom model!
I am extending this new atom model to explain chemicals such as CH4.
It can explain its orientation and structure.
Amazing!
ye.. 2D model can be with spins... but I don't understand about is video... not very likely...
QUOTE (wanchung+Jul 26 2008, 06:43 PM)
Hi, Montec,
Good film! The 2D model is like real atom model!
I am extending this new atom model to explain chemicals such as CH4.
It can explain its orientation and structure.
Amazing!
No.
This talk is rubbish.
Do I need to explain Molecular Orbital Theory yet again?
Good film! The 2D model is like real atom model!
I am extending this new atom model to explain chemicals such as CH4.
It can explain its orientation and structure.
Amazing!
No.
This talk is rubbish.
Do I need to explain Molecular Orbital Theory yet again?
Hi, Trippy,
Plesae open your mind!
We all need to accept new staff.
I say the video is interesting.
It looks like a forever moving machine.
Atom is also like a 2D forever moving machine.
You don't need to explain molecular orbit theory because it is based on a wrong theory: quantum mechanics.
Plesae open your mind!
We all need to accept new staff.
I say the video is interesting.
It looks like a forever moving machine.
Atom is also like a 2D forever moving machine.
You don't need to explain molecular orbit theory because it is based on a wrong theory: quantum mechanics.
QUOTE (wanchung+Jul 26 2008, 07:53 AM)
Atom is also like a 2D forever moving machine.
Mostly dissagre that 2D...
QUOTE
You don't need to explain molecular orbit theory because it is based on a wrong theory: quantum mechanics.
Very possible...
QUOTE (wanchung+Jul 26 2008, 07:53 PM)
Hi, Trippy,
Plesae open your mind!
We all need to accept new staff.
And there it is, because I disagree with you, I've obviously got a closed mind, your theory couldn't possibly be wrong.
I can accept that QM could be wrong, can you accept that your gibberish may just be gibberish?
Plesae open your mind!
We all need to accept new staff.
And there it is, because I disagree with you, I've obviously got a closed mind, your theory couldn't possibly be wrong.
I can accept that QM could be wrong, can you accept that your gibberish may just be gibberish?
QUOTE (wanchung+Jul 26 2008, 07:53 PM)
I say the video is interesting.
I say it's boring.
I say it's boring.
QUOTE (wanchung+Jul 26 2008, 07:53 PM)
It looks like a forever moving machine.
Then you're not looking close enough.
Then you're not looking close enough.
QUOTE (wanchung+Jul 26 2008, 07:53 PM)
Atom is also like a 2D forever moving machine.
No it isn't, for one thing, the atom is 3D.
A wrong theory that has been experimentally verified on many occasions, in fact, the computer you're using to spew forth your gibberish was designed based on QM principles. If QM was wrong, your computer wouldn't work, it really is that simple.
Do you realy thinking, that transistor was made based on quantum mechanic? There aws many experiments with involving many diferent chemical ingredients into semiconductors and so on untill was goten somthing more like transistor with better and better properties, because I think QM would be too complex for simulation singel transistor (because there is say 1 indium or germanium atom in milions silicon atoms...).
Maybe benzine explotion can explain not only schrodinger equation if to do correction here, there... Entanglement for there and the get benzine structure explanation with magic 4ever...
Here are my several points about quantum mechanics. I still firmly believe QM is wrong.
2. About Stern-Gerlach experiment
Stern-Gerlach experiment assumed that electron has only two spin direction. Here is my argument for their assumption. Sliver atoms didn't dissociate into electrons and protons after the external magnetic field. How can they decide that it is because electron has two spin direction. I think the result of stern-gerlach experiment is due to electrons' orbital movement causing magnetic moment.
Wrong again Wanchung......
'The actual experiment was carried out with a beam of silver atoms from a hot oven because they could be readily detected using a photographic emulsion. The silver atoms allowed Stern and Gerlach to study the magnetic properties of a single electron because these atoms have a single outer electron which moves in the Coulomb potential caused by the 47 protons of the nucleus shielded by the 46 inner electrons. Since this electron has ZERO orbital angular momentum (orbital quantum number l=0), one would expect there to be no interaction with an external magnetic field.'
However, this unpaired electron DID show two different quatization states....as evidenced by the experiment.
(Quote above taken from hyperphysics web site)
JW
Wrong again Wanchung......
'The actual experiment was carried out with a beam of silver atoms from a hot oven because they could be readily detected using a photographic emulsion. The silver atoms allowed Stern and Gerlach to study the magnetic properties of a single electron because these atoms have a single outer electron which moves in the Coulomb potential caused by the 47 protons of the nucleus shielded by the 46 inner electrons. Since this electron has ZERO orbital angular momentum (orbital quantum number l=0), one would expect there to be no interaction with an external magnetic field.'
However, this unpaired electron DID show two different quatization states....as evidenced by the experiment.
(Quote above taken from hyperphysics web site)
JW
bla bla bla, do you realy believes in this? You even can't explain what will be if one magnet will be removed! This all schrodinger equation and quantum numbers wrong so you as well.
No it isn't, for one thing, the atom is 3D.
QUOTE (wanchung+Jul 26 2008, 07:53 PM)
You don't need to explain molecular orbit theory because it is based on a wrong theory: quantum mechanics.
A wrong theory that has been experimentally verified on many occasions, in fact, the computer you're using to spew forth your gibberish was designed based on QM principles. If QM was wrong, your computer wouldn't work, it really is that simple.
A wrong theory that has been experimentally verified on many occasions, in fact, the computer you're using to spew forth your gibberish was designed based on QM principles. If QM was wrong, your computer wouldn't work, it really is that simple.
There is possible that with scrodinger equation is possible to calcualte earth and moon rotations about sun... Except if in schrodinger equation is somthing more deep like orbital magnetic moment and electromagnetism... Some very basic laws of nature...
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 26 2008, 08:15 AM)
A wrong theory that has been experimentally verified on many occasions, in fact, the computer you're using to spew forth your gibberish was designed based on QM principles. If QM was wrong, your computer wouldn't work, it really is that simple.
Do you realy thinking, that transistor was made based on quantum mechanic?
There aws many experiments with involving many diferent chemical ingredients into semiconductors and so on untill was goten somthing more like transistor with better and better properties, because I think QM would be too complex for simulation singel transistor (because there is say 1 indium or germanium atom in milions silicon atoms...). Maybe benzine explotion can explain not only schrodinger equation if to do correction here, there...
Entanglement for there and the get benzine structure explanation with magic 4ever...
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 26 2008, 08:36 PM)
Do you realy thinking, that transistor was made based on quantum mechanic? There aws many experiments with involving many diferent chemical ingredients into semiconductors and so on untill was goten somthing more like transistor with better and better properties, because I think QM would be too complex for simulation singel transistor (because there is say 1 indium or germanium atom in milions silicon atoms...).
Maybe benzine explotion can explain not only schrodinger equation if to do correction here, there... Entanglement for there and the get benzine structure explanation with magic 4ever...
You dolt.
Of course you would say that.
I wasn't talking about the ingredients, I was talking about the actual physics behind how they work.
That is what is based in Quantum Mechanics. Trial and error to get the ingredients right is a seperate issue to the physics of how transistors works.
That last part doesn't even make sense.
There aws many experiments with involving many diferent chemical ingredients into semiconductors and so on untill was goten somthing more like transistor with better and better properties, because I think QM would be too complex for simulation singel transistor (because there is say 1 indium or germanium atom in milions silicon atoms...). Maybe benzine explotion can explain not only schrodinger equation if to do correction here, there...
Entanglement for there and the get benzine structure explanation with magic 4ever... You dolt.
Of course you would say that.
I wasn't talking about the ingredients, I was talking about the actual physics behind how they work.
That is what is based in Quantum Mechanics. Trial and error to get the ingredients right is a seperate issue to the physics of how transistors works.
That last part doesn't even make sense.
Last part make sense, because with all heisbergers uncertainty priciples, photons-quants duality, electrons wave particle duality (electrons from candle/spark in internal combustion engine), de broghle wavelenght and all over bullshit possible to explain anything in right configurations I think...
In transistor there is acetrons and donors, holes and electrons. Do you think you can calculate excatly size of those donorse acetrons properties with your schrodinger equation? And do you think you can put excatly number of this indium ingredients to silicon and be sure, that you don't put more or less over protperties having matterials which at all not the same like schrodinger equation? Of course it is surprizingly why schrodinger equation at all somthing explaining coherently and no nothere(?) oposit claims and molecules properities (?).
Anyway seems, that schrodinger equation only connecting momentum and cordinates with time and (kinetic) energy and with some incoherent 1/(2*m) mass of electron, amybe this somehow connects with speed diferentiation and acceleration double diferentiation and there is some momentum (single diferentiation) and kinetic energy (double diferentiation), so there posible that is just for even spin solution, but it don't means, taht spin is quantized, but all schrodinger equation acelerating it... Only strange thing is why electrons there have orbital amgnetic moment (because like I understand spin is puted "after' schrodinger equation...) or it is also puted into when schrodinger equation solved?
So I here have 3 possible variants of means of schrodinger equation:
1) schrodinger equation is nonsense and all explanations are so aproximatly that gnomes theory better would explain QM.
2) schrodinger equation can explain earth and sun orbits etc if to give for moon and earth speed to convert to charge stranght, but possible that schrodinger equation then rambling bullshit about spins and orbital angular moments and thus is unprecisly.
3) Schrodinger equation have some deep conection with electromagnetism and nature itself and thus somehow very perfectly everything explaining. But it don't means, that there is some waveparticle duality.
In transistor there is acetrons and donors, holes and electrons. Do you think you can calculate excatly size of those donorse acetrons properties with your schrodinger equation? And do you think you can put excatly number of this indium ingredients to silicon and be sure, that you don't put more or less over protperties having matterials which at all not the same like schrodinger equation? Of course it is surprizingly why schrodinger equation at all somthing explaining coherently and no nothere(?) oposit claims and molecules properities (?).
Anyway seems, that schrodinger equation only connecting momentum and cordinates with time and (kinetic) energy and with some incoherent 1/(2*m) mass of electron, amybe this somehow connects with speed diferentiation and acceleration double diferentiation and there is some momentum (single diferentiation) and kinetic energy (double diferentiation), so there posible that is just for even spin solution, but it don't means, taht spin is quantized, but all schrodinger equation acelerating it... Only strange thing is why electrons there have orbital amgnetic moment (because like I understand spin is puted "after' schrodinger equation...) or it is also puted into when schrodinger equation solved?
So I here have 3 possible variants of means of schrodinger equation:
1) schrodinger equation is nonsense and all explanations are so aproximatly that gnomes theory better would explain QM.
2) schrodinger equation can explain earth and sun orbits etc if to give for moon and earth speed to convert to charge stranght, but possible that schrodinger equation then rambling bullshit about spins and orbital angular moments and thus is unprecisly.
3) Schrodinger equation have some deep conection with electromagnetism and nature itself and thus somehow very perfectly everything explaining. But it don't means, that there is some waveparticle duality.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 26 2008, 09:21 PM)
Last part make sense, because with all heisbergers uncertainty priciples, photons-quants duality, electrons wave particle duality (electrons from candle/spark in internal combustion engine), de broghle wavelenght and all over bullshit possible to explain anything in right configurations I think...
In transistor there is acetrons and donors, holes and electrons. Do you think you can calculate excatly size of those donorse acetrons properties with your schrodinger equation? And do you think you can put excatly number of this indium ingredients to silicon and be sure, that you don't put more or less over protperties having matterials which at all not the same like schrodinger equation? Of course it is surprizingly why schrodinger equation at all somthing explaining coherently and no nothere(?) oposit claims and molecules properities (?).
Anyway seems, that schrodinger equation only connecting momentum and cordinates with time and (kinetic) energy and with some incoherent 1/(2*m) mass of electron, amybe this somehow connects with speed diferentiation and acceleration double diferentiation and there is some momentum (single diferentiation) and kinetic energy (double diferentiation), so there posible that is just for even spin solution, but it don't means, taht spin is quantized, but all schrodinger equation acelerating it... Only strange thing is why electrons there have orbital amgnetic moment (because like I understand spin is puted "after' schrodinger equation...) or it is also puted into when schrodinger equation solved?
So I here have 3 possible variants of means of schrodinger equation:
1) schrodinger equation is nonsense and all explanations are so aproximatly that gnomes theory better would explain QM.
2) schrodinger equation can explain earth and sun orbits etc if to give for moon and earth speed to convert to charge stranght, but possible that schrodinger equation then rambling bullshit about spins and orbital angular moments and thus is unprecisly.
3) Schrodinger equation have some deep conection with electromagnetism and nature itself and thus somehow very perfectly everything explaining. But it don't means, that there is some waveparticle duality.
Your inability to understand quantum mechanics is not a shortcoming of the theory itself.
I'm tired of explaining electron spin, and the schroedinger equation to you.
And let me repeat. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE *** COMPOSITION OF THE *** TRANSISTORS
It's not sbout how they're made, it's about how they work.
In transistor there is acetrons and donors, holes and electrons. Do you think you can calculate excatly size of those donorse acetrons properties with your schrodinger equation? And do you think you can put excatly number of this indium ingredients to silicon and be sure, that you don't put more or less over protperties having matterials which at all not the same like schrodinger equation? Of course it is surprizingly why schrodinger equation at all somthing explaining coherently and no nothere(?) oposit claims and molecules properities (?).
Anyway seems, that schrodinger equation only connecting momentum and cordinates with time and (kinetic) energy and with some incoherent 1/(2*m) mass of electron, amybe this somehow connects with speed diferentiation and acceleration double diferentiation and there is some momentum (single diferentiation) and kinetic energy (double diferentiation), so there posible that is just for even spin solution, but it don't means, taht spin is quantized, but all schrodinger equation acelerating it... Only strange thing is why electrons there have orbital amgnetic moment (because like I understand spin is puted "after' schrodinger equation...) or it is also puted into when schrodinger equation solved?
So I here have 3 possible variants of means of schrodinger equation:
1) schrodinger equation is nonsense and all explanations are so aproximatly that gnomes theory better would explain QM.
2) schrodinger equation can explain earth and sun orbits etc if to give for moon and earth speed to convert to charge stranght, but possible that schrodinger equation then rambling bullshit about spins and orbital angular moments and thus is unprecisly.
3) Schrodinger equation have some deep conection with electromagnetism and nature itself and thus somehow very perfectly everything explaining. But it don't means, that there is some waveparticle duality.
Your inability to understand quantum mechanics is not a shortcoming of the theory itself.
I'm tired of explaining electron spin, and the schroedinger equation to you.
And let me repeat. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE *** COMPOSITION OF THE *** TRANSISTORS
It's not sbout how they're made, it's about how they work.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 26 2008, 08:57 AM)
That last part doesn't even make sense.
- only the last part?? .... all DavidDefaecationwit's posts are a bizarre surreal fuckmunch of para-epic proportionality, only a freshly concussed, drunk mott.carl on acid could ever make less sense!
- only the last part?? .... all DavidDefaecationwit's posts are a bizarre surreal fuckmunch of para-epic proportionality, only a freshly concussed, drunk mott.carl on acid could ever make less sense!
I can understand most of what I see from david it took some time because he thinks or at least expresses it so differently then me... But I have exprience with dealing with different people who express themselfs differently so It didnt take to long... If your not wise enoth to interepet his works then dont comment on them lol.
QUOTE (magpies+Jul 26 2008, 10:34 PM)
I can understand most of what I see from david it took some time because he thinks or at least expresses it so differently then me... But I have exprience with dealing with different people who express themselfs differently so It didnt take to long... If your not wise enoth to interepet his works then dont comment on them lol.
Grow a brain ***-wit.
Grow a brain ***-wit.
I cant it would fill the vacuum in my head thus displacing the whole ecosystem of vacuum and that would be wrong...
Would anyone mind rephrazing what has gone on in this thread I mean the non flaming parts? Cause I am lost with what most of you are talking about.
Would anyone mind rephrazing what has gone on in this thread I mean the non flaming parts? Cause I am lost with what most of you are talking about.
QUOTE (magpies+Jul 26 2008, 10:43 PM)
I cant it would fill the vacuum in my head...
Can't fault him for honesty.
Can't fault him for honesty.
Cant fault me for being a hypnocritic either.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 26 2008, 10:25 AM)
Your inability to understand quantum mechanics is not a shortcoming of the theory itself.
I'm tired of explaining electron spin, and the schroedinger equation to you.
And let me repeat. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE *** COMPOSITION OF THE *** TRANSISTORS
It's not sbout how they're made, it's about how they work.
But electron spin is wrong and only such cranck like you can claim oposit... And realy what computer have to do with quantum mechanic?? Nothing! Thus your claims, about computer will not work without quantum mechanic understanding is bullshit. Diod create two centuries ago (about 1890 years), when even no was even talks about quantum mechanic! Transistor is exactly they same as diod with some small diference... Quantum mechanic it explain wehn everything was created and then with some invalid very unprecise schrodinger equation they explain like some stupid herouse...
Here is my schrodinger equation:
i*d(psi)/dt=-0.5*m*d^2(psi)/dx^2 and solution for this schrodinger equation is e^{i(x*v-E*t)}, just look:
i*d(e^{i(x*v-E*t)})/dt=-0.5*m*d^2(e^{i(x*v-E*t)})/dx^2,
i*(-i*E)=-0.5*m*(i*v)^2,
E=0.5*m*v^2.
Sp what? Very happy some random ramblig of bullshit and you think it is some equation? My equation even simpler. I even can give some equation with integrals instead diferentiatials..but whatever... It is random ramblig!!! It is conection between speed and kinetic energy, that's all! There no any wave equation! Probably schrodinger bullshitation explaining some primitive quantum atoms becuase bigger atoms have some tendention properties than smaller and thus it somehow much in some places this interactions and in another imposible to chaeck... Thus schrdonger equation is combination of classical mechanic, spins and magic... I don't believe that it somthing understand about orbital angular magnetism and wahtsoever... It is just random rambling and I wonder hot it can give solutino for more electrons. The most elementar answer would be that nother, repaeting NOTHER it is used!!! IT nothing explaining, but crancks maiking iliusion that it somthing explaining and if somthing don't explaining (like not gas ), then "probably there is some entanglement and over quantum effects" like protein folding it cna't explain and then rambling about some impreicisions entanglements and over quantum bullshit.. It would be surprizingly if schrodinger equation for example can explain trotile explotion. I don't think so. It can explain only explotion in physicists/chemistists as black holes brains.
I'm tired of explaining electron spin, and the schroedinger equation to you.
And let me repeat. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE *** COMPOSITION OF THE *** TRANSISTORS
It's not sbout how they're made, it's about how they work.
But electron spin is wrong and only such cranck like you can claim oposit... And realy what computer have to do with quantum mechanic??
Nothing! Thus your claims, about computer will not work without quantum mechanic understanding is bullshit. Diod create two centuries ago (about 1890 years), when even no was even talks about quantum mechanic! Transistor is exactly they same as diod with some small diference... Quantum mechanic it explain wehn everything was created and then with some invalid very unprecise schrodinger equation they explain like some stupid herouse... Here is my schrodinger equation:
i*d(psi)/dt=-0.5*m*d^2(psi)/dx^2 and solution for this schrodinger equation is e^{i(x*v-E*t)}, just look:
i*d(e^{i(x*v-E*t)})/dt=-0.5*m*d^2(e^{i(x*v-E*t)})/dx^2,
i*(-i*E)=-0.5*m*(i*v)^2,
E=0.5*m*v^2.
Sp what?
Very happy some random ramblig of bullshit and you think it is some equation? My equation even simpler. I even can give some equation with integrals instead diferentiatials..but whatever... It is random ramblig!!! It is conection between speed and kinetic energy, that's all! There no any wave equation! Probably schrodinger bullshitation explaining some primitive quantum atoms becuase bigger atoms have some tendention properties than smaller and thus it somehow much in some places this interactions and in another imposible to chaeck... Thus schrdonger equation is combination of classical mechanic, spins and magic... I don't believe that it somthing understand about orbital angular magnetism and wahtsoever... It is just random rambling and I wonder hot it can give solutino for more electrons. The most elementar answer would be that nother, repaeting NOTHER it is used!!! IT nothing explaining, but crancks maiking iliusion that it somthing explaining and if somthing don't explaining (like not gas ), then "probably there is some entanglement and over quantum effects" like protein folding it cna't explain and then rambling about some impreicisions entanglements and over quantum bullshit.. It would be surprizingly if schrodinger equation for example can explain trotile explotion. I don't think so. It can explain only explotion in physicists/chemistists as black holes brains.
Here more about looser schrodinger... http://www2.kutl.kyushu-u.ac.jp/seminar/Mi...dinger_eq_E.htm
inventic bike? http://www2.kutl.kyushu-u.ac.jp/seminar/Mi...dinger_eq_E.htm
I don't think so that tehre is some realations with orbital mangetic moment or with spin and possible that this is only equation for electrons charge force if there is some number of electrons and not more... So possible that for this reason it can explain some very primitive things like covalent bounds or somthing, but it don't using electromagnetism or lorence force or spins, but just static charge and thats all... But I here don't see at all any connections with charge or atraction force or spped of electron and so on.. Probably this things was puted into/during process of 'solving'... Because how they know wavelenght of electron, but for them just need chamical interactions and it still don't predicting emision lines so fine... Without solving from 'outside' with adding additional properties like charge and orbital spin moments imposible to solve it or if possible then it is 100% bullshit. I more tend to think that they don't solve it but take all this quantum numbers form fantasies/imagination... Then give some bullshiting rambling interaction of atoms, which is so unprecise, that even with only charge electrons pushing forces there would be more precise chemical properties
inventic bike? http://www2.kutl.kyushu-u.ac.jp/seminar/Mi...dinger_eq_E.htm
I don't think so that tehre is some realations with orbital mangetic moment or with spin and possible that this is only equation for electrons charge force if there is some number of electrons and not more... So possible that for this reason it can explain some very primitive things like covalent bounds or somthing, but it don't using electromagnetism or lorence force or spins, but just static charge and thats all... But I here don't see at all any connections with charge or atraction force or spped of electron and so on.. Probably this things was puted into/during process of 'solving'... Because how they know wavelenght of electron, but for them just need chamical interactions and it still don't predicting emision lines so fine... Without solving from 'outside' with adding additional properties like charge and orbital spin moments imposible to solve it or if possible then it is 100% bullshit. I more tend to think that they don't solve it but take all this quantum numbers form fantasies/imagination... Then give some bullshiting rambling interaction of atoms, which is so unprecise, that even with only charge electrons pushing forces there would be more precise chemical properties
Hello, all,
Here are my several points about quantum mechanics. I still firmly believe QM is wrong.
1. Computer doesn't need quantum mechanics(Schrodinger/Dirac equation)
Computer needs semiconductor and computer is based on several mechanism. First, basic chemistry. Semiconductor needs an electron donor and an electron receipent. Using basic chemistry can explain this well. Second, Pauli exclusion principle and de Broglie wave: I am not against Pauli principle and de Broglie hypothesis. I think electron has wave-particle duralty. And, Pauli's principle is an effective principle. I already explained this. Paired electrons need to have opposite spin direction to couple each other. When the paired electrons are seperated, they don't need to have opposite spin any more. Third, clasical electromagnetism. Maxwell equations are important for semiconductor physics. And, it is correct. Fourth, Schrodinger eqaution is not needed. You may use Schrodinger equation to calculate the free electron movement in a semiconductor. But, most textbooks warn you that you can not get it precisely. You can only get approximation. So, Schrodinger equation is not accurate and not necessary. And, Trippy, your computer doesn't need to rotate in a fatanstic double dounut/dumbbell orbit and jump via tunneling effect. If it does, I think your computer is a high IQ robot. It could be an evil terminator coming from the future.
2. About Stern-Gerlach experiment
Stern-Gerlach experiment assumed that electron has only two spin direction. Here is my argument for their assumption. Sliver atoms didn't dissociate into electrons and protons after the external magnetic field. How can they decide that it is because electron has two spin direction. I think the result of stern-gerlach experiment is due to electrons' orbital movement causing magnetic moment. All electrons' orbiting has only two directions in any atom. One is the same as proton's rotation; the other is the same as neutron's rotation. Please remember my 2D atom model. Thus, sliver atoms divided into two atom beams after the external magnetic field.
3. Schrodinger treat space and time differently
Space and time should be a continously 4D structure. However, Schrodinger's equation is based on discontinous absolute space-time. He differntial space twice and diffrential time once. Is this correct? This equation is not right. This eqaution disobeyed relativity principle.
4. My 2D atom model still allows 3D chemical formation
Although my atom model is a 2D model, 3D chemical formation is still possible. For example C2H4 or 2HCCH2. This new atom model can also explain chemical bond. For example: C2H4. We can rewrite this molecule 2HCCH2. If one carbon nucleus is spinning from east to west in the space. Then, its west side and east side can connect to one hydrogen atom, respectively. The electrons form the two hydrogen atoms won't receive any frame-dragging force(spinity) because they are in the middle plane of protons rotation and neutrons rotation in carbon nucleus. On the north pole of carbon nucleus, it can connect to the other carbon atom. The two electrons from the other carbon atom still receive no frame dragging force(spinity) from the first carbon nucleus. It is because spinity F=SJmWcosTheta/r^2. When Theta=90degree, the spinity F=0. Thus, all electrons in the "chemical bonds" receive no frame dragging force and no acceleration. Thus, the new molecular compond is stable. And, the electrons forming chamical bonds do not need to rotate around nucleus any more. They can be hold by the two connecting atom nucleus. When the other carbon atom is approaching, the first carbon atom's outtermost electron will be attracted to the north pole. Thus, a 3D c2H4 is formed.
I firmly think QM is wrong. Please see my first post for a new correct alternative atom model.
Here are my several points about quantum mechanics. I still firmly believe QM is wrong.
1. Computer doesn't need quantum mechanics(Schrodinger/Dirac equation)
Computer needs semiconductor and computer is based on several mechanism. First, basic chemistry. Semiconductor needs an electron donor and an electron receipent. Using basic chemistry can explain this well. Second, Pauli exclusion principle and de Broglie wave: I am not against Pauli principle and de Broglie hypothesis. I think electron has wave-particle duralty. And, Pauli's principle is an effective principle. I already explained this. Paired electrons need to have opposite spin direction to couple each other. When the paired electrons are seperated, they don't need to have opposite spin any more. Third, clasical electromagnetism. Maxwell equations are important for semiconductor physics. And, it is correct. Fourth, Schrodinger eqaution is not needed. You may use Schrodinger equation to calculate the free electron movement in a semiconductor. But, most textbooks warn you that you can not get it precisely. You can only get approximation. So, Schrodinger equation is not accurate and not necessary. And, Trippy, your computer doesn't need to rotate in a fatanstic double dounut/dumbbell orbit and jump via tunneling effect. If it does, I think your computer is a high IQ robot. It could be an evil terminator coming from the future.
2. About Stern-Gerlach experiment
Stern-Gerlach experiment assumed that electron has only two spin direction. Here is my argument for their assumption. Sliver atoms didn't dissociate into electrons and protons after the external magnetic field. How can they decide that it is because electron has two spin direction. I think the result of stern-gerlach experiment is due to electrons' orbital movement causing magnetic moment. All electrons' orbiting has only two directions in any atom. One is the same as proton's rotation; the other is the same as neutron's rotation. Please remember my 2D atom model. Thus, sliver atoms divided into two atom beams after the external magnetic field.
3. Schrodinger treat space and time differently
Space and time should be a continously 4D structure. However, Schrodinger's equation is based on discontinous absolute space-time. He differntial space twice and diffrential time once. Is this correct? This equation is not right. This eqaution disobeyed relativity principle.
4. My 2D atom model still allows 3D chemical formation
Although my atom model is a 2D model, 3D chemical formation is still possible. For example C2H4 or 2HCCH2. This new atom model can also explain chemical bond. For example: C2H4. We can rewrite this molecule 2HCCH2. If one carbon nucleus is spinning from east to west in the space. Then, its west side and east side can connect to one hydrogen atom, respectively. The electrons form the two hydrogen atoms won't receive any frame-dragging force(spinity) because they are in the middle plane of protons rotation and neutrons rotation in carbon nucleus. On the north pole of carbon nucleus, it can connect to the other carbon atom. The two electrons from the other carbon atom still receive no frame dragging force(spinity) from the first carbon nucleus. It is because spinity F=SJmWcosTheta/r^2. When Theta=90degree, the spinity F=0. Thus, all electrons in the "chemical bonds" receive no frame dragging force and no acceleration. Thus, the new molecular compond is stable. And, the electrons forming chamical bonds do not need to rotate around nucleus any more. They can be hold by the two connecting atom nucleus. When the other carbon atom is approaching, the first carbon atom's outtermost electron will be attracted to the north pole. Thus, a 3D c2H4 is formed.
I firmly think QM is wrong. Please see my first post for a new correct alternative atom model.
It would be better if you would write Fwkl etc in form F*w*k*l to understand what is mean...
I think your 2D model is riciulouse and wrong. It can't be absolutly 2D at least...
I now developing and trying new theory in which spin don't exist. Spin can be explained as lorenze force effect, when during lorence force electron vector is not line, but circle or very small of this circle, which creating some small(?) magnetic moment and it is observed like spin and this also can explain why it is quantized...
If electron flying around proton then he creating orbital amgnetic moment, but this magnetic momement - magnetic field - makes rotates proton (inducing proton) and then there is like double momement - orbital gyromagnetic e/(2*m) and proton rotation maked by orbital magnetism gyromagnetic e/(2*m) and thus total moment, which measure enshtein is e/(2*m)+e/(2*m) =e/m. Enshetin assume, that this is intrisic spin, but this is just orbital magnetic moment and inducted proton(s) magnetic moments (by orbital magnetism of electron). Also possible that ones electrons inducing over electrons and making them spining.
Schrodinger equation is wrong in most respects... And you are wrong wanchung saying, that it have more dimensions. It have 3 (space) dimenions, which are quantized in some respect... There no any disagree wwith logica and space time. There is double diferentiation because of acceleration and acceleration is energy, do you understand this? But schrodinger equation of course is very unprecisly, because quantum numbers somehow very roughly somthing explaining and describing some shapes, but this shapes are very primitive and thus wrong. They are taken from some spin angular emision lines experiments and thus it is very very aproximate model. But this aproximations in many respects can be wrong, because atom is not quantized, but have some very complex interactions...
Also I don't agree with you that wave-particle duality is right. It is absolutly wrong. Particles are particles and waves are waves.
I suggesting to solve schrodinger equation according to my formula
dF/dt=(d/dx)^2 F, for which solution is e^{v*x+E*t} and then E=0.5*m*v^2. If you will solve my "scrodiner" equation and will put the same quantum number then you will get they same result, which would be the same bullshit...
BTW, I can't understand what experiments can prove, that (particles with) spins are not small magnets? Why need those stupid quantizations? Just to be more quantum? If one is quantum then over must also be quantum... But if they all not quantum? My theory says, that they all not quantum...
I think your 2D model is riciulouse and wrong. It can't be absolutly 2D at least...
I now developing and trying new theory in which spin don't exist. Spin can be explained as lorenze force effect, when during lorence force electron vector is not line, but circle or very small of this circle, which creating some small(?) magnetic moment and it is observed like spin and this also can explain why it is quantized...
If electron flying around proton then he creating orbital amgnetic moment, but this magnetic momement - magnetic field - makes rotates proton (inducing proton) and then there is like double momement - orbital gyromagnetic e/(2*m) and proton rotation maked by orbital magnetism gyromagnetic e/(2*m) and thus total moment, which measure enshtein is e/(2*m)+e/(2*m) =e/m. Enshetin assume, that this is intrisic spin, but this is just orbital magnetic moment and inducted proton(s) magnetic moments (by orbital magnetism of electron). Also possible that ones electrons inducing over electrons and making them spining.
Schrodinger equation is wrong in most respects... And you are wrong wanchung saying, that it have more dimensions. It have 3 (space) dimenions, which are quantized in some respect... There no any disagree wwith logica and space time. There is double diferentiation because of acceleration and acceleration is energy, do you understand this? But schrodinger equation of course is very unprecisly, because quantum numbers somehow very roughly somthing explaining and describing some shapes, but this shapes are very primitive and thus wrong. They are taken from some spin angular emision lines experiments and thus it is very very aproximate model. But this aproximations in many respects can be wrong, because atom is not quantized, but have some very complex interactions...
Also I don't agree with you that wave-particle duality is right. It is absolutly wrong. Particles are particles and waves are waves.
I suggesting to solve schrodinger equation according to my formula
dF/dt=(d/dx)^2 F, for which solution is e^{v*x+E*t} and then E=0.5*m*v^2. If you will solve my "scrodiner" equation and will put the same quantum number then you will get they same result, which would be the same bullshit...
BTW, I can't understand what experiments can prove, that (particles with) spins are not small magnets? Why need those stupid quantizations? Just to be more quantum? If one is quantum then over must also be quantum... But if they all not quantum? My theory says, that they all not quantum...
BTW, wanchung, do you know what will be result in Stern-Gerlach experiment if one magnet will be removed? I mean if there will be not inomogenouse magnetic field, but homogenouse (with one magnet). What do you think then will be? Still will be obtained quantized two point or only on point?
QUOTE (wanchung+Jul 27 2008, 10:17 AM)
Here are my several points about quantum mechanics. I still firmly believe QM is wrong.
2. About Stern-Gerlach experiment
Stern-Gerlach experiment assumed that electron has only two spin direction. Here is my argument for their assumption. Sliver atoms didn't dissociate into electrons and protons after the external magnetic field. How can they decide that it is because electron has two spin direction. I think the result of stern-gerlach experiment is due to electrons' orbital movement causing magnetic moment.
Wrong again Wanchung......
'The actual experiment was carried out with a beam of silver atoms from a hot oven because they could be readily detected using a photographic emulsion. The silver atoms allowed Stern and Gerlach to study the magnetic properties of a single electron because these atoms have a single outer electron which moves in the Coulomb potential caused by the 47 protons of the nucleus shielded by the 46 inner electrons. Since this electron has ZERO orbital angular momentum (orbital quantum number l=0), one would expect there to be no interaction with an external magnetic field.'
However, this unpaired electron DID show two different quatization states....as evidenced by the experiment.
(Quote above taken from hyperphysics web site)
JW
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Jul 27 2008, 09:16 PM)
Wrong again Wanchung......
'The actual experiment was carried out with a beam of silver atoms from a hot oven because they could be readily detected using a photographic emulsion. The silver atoms allowed Stern and Gerlach to study the magnetic properties of a single electron because these atoms have a single outer electron which moves in the Coulomb potential caused by the 47 protons of the nucleus shielded by the 46 inner electrons. Since this electron has ZERO orbital angular momentum (orbital quantum number l=0), one would expect there to be no interaction with an external magnetic field.'
However, this unpaired electron DID show two different quatization states....as evidenced by the experiment.
(Quote above taken from hyperphysics web site)
JW
bla bla bla, do you realy believes in this? You even can't explain what will be if one magnet will be removed! This all schrodinger equation and quantum numbers wrong so you as well.
So, yes, neutron don't exist or his spin never was measured, which he then don't have. So chose between those two:
1) neutron don't exist;
2) neutron don't have spin.
or
3) circle flying or electron is not a 'spin'.
To not being egoistinc I giving from my textbook some atoms number of quantizations of 'spins' in magnetic field (only don't know is there diferent between homogenouse and inhomogenouse?(at least in picture showed inhomogenouse)) :
_____________| without magnetic field
_____________| Hg, Mg
___________|___| Ag, Na, K
_________|_|___|_| V
_______|_|_|___|_|_| Mn
______|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| Fe
Atoms of silver, aliuminium and Copper have two quantizations in magnetic field. For azot, hologenium is 4 quantizations. For oxygen - 5 quantizations. For Iron - 9. For cobalt - 10.
So magnesium (Mg) and Hg (mercury) don't have magnetic moments (spins). So how then nuclear force can hold then them nuclears without magnetic induction of protons? Well, either strong force is not spins or there is some sindicate of protons inside electrons shells, which are traped inside electrons shells... Or then nuclears holding electrons between protons.
Possible that mangeniusm don't have nuclear! Protons are flying in crayzy directions, but can't excape, because during excape process there protons becoming capturing individual electrons for themselfs and this makes protons magnetisation and they becoming atracting again each over and they are thus in such chaotic description... Also some electron between protons or with some protons creating maybe neutrons and this electrons between protons increasing strenght of holding force of nuclear with small density... Atoms which have more spins quantizations and of bigger size have stronger nuclear forces... thus then there is no chamistry, but rumbling of nature... Then all schrodinger equations a pure bullshit and all chemistry theories, which not based on experiments... More precisly only experiments can give one or another properties for some atoms and/or molecules... Possible then that uranium decay is not only charge forces from spliting nuclear, but also charge forces from weaker forces of new apeared nuclears, because induction of spins disapearing, when electrons number and konfiguraiotn/orentations changing... Then possible there is some radiation, but no kinetic energy... So then rambling of atoms is bigger than someone ever could to think or strong forces between nucleons realy exist... Neutron spin verification would be very great experiment, because then if neutron consist of proton and electron then lorence force should push this two particles in oposit direction and in big magnetic field fast neutron should decay and spin not observed... Only if neutron decaying and sciencists think that they found spin of neutron, but realy a proton and electron, but then there should be another trecks also depending if turn on electric field... Because if neutron spin is postulated like quarks, then this is not interesting...
1) neutron don't exist;
2) neutron don't have spin.
or
3) circle flying or electron is not a 'spin'.
To not being egoistinc I giving from my textbook some atoms number of quantizations of 'spins' in magnetic field (only don't know is there diferent between homogenouse and inhomogenouse?(at least in picture showed inhomogenouse)) :
_____________| without magnetic field
_____________| Hg, Mg
___________|___| Ag, Na, K
_________|_|___|_| V
_______|_|_|___|_|_| Mn
______|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| Fe
Atoms of silver, aliuminium and Copper have two quantizations in magnetic field. For azot, hologenium is 4 quantizations. For oxygen - 5 quantizations. For Iron - 9. For cobalt - 10.
So magnesium (Mg) and Hg (mercury) don't have magnetic moments (spins). So how then nuclear force can hold then them nuclears without magnetic induction of protons? Well, either strong force is not spins or there is some sindicate of protons inside electrons shells, which are traped inside electrons shells... Or then nuclears holding electrons between protons.
Possible that mangeniusm don't have nuclear! Protons are flying in crayzy directions, but can't excape, because during excape process there protons becoming capturing individual electrons for themselfs and this makes protons magnetisation and they becoming atracting again each over and they are thus in such chaotic description... Also some electron between protons or with some protons creating maybe neutrons and this electrons between protons increasing strenght of holding force of nuclear with small density... Atoms which have more spins quantizations and of bigger size have stronger nuclear forces... thus then there is no chamistry, but rumbling of nature... Then all schrodinger equations a pure bullshit and all chemistry theories, which not based on experiments... More precisly only experiments can give one or another properties for some atoms and/or molecules... Possible then that uranium decay is not only charge forces from spliting nuclear, but also charge forces from weaker forces of new apeared nuclears, because induction of spins disapearing, when electrons number and konfiguraiotn/orentations changing... Then possible there is some radiation, but no kinetic energy... So then rambling of atoms is bigger than someone ever could to think or strong forces between nucleons realy exist... Neutron spin verification would be very great experiment, because then if neutron consist of proton and electron then lorence force should push this two particles in oposit direction and in big magnetic field fast neutron should decay and spin not observed... Only if neutron decaying and sciencists think that they found spin of neutron, but realy a proton and electron, but then there should be another trecks also depending if turn on electric field... Because if neutron spin is postulated like quarks, then this is not interesting...
Hello, JW and DavidD,
My atom model is truth, not ridiculous!
And, I argue the interpretation of Stern-Gerlach experiment. Sliver atom did NOT dissociate into two electron beams after passing the external magnetic field. Sliver atom beam actually divided into TWO SLIVER ATOM BEAMS. Thus, it is wrong to use electron spin to explain their results. You said that the outermost electron has ZERO orbital angular momentum. I doubt this. As long as the outermost electron still orbits around the sliver nucleus, its orbital angular momentum still exists. IT IS NOT ZERO. Actually, I think their results are due to the orbital magnetic moment.
In my atom model, all electrons are orbiting in the same plane. However, they can have two direction. The first orbiting direction is like protons' rotation direction; the other orbiting direction is like neutrons' orbiting direction. The two directions have two opposite orbiting magnetic moment. Thus, when an atom beam passes through an external magnetic field, it will divide into two sub-beams. Thus, we can observe two beams in most atoms including H, Li, Na, K, Cu, Ag, Au.
However, I must emphasize that one beam should be stronger than the other. It is because the first beam is aligned to the external magnetic field direction. Thus, the first beam is stronger. Thus, we observed only one beam in Zn, Cd, Hg, Sn.
Most atoms' electrons have only two orbiting directions. However, it is still possible that different orbits in one atom can orbit in different direction. For example, atom O (atom number=8) has two orbits in my model: inner orbit and outer orbit. Assume + is clockwise rotation and assume - is couterclockwise rotation. Thus, atom O's two orbits can have ++, --,+-,-+,no deflection~five possibility. Thus, we observed 5 beams in atom O.
However, we need to point out that ferromagnetic material are different. I think their spinning electrons affect the beam division. Thus, Fe, Co, Mn, Gd's beams are different.
The current theory for Stern-Gerlach experiment is wrong. I think SG experiment can further prove my atom model is correct!
My atom model is truth, not ridiculous!
And, I argue the interpretation of Stern-Gerlach experiment. Sliver atom did NOT dissociate into two electron beams after passing the external magnetic field. Sliver atom beam actually divided into TWO SLIVER ATOM BEAMS. Thus, it is wrong to use electron spin to explain their results. You said that the outermost electron has ZERO orbital angular momentum. I doubt this. As long as the outermost electron still orbits around the sliver nucleus, its orbital angular momentum still exists. IT IS NOT ZERO. Actually, I think their results are due to the orbital magnetic moment.
In my atom model, all electrons are orbiting in the same plane. However, they can have two direction. The first orbiting direction is like protons' rotation direction; the other orbiting direction is like neutrons' orbiting direction. The two directions have two opposite orbiting magnetic moment. Thus, when an atom beam passes through an external magnetic field, it will divide into two sub-beams. Thus, we can observe two beams in most atoms including H, Li, Na, K, Cu, Ag, Au.
However, I must emphasize that one beam should be stronger than the other. It is because the first beam is aligned to the external magnetic field direction. Thus, the first beam is stronger. Thus, we observed only one beam in Zn, Cd, Hg, Sn.
Most atoms' electrons have only two orbiting directions. However, it is still possible that different orbits in one atom can orbit in different direction. For example, atom O (atom number=8) has two orbits in my model: inner orbit and outer orbit. Assume + is clockwise rotation and assume - is couterclockwise rotation. Thus, atom O's two orbits can have ++, --,+-,-+,no deflection~five possibility. Thus, we observed 5 beams in atom O.
However, we need to point out that ferromagnetic material are different. I think their spinning electrons affect the beam division. Thus, Fe, Co, Mn, Gd's beams are different.
The current theory for Stern-Gerlach experiment is wrong. I think SG experiment can further prove my atom model is correct!
Oh for gods sake.
Explain hyperfine coupling of Hydrogen-1 atoms (not molecules) without electron spin.
Tick-tock.
We're waiting.
Explain hyperfine coupling of Hydrogen-1 atoms (not molecules) without electron spin.
Tick-tock.
We're waiting.
And equally.
How the hell are you going to explain things like the forbidden trasnition of iron that gives glass its green colour when viewed as a bulk solid.
How do you explain high-spin and low-spin transition metal complexes without electron spin?
Gimme a break.
How the hell are you going to explain things like the forbidden trasnition of iron that gives glass its green colour when viewed as a bulk solid.
How do you explain high-spin and low-spin transition metal complexes without electron spin?
Gimme a break.
Wanchung, I still disagree with your 2D atom model and at least it is not so simple and nuclears effects (induction) must then added too... Mostly your model ridiculouse... Just my opinion, but I probably must agree with you that spin don't exist. I only recently understood, that this atoms "spins" can indirectly to say (to make conclusion), that in homogenouse magnetic field electron will acts the same as in inhomogenouse field... Because Accodring to my (previouse spin) model all spins should aling to closest magnetic field and always there should be only 2 quantizations and 4 and more quantizations of atoms according to my previouse model just can't be... Except maybe if some nucleasr spins somthing doing wrong, but no... There should be always only 2 quantizations of atoms and only in inhomogenouse magnetic field and in homogenouse magnetic field according to my previouse spin model, should be always only one quantization. Thus I now nothing can't do more, but only like reject my previsouse particle like magnet-spin model. Spin can be only indused by orbital magnetic moment - not more...
Thus spins must be lorence force and orbital magnetic moment effects. This then all can explain all this quantizations, I think! Yes, your atom 2D model in some respect is right, but this can't be explained with only postulates, because then your model will not be very precisly and not better than borh atom model... But I can't give any better explanations, than in previouse posts about induction of nuclears/protons/neutrons(which then consist of electron and proton)... Actualy all electrons want to fly in same 2D direction, but they chargeds pushing them and this disbalancing them and they becoming somthing like quantized 3D, because rotates very fast... So yes, I think spin don't exist, but inducted spin with orbital electron magnetic moment of nuclear/proton can be and this can explain tripy question about hydrogens spins coupling and this is actualy nuclears couplings and orbital magnetic momets couplings. And two hydrogen atoms fussing like two magnets! And in this case your 2D model would very nice all explain, because there they realy rotates very similarly like 2D, but not exactly, because of charge electrons/(protons) foces...
Here two hydrogen atoms scheme:
___e
SSSpNNN-SSSpNNN
____________e
think, that electron rotates about Hydrogen proton and creating orbtail magnetic moment, which then inducing proton and proton becomes rotates and there becoming hydrogen like tiny magnet and then those two magnets fussing.
Thus spins must be lorence force and orbital magnetic moment effects. This then all can explain all this quantizations, I think! Yes, your atom 2D model in some respect is right, but this can't be explained with only postulates, because then your model will not be very precisly and not better than borh atom model... But I can't give any better explanations, than in previouse posts about induction of nuclears/protons/neutrons(which then consist of electron and proton)... Actualy all electrons want to fly in same 2D direction, but they chargeds pushing them and this disbalancing them and they becoming somthing like quantized 3D, because rotates very fast... So yes, I think spin don't exist, but inducted spin with orbital electron magnetic moment of nuclear/proton can be and this can explain tripy question about hydrogens spins coupling and this is actualy nuclears couplings and orbital magnetic momets couplings. And two hydrogen atoms fussing like two magnets! And in this case your 2D model would very nice all explain, because there they realy rotates very similarly like 2D, but not exactly, because of charge electrons/(protons) foces...
Here two hydrogen atoms scheme:
___e
SSSpNNN-SSSpNNN
____________e
think, that electron rotates about Hydrogen proton and creating orbtail magnetic moment, which then inducing proton and proton becomes rotates and there becoming hydrogen like tiny magnet and then those two magnets fussing.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 29 2008, 06:28 PM)
So yes, I think spin don't exist, but inducted spin with orbital electron magnetic moment of nuclear/proton can be and this can explain tripy question about hydrogens spins coupling and this is actualy nuclears couplings and orbital magnetic momets couplings. And two hydrogen atoms fussing like two magnets! And in this case your 2D model would very nice all explain, because there they realy rotates very similarly like 2D, but not exactly, because of charge electrons/(protons) foces...
Here two hydrogen atoms scheme:
___e
SSSpNNN-SSSpNNN
____________e
think, that electron rotates about Hydrogen proton and creating orbtail magnetic moment, which then inducing proton and proton becomes rotates and there becoming hydrogen like tiny magnet and then those two magnets fussing.
Wrong.
The hyper fine transition is when the electron spin flips from being paralell to the proton spin, to being anti-paralell to the proton spin.
The forbidden transition of iron is an energy transition that also involves a spin-flip transition.
Here two hydrogen atoms scheme:
___e
SSSpNNN-SSSpNNN
____________e
think, that electron rotates about Hydrogen proton and creating orbtail magnetic moment, which then inducing proton and proton becomes rotates and there becoming hydrogen like tiny magnet and then those two magnets fussing.
Wrong.
The hyper fine transition is when the electron spin flips from being paralell to the proton spin, to being anti-paralell to the proton spin.
The forbidden transition of iron is an energy transition that also involves a spin-flip transition.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 29 2008, 06:49 AM)
Wrong.
The hyper fine transition is when the electron spin flips from being paralell to the proton spin, to being anti-paralell to the proton spin.
The forbidden transition of iron is an energy transition that also involves a spin-flip transition.
I think actualy nobody experimentaly know this transistions... This is just more theoretics rambling and they wished and imaginations...
I know (another way?) how to explain atoms quantizations. Some atoms are ions and some no. This atoms, which are ions (without few electrons) have some lorence force, which moving in circle and producing little orbital atom magnetic moment, which is identified like spin... So then Emited Mg and Hg atoms allways have 'all' electrons. Ag, Au, Na etc atoms don't have 1 electron or have 1 electron aditional... Thus they have 2 quantizations... Over atoms according to the same scheme have or don't ahve 2 electrons... Another don't have Fe for example 4 or have 4 electrons to much or electrons and protons number is equal and then there is 9 quantizations of Iron atom. Ha? How my model? Just excelent, huh?
The hyper fine transition is when the electron spin flips from being paralell to the proton spin, to being anti-paralell to the proton spin.
The forbidden transition of iron is an energy transition that also involves a spin-flip transition.
I think actualy nobody experimentaly know this transistions... This is just more theoretics rambling and they wished and imaginations...
I know (another way?) how to explain atoms quantizations. Some atoms are ions and some no. This atoms, which are ions (without few electrons) have some lorence force, which moving in circle and producing little orbital atom magnetic moment, which is identified like spin... So then Emited Mg and Hg atoms allways have 'all' electrons. Ag, Au, Na etc atoms don't have 1 electron or have 1 electron aditional... Thus they have 2 quantizations... Over atoms according to the same scheme have or don't ahve 2 electrons... Another don't have Fe for example 4 or have 4 electrons to much or electrons and protons number is equal and then there is 9 quantizations of Iron atom. Ha? How my model? Just excelent, huh?
Yes, it is possible to check my theory, that atoms spins is ions. Need to create filter of ions with magnetic lorence force or with charge force and then goes out only non ions atoms and then all atoms should have only one "quantization" like without magnetic field. OR possible to see does this atoms have the same number of quantizations in electrical field. There no problems to check my theory and would be surprizingly if nobody check it for stupidty or "quantum mechanical" reasons...
P.S. Why the Hell nobody know, do there is diference of behaving particles or atoms spins in homogenouse (one magnet) and inhomogneouse (two magnets) magnetic fields? This is very important for farther development of some theory!
P.S. Why the Hell nobody know, do there is diference of behaving particles or atoms spins in homogenouse (one magnet) and inhomogneouse (two magnets) magnetic fields?
This is very important for farther development of some theory!
Hello, Trippy,
You mislead me. I am not saying that electrons don't have spin.
What I say is the interpretation of Stern-Gerlach experiment is wrong.
Electron spin may not need to be quatitized into two states.
You mislead me. I am not saying that electrons don't have spin.
What I say is the interpretation of Stern-Gerlach experiment is wrong.
Electron spin may not need to be quatitized into two states.
QUOTE (wanchung+Jul 30 2008, 12:35 PM)
Hello, Trippy,
You mislead me. I am not saying that electrons don't have spin.
What I say is the interpretation of Stern-Gerlach experiment is wrong.
Electron spin may not need to be quatitized into two states.
I did no such thing.
The stern-gerlach experiment is not the only proof of electron spin quantization.
You mislead me. I am not saying that electrons don't have spin.
What I say is the interpretation of Stern-Gerlach experiment is wrong.
Electron spin may not need to be quatitized into two states.
I did no such thing.
The stern-gerlach experiment is not the only proof of electron spin quantization.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 30 2008, 01:09 AM)
The stern-gerlach experiment is not the only proof of electron spin quantization.
Are you kidding? Stern-gerlach experiment is not at all any prove about electron spin quantization. If you would perform it in hemogenouse magnetic field, then it would be prove and now it is not any prove and somewhy in all places and textbooks writen what in stern-gerlach experiment there is inhomogenouse field, for which I have my own very good circle lorence force theory... Particularly in my textbook writen, that Stern and gerlach by performing they experiment create magnets one like trinagle and over like quadrat with hole of over quadrat on egde so this means, that probably Stern-gerlach experiment don't have any relation with electron spin quantization and proton quantization. And actualy Stern-gerlach experiment was about silver atoms (which have two quantizations) and not about electrons or protons, because silver atoms is heavier probably and they acting like there one electron spin... But my theory anyway explaining all this quantizations - it is ion of silver atom. And actualy all silver atoms are positive ions, without one electron, which was emited by Stern and Gerlach. And this makes two quantizations into two directions depending to which magnet silver ion is closer. My theory is so briliant...
Are you kidding? Stern-gerlach experiment is not at all any prove about electron spin quantization. If you would perform it in hemogenouse magnetic field, then it would be prove and now it is not any prove and somewhy in all places and textbooks writen what in stern-gerlach experiment there is inhomogenouse field, for which I have my own very good circle lorence force theory... Particularly in my textbook writen, that Stern and gerlach by performing they experiment create magnets one like trinagle and over like quadrat with hole of over quadrat on egde so this means, that probably Stern-gerlach experiment don't have any relation with electron spin quantization and proton quantization. And actualy Stern-gerlach experiment was about silver atoms (which have two quantizations) and not about electrons or protons, because silver atoms is heavier probably and they acting like there one electron spin... But my theory anyway explaining all this quantizations - it is ion of silver atom. And actualy all silver atoms are positive ions, without one electron, which was emited by Stern and Gerlach. And this makes two quantizations into two directions depending to which magnet silver ion is closer. My theory is so briliant...
Here http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/quantummechanic...n.htm#Electrons http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/quantummechanic...ies/stern10.mpg shown, that electrons is not quantized 
Hi, Trippy,
Would you please tell me other experiments about spin quantitization?
Wanchung
Would you please tell me other experiments about spin quantitization?
Wanchung
Hi wanchung,
Interesting theory you have there, could you please explain cyclopentane (C5H10) using your model?
Interesting theory you have there, could you please explain cyclopentane (C5H10) using your model?
QUOTE (wanchung+Jul 31 2008, 01:05 AM)
Hi, Trippy,
Would you please tell me other experiments about spin quantitization?
Wanchung
I know one, atom emision line in magnetic field spliting into two lineslike here
___| without magnetic field
_|___| with magnetic field
But I don't think that this is due to spin... Just changing orbital magnetic moment depending on it orentation in space...
Interesting how you would explain it with schrodinger equation, which is absolutly wrong and holds on postulates of idioticy?
Would you please tell me other experiments about spin quantitization?
Wanchung
I know one, atom emision line in magnetic field spliting into two lineslike here
___| without magnetic field
_|___| with magnetic field
But I don't think that this is due to spin... Just changing orbital magnetic moment depending on it orentation in space...
QUOTE
Hi wanchung,
Interesting theory you have there, could you please explain cyclopentane (C5H10) using your model?
Interesting theory you have there, could you please explain cyclopentane (C5H10) using your model?
Interesting how you would explain it with schrodinger equation, which is absolutly wrong and holds on postulates of idioticy?
I've already given several examples that are most easily explained with quantized electron spin.
A further example is the behaviour of emission spectra in strong magnetic fields.
I have yet to see either o fyou justify your positions with anything other then "I don't like the schroedinger wave equation".
A further example is the behaviour of emission spectra in strong magnetic fields.
I have yet to see either o fyou justify your positions with anything other then "I don't like the schroedinger wave equation".
Your example not proved with experiment.
Emision lines in magnetic field is due to orbital magnetic moment of electron, atoms... I say it already. Or just ions motions and answers are very much and not nessasary ti is spin. With my model I think it is not hard to explain, that spin and charge don't exist.
Emision lines in magnetic field is due to orbital magnetic moment of electron, atoms... I say it already. Or just ions motions and answers are very much and not nessasary ti is spin. With my model I think it is not hard to explain, that spin and charge don't exist.
Hi, Geoff Mollusc,
To explain C5H10 is like to explain CH4's structure.
We can view the X structure with carbon atom in the center of X.
The > means that the carbon atom binds two hydrogen atoms in its north pole and south pole.
The other < means that the carbon atom binds two carbon atoms in the horizontal plane (front and back).
The protons of the carbon atom can be located in the right side of center of X. And the carbon nucleus is rotating from north pole to south pole.
Paired electrons are located between two atoms, so there are no net Coulomb force.
And. there will be bond angles because only proton half of nucleus can bind to the other four atoms.
To explain C5H10 is like to explain CH4's structure.
We can view the X structure with carbon atom in the center of X.
The > means that the carbon atom binds two hydrogen atoms in its north pole and south pole.
The other < means that the carbon atom binds two carbon atoms in the horizontal plane (front and back).
The protons of the carbon atom can be located in the right side of center of X. And the carbon nucleus is rotating from north pole to south pole.
Paired electrons are located between two atoms, so there are no net Coulomb force.
And. there will be bond angles because only proton half of nucleus can bind to the other four atoms.
I think it is iliusion that schrodinger equation can somthing explain of chemistry, maybe some hydrogen atom, which according to my theory don't exist, because at least must be two ramblions ("electron" and "proton"). Hydrogen atom is proton. Deuterium atom is hydrogen. Thus all this borh postulates about quantization is bullshit and this principal number, because deuterium is not quantized at all...
Hello, Dan-O and AlphaNumeric,
Please read my main article here.
You will find out that my model is correct and quantum mechanics is wrong!
Please read my main article here.
You will find out that my model is correct and quantum mechanics is wrong!
QUOTE (wanchung+Aug 5 2008, 10:08 PM)
Hello, Dan-O and AlphaNumeric,
Please read my main article here.
You will find out that my model is correct and quantum mechanics is wrong!
Wanchung is wrong.
Quantum mechanics is right.
How you expect explain Benzen geometry and structure without quantum mechanic?
Please read my main article here.
You will find out that my model is correct and quantum mechanics is wrong!
Wanchung is wrong.
Quantum mechanics is right.
How you expect explain Benzen geometry and structure without quantum mechanic?
Quantum mechanics has been verified by many experiments. The prediction of the Bohr radius of the Hydrogen atom is correct with a very small error. This is why quantum mechanics is not wrong. It is right.
On a side note. When Wanchung tells you he's a PhD candidate it's completely true, however, he's a PhD candidate in International Health at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health
On a side note. When Wanchung tells you he's a PhD candidate it's completely true, however, he's a PhD candidate in International Health at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health
QUOTE (wanchung+Aug 5 2008, 11:08 AM)
You will find out that my model is correct and quantum mechanics is wrong!
Define 'wrong' because we have close to 100 years of experiment which says it's pretty damn good.
Define 'wrong' because we have close to 100 years of experiment which says it's pretty damn good.
I agree with wanchung, because quantum mechanic is total bullshit, especialy everything what is realted with atom and schriodnger equation...
Do you sow this geometry with microscope or somthing? Don't claim things, which are just nice theory in your head and textbook and in real world was not proved! 
QUOTE
How you expect explain Benzen geometry and structure without quantum mechanic?
Do you sow this geometry with microscope or somthing?
Don't claim things, which are just nice theory in your head and textbook and in real world was not proved!
QUOTE (DavidD+Aug 6 2008, 12:13 AM)
I agree with wanchung, because quantum mechanic is total bullshit, especialy everything what is realted with atom and schriodnger equation...
Do you sow this geometry with microscope or somthing? Don't claim things, which are just nice theory in your head and textbook and in real world was not proved!
In real world, has been proved repeatedly through experimentation.
Problem exists in your head only.
Do you sow this geometry with microscope or somthing?
Don't claim things, which are just nice theory in your head and textbook and in real world was not proved! In real world, has been proved repeatedly through experimentation.
Problem exists in your head only.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 5 2008, 06:46 PM)
In real world, has been proved repeatedly through experimentation.
Problem exists in your head only.
Somewhy when talk going about proved real experiments it before begining endings with talks about quantum ociliator...
Problem exists in your head only.
Somewhy when talk going about proved real experiments it before begining endings with talks about quantum ociliator...
QUOTE (DavidD+Aug 6 2008, 06:01 PM)
Somewhy when talk going about proved real experiments it before begining endings with talks about quantum ociliator...
genuine gibberish.
genuine gibberish.
My interpretation for Stern-Gerlach experiment:
I think the result of Stern-Gerlach experiment is due to the orbital magnetic moment caused by orbiting electrons. I will deduct this in below:
Uz=(-e/2m)*L
Since quantization of angular momentum, the smallest L=nh'=1h'
Uz=(-e/2m)*h'
a=f/M=Uz*(1/M)*(dB/dZ)=(eh'/2m)*(dB/dZ)*(1/M)
S=1/2at^2=(eh'/4m)*(dB/dZ)*(1/M)*(d^2/V^2)
My result is the same as observed results!
I think the result of Stern-Gerlach experiment is due to the orbital magnetic moment caused by orbiting electrons. I will deduct this in below:
Uz=(-e/2m)*L
Since quantization of angular momentum, the smallest L=nh'=1h'
Uz=(-e/2m)*h'
a=f/M=Uz*(1/M)*(dB/dZ)=(eh'/2m)*(dB/dZ)*(1/M)
S=1/2at^2=(eh'/4m)*(dB/dZ)*(1/M)*(d^2/V^2)
My result is the same as observed results!
quantizations are due to ions "Quantizations"... more charged ions creating by lorence force rotation circle, which then atracting like some orbital moment...
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.