Hi Joe, Thanks for the questions… and be gentle!! J Remember, this is a qualitative model, not quantitative… but at least its built on physical things and forces and cause and effect. Not esoteric mathematics, and infinities, and renormalization, etc…
“You're idea is that the electron oscillates through the nucleus, not around it?” Yep, not around it. That is the apparent motion because we are trying to ‘see’ something that is moving infinitely faster than our “camera’s shutter speed and flash are capable of operating at”… similar to the averaged out image as shown in my original posting. Using the simple example of the H atom, since it only has one proton and one e-, and using a physical model of say, a dipole for the shape of the e- oscillation, the center of the dipole is pinned at the center of the nucleus but able to rotate about the center in all three dimensions. In a free H atom, in a vacuum chamber, not influenced by outside objects or fields, but due to subtle interactions with the proton oscillations, the e- oscillation will randomly rotate about that center and OVER TIME, the averaged-out shape that our detectors gives us will be in the form of a sphere. That’s where the lack of resolution (on a length AND TIME basis) in how we’ve probed atomic structure has led to useful, but not physically accurate, models. It’s also the reason why the probabilistic model (QM) was more accurate than the classical model… “How does that change your picture of the quantised angular momentum?” As far as quantization of angular momentum, or quantization of any atomic property is concerned, that’s simply due to the fact that we’re dealing with oscillations and their harmonic relationships. The tone (frequency) of sound, in and of itself, can certainly be a continuous (analog) phenomenon to our ears, however, for a musical instrument to sound pleasant to us requires that it be tuned in a discrete and quantized manner so that certain combinations of notes have harmonic (resonant) relationships. But not all the notes. In fact, there are probably more discordant combinations than concordant ones, even in a properly tuned instrument. Not sure if that answers your question, but there’s some additional explanation a little later involving an oscillation of potential-E to Kinetic-E. I’m kind of just doing stream of consciousness here, so it might not be a real coherent explanation… sorry. When an e- oscillation absorbs a specific amount of energy (in absorption spectroscopy, a specific wavelength of light), its frequency of oscillation becomes discordant to the proton’s oscillation and its amplitude and frequency changes to a different harmonic that maintains concordance with the proton oscillation’s frequency. Its dipole shape just got longer. We’ve got an ‘excited’ electron jumping to a higher energy level! If the electron absorbs too much energy, it cannot find a concordant frequency and breaks away from the proton oscillation… ionization. The higher frequency e- oscillations of the inner e- ‘shells’ means they are traversing the ‘nucleus’ more frequently, thus, creating a stronger coupling to the proton oscillations in the ‘nucleus’, and thus, harder to break them loose… stronger coupling = higher ionization energies. All this talk of ‘oscillations’… but oscillations of what? It has many names… the ‘aether’, the zero-point field, quantum foam, virtual particles??? Who knows… We have to start with something… and build up from there. I guess my model of the vacuum of space, the aether, is a fluid that is under extreme pressure/tension, and virtually no viscosity, thus, when you ‘pluck a small area of it’ as you would a stringed instrument, it sets up a local, physically constrained oscillation that will last for a very long time… what’s the lifetime of a free proton? 10^30 years? I don’t know if I’ve done an adequate job of answering your questions, but it’s a start… One more thought before I go to bed… If the e- oscillation is more or less shaped like a dipole, where the oscillation’s motion takes it thru the nucleus, like all oscillations, it must slow down and reverse direction on opposite sides of the nucleus. So, when its traversing the nucleus, it has attained its highest velocity and traverses the nucleus very quickly, whereas when its slowing down and reversing direction, it is thus spending the vast majority of its time at the extents of its oscillation, and that is where you’d be most likely to detect it… and that explains how the model of the electron is a ‘probability’ of finding it at certain places, and where we are most likely to detect it, repeatedly over time, would have the shape of spherical shells or orbitals. Again, that’s what you’d see when the movement is averaged over time, however, the shape of a single oscillation would be quite different. Well, maybe one more thought… J What are the ends of the dipole? Getting back to the above paragraph of just what’s oscillating… and the aether being under tremendous stress/tension, perhaps one end of the dipole is a region of higher pressure, the other, lower pressure. These regions cause the surrounding aether to ‘polarize’ in some manner which helps to contain the regions from expanding or contracting infinitely, and thus, dissipating. Just looking at one side of the dipole, at the exact maximum extent of the oscillation, aether flow has been converted to a higher pressure region, but the polarized surrounding aether pushes back and causes the aether in this localized region to flow backward in the opposite direction. So higher pressure is converted to flow, flow back to higher pressure… potential-E to kinetic-E to potential-E. no movement, to movement, to no movement... Get two of these electron oscillations which are close to 180 degrees out of phase, and the oscillations couple together… ‘filled inner shell’. This is also where the exclusion principle comes into the picture… oh, and the polarization of the surrounding aether results in what we know as a magnetic field which is perpendicular to the e- oscillation… which explains why the e-Fld and B-fld are perpendicular to each other in an EM wave. Ok, this is really the last thought for the night… promise. There is evidence of the harmonic relationships all over the place… There was another recent article on PhysOrg that talked about how a photon of heat energy was transferred from one atom to another; this done at near 0K. One atom, presumably the one without the photon of heat, was not ‘wobbling’; the other atom was. When the photon was transferred to the non-wobbling atom, it began to wobble and the atom that lost the photon stopped wobbling. The single photon unbalances the harmonic relationship between the electron and proton oscillations, thus causing the wobbling. When that extra energy gets shed, and the oscillations are perfectly harmonically related, the atom doesn’t wobble… of course, this is the extreme and not normal condition since 0K is not the norm, and all the models of mainstream science were established before we could get anywhere near 0K, so the models were developed by looking at matter which is always in a state of some level of discordance… the atoms are always wobbling! What’s happens when you remove all the heat? The wobbling of all the atoms stops and their oscillation frequencies are all the same… Bose-Einstein Condensation. I better stop there and get some sleep… I could go on all night. -mark From: Dr Joe Karthauser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]: Another advancement toward an atomic 'strobe-light'... On 23 Sep 2011, at 02:33, "Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint" <[email protected]> wrote: According to my model, I would be willing to bet that one would see the electron move thru the nucleus with every oscillation… but it traverses the center region much more quickly than when it reaches the outer bounds of its oscillation where it has to slow down and reverse direction. <AtomicStrobe-light_02.jpg> Hey Mark, You're idea is that the electron oscillates through the nucleus, not around it? How does that change your picture of the quantised angular momentum? Thanks Joe
