h a l f b a k e r yFree set of rusty screwdrivers if you order now.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Is the electron in the atom really moving?
I propose that everything is still, a sort of solidified state, except for energy forcing change. Electrons and other fundamental particles are welded into current position unless the various forms on energy push a position change such as use or observation
by humans or other energy shakes as we are flung through the universe.
Rather than modelling an electron as a cloud just model one position as solid, This is equal as any other position probability but it is the way the atom is a one point in time rather than trying to model the atom at all times.
The model of the atom should be a picture of the atom at one point of time showing the instantaneous links between fundamental particles.The strongest field dynamics should be shown as solid struts.
It is until it changes.
Casimir effect
https://en.wikipedi...wiki/Casimir_effect
Relevant to "neutral" volumes at the quantum level. [8th of 7, Oct 12 2020]
[link]
|
| |
Are you trying to postulate a synthesis of macroscopic Newtonian mechanics with quantum electrodynamics ? |
|
| |
//Are you trying to postulate a synthesis of macroscopic
Newtonian mechanics with quantum electrodynamics ?// |
|
| |
Yea, are you trying to postulate a synthesis of macroscopic
Newtonian mechanics with quantum electrodynamics ? |
|
| |
Not as yet, too many arguements to argue with. I would like another picture/model of an atom from a different perspective. |
|
| |
This perspective is not of the electrons themselves but the acts, vector force* at an instantaneous point in time. These actors are shown as solid. One such actor is the interaction - of the electron and +'s of the nucleus . |
|
| |
My imagine says it would look more like a plasma ball with it's arcs, a spiky virus or a Sacred geometry with missing edges. |
|
| |
Feynman Diagrams are a clarification, the atom and it's parts are still at the very least a 3 dimensional object. The fields are at least 3D. Or have a 3D protrusion. |
|
| |
*not really force vector in Newtonian sense, field pressure? |
|
| |
// a Sacred geometry with missing edges. // |
|
| |
You mean like the Kabbalah diagram ? Well, that does resemble - superficially - the QED quark "family tree" ... |
|
| |
// The fields are at least 3D. // |
|
| |
Your grasp of fundamental physics is like watching a dolphin trying to play a trombone ... |
|
| |
I take it you've never seen the Incredible Dolphin
Trombone Trio in action? They do a great rendition
of Fiddler Crab On The Roof. |
|
| |
//Your grasp of fundamental physics is like watching a
dolphin trying to play a trombone ...// |
|
| |
// Fiddler Crab On The Roof // |
|
| |
Oy vey ! Enough with the fish puns already... |
|
| |
Worse, Jewish fish puns. No doubt there's Lox more where that came from. |
|
| |
//Oy vey ! Enough with the fish puns already...// |
|
| |
Yes, make those fish puns go oy vey. |
|
| |
How does Moses make tea?
Hebrews it... |
|
| |
Meh, quit yer carping. It was either that or Kvetch of the day. |
|
| |
The current cloud model shows electrons where they could be. Where's public knowledge model/diagram of the atom showing or explaining what's holding the electron at a given position? |
|
| |
// Enough with the fish puns// Haddock enough? |
|
| |
Let me know when the puns have tailed off and I'll engage with the idea. |
|
| |
I sort of took in a video explaining Einstein's inertial reference frame and saw the similarities with charge. So like space time the charge fabric is energetically leaning towards neural but negative needs positive to actually make a volume that looks neutral. |
|
| |
Nice, Casimir diagram, I sure we will eventually have the realizations and artistry show more of the Casimir is. A picture is a thousand words even if it is just one complicated force/area calculation. |
|
| |