Neutrons - Can they be replaced? - Page 4

PixyMisa · 10th August 2012, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Is it possible to get rid of the neutrons in the atom model?

No. Neutrons are real, and are included in all atomic nuclei except ¹H.

Wowbagger · 10th August 2012, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Sounds rather ad hoc to me.

Don't worry. Your "simple" model will suffer the same fate, in time.

Reality is always going to be complicated. And, it doesn't care if people think it works in ways that might sound "ad hoc" to you.

svenax · 10th August 2012, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Lol. The Lindman particle. Where the heck is my Nobel Prize?

And here I thought you were aiming for the Ig Nobel prize.

svenax · 11th August 2012, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

But, physics has to deal with reality. If reality happens to be "messy", there is nothing you can do about it. If you try to start from scratch, it will only get messy, again, before you're done with the new model.

Of course there is. Hasn't it many times been said that "I reject your reality and substitute my own"?

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by frskeptic

Spectral lines are a representation of the energies that the electrons around the nucleus can take, they are bound by quantum mechanical laws.
I the photon has the right energy to get an electron from one state to another, it has a chance of being absorbed, and thus will get you a black spectrla line for example.
Colorful spectral lines (e.g. hydrogen lamps) are due to this : You excite your atom with a large band of energy (thermal, electric, whatever), some of this energy will excite electrons to a higher energy level, and the energy will decay to the lowest energy level by emitting the photon that corresponds to the difference in energy.
Energy is absorbed through various means in matter, the excitation of electrons that create spectral lines is not the only mechanisms. There is vibration of the system, what we call phonons (heat) for example.

If energy can be absorbed by other means, then a if a photon has a higher energy than the electron can take by jumping to one level and lower energy than the next level ofter that, then some of the energy is 'shaved' off into heat (phonons etc) so that energy for jump + heat = photon energy. Ok, that sounds reasonable.

In my model the electron is standing waves around the nucleus in a two-dimensional spherical shape. This means that only exactly n² whole waves (360 degrees) can fit around the electron sphere. The square is because it's a surface (2D) instead of just a circle (1D).

Kid Eager · 11th August 2012, 12:11 AM

I think we're on a winner here:

The Lindman Theory posits that "Neutrons are not really neutrons because of no particular reason, but are instead Nevilles, which are just like neutrons and do the same job but aren't really neutrons and oh by the way the rest of atomic theory isn't quite right either because I think it's different."

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

No. Neutrons are real, and are included in all atomic nuclei except ¹H.

An exception again? That sounds suspicious. In my model deuterium for example, is an atom with two nucletrons while hydrogen is an atom with one nucletron. So deuterium in my model is a different chemical element than hydrogen.

a_unique_person · 11th August 2012, 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I'm removing a particle: the neutron. A helium atom in the standard model has two protons and two neutrons. In my model a helium atom has four protons of zero charge.

If a proton doesn't have a charge, it's not a proton any more.

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 12:40 AM

I haven't checked this yet, but a simple prediction my model makes is that the number of nucleons (protons plus neutrons) for the chemical elements in the periodic table plus all their isotopes will follow the natural numbers (positive integers) up to a certain number N, such as: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... N.

In the standard model periodic table there is no such sequence, and instead isotopes fill up gaps in the sequence of number of nucleons in each atom.

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

If a proton doesn't have a charge, it's not a proton any more.

Yes, that has been discussed already. I now call the neutrally charged particles in the nucleus nucletrons.

Ziggurat · 11th August 2012, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Yes, that has been discussed already. I now call the neutrally charged particles in the nucleus nucletrons.

We know protons exist. They exist singly, we can measure their properties, they can be absorbed by nuclei, and they can be emitted by nuclei.

We know neutrons exist. They exist singly, we can measure their properties, they can be absorbed by nuclei, and they can be emitted by nuclei.

You want to simplify nuclear physics, but everything you're trying to do will only complicate it without even being able to reproduce standard results. You're trying to develop a theory in which neither neutrons nor protons even exist within nuclei, even though we see them outside of nuclei. They simply pop into and out of existence, because... well, because you felt like it. How in the world can you even think that this would simplify anything?

Your theory is not even wrong. Give it up already, you have no clue what you're talking about and you have zero chance of stumbling upon any great insight by random chance.

Ziggurat · 11th August 2012, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I haven't checked this yet

Why didn't you check it before coming here and telling us all about this idea of yours which has no empirical support?

PixyMisa · 11th August 2012, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

An exception again?

NO.

Quote:

That sounds suspicious. In my model deuterium for example, is an atom with two nucletrons while hydrogen is an atom with one nucletron. So deuterium in my model is a different chemical element than hydrogen.

Then your model is wrong.

stevea · 11th August 2012, 01:10 AM

Examine neutron beta decay. In some sense a neutron is a semi-stable melange of a proton, an electron a neutrino and some energy. Accounting for these and the mass defect we can obtain the mass difference between proton & neutron, but we can factor any baryon in many different way. This is a closed-minded and shallow way of thinking about things and leads nowhere useful; No - neutrons are not just effeminate protons.

shadron · 11th August 2012, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

But remember that the quantum model is based on the assumption that neutrons are real. What if that assumption is wrong?

Did you miss the part about the "way too much evidence"? It's not an assumption.

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why didn't you check it before coming here and telling us all about this idea of yours which has no empirical support?

Because I would have to enumerate all the chemical elements and all their isotopes. That's tedious work.

A simpler prediction is that there are no isotopes with the number of nucleons equal to that of a chemical element in the periodic table. I checked this, and carbon 14 (¹⁴C) has 14 nucleons, which is the same number as the number of nucleons for the chemical element nitrogen.

This falsifies my model. Unless carbon-14 is a hoax.

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 01:45 AM

How can this be possible?

"Carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 through beta decay." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14

"In nuclear physics, beta decay is a type of radioactive decay in which a beta particle (an electron or a positron) is emitted from an atom." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay

How can carbon turn into nitrogen by emitting an electron or positron? That doesn't compute. How could that cause a neutron to become a proton?

Kid Eager · 11th August 2012, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

How can this be possible?

"Carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 through beta decay." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14

"In nuclear physics, beta decay is a type of radioactive decay in which a beta particle (an electron or a positron) is emitted from an atom." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay

How can carbon turn into nitrogen by emitting an electron or positron? That doesn't compute. How could that cause a neutron to become a proton?

like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

This seems dubious:

"The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

Antimatter? Sounds more like science fiction than science.

dlorde · 11th August 2012, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

It was a serious question! Has the electric charge of protons been experimentally verified?

Google foo failed again? Try this.

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 03:12 AM

"Billions of particles of anti-matter created in laboratory

LIVERMORE, Calif. – Take a gold sample the size of the head of a push pin, shoot a laser through it, and suddenly more than 100 billion particles of anti-matter appear." -- https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleas...-08-11-03.html

This is how the positrons were measured:

"However, the plasma jet does not contain the total amount of positrons generated, such as those still in the target. The data recorded from the spectrometers is compared with computer simulations to infer how many pairs were created overall. Chen and Wilks directly detected more than 1 million particles per laser shot. They infer that a total of about 100 billion positron particles were produced." -- https://str.llnl.gov/JulAug09/pdfs/07.09.3.pdf

The difference between 1 million and 100 billion is 5 orders of magnitude. It could just as well have been noise that Chen measured I think. And the use of a computer model similar to the one Al Gore used to show a hockey stick graph for global warming. I don't buy it.

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by dlorde

Google foo failed again? Try this.

I have tried that. I didn't do many searches but I couldn't find anything then.

dlorde · 11th August 2012, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

In my model the electron is standing waves around the nucleus in a two-dimensional spherical shape. This means that only exactly n² whole waves (360 degrees) can fit around the electron sphere. The square is because it's a surface (2D) instead of just a circle (1D).

Add geometry to the list of what Anders doesn't understand.

I was going to suggest this thread was moved to Humor, but it's become a little sad & disturbing.

Brian-M · 11th August 2012, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

It was a serious question! Has the electric charge of protons been experimentally verified?

One thing particle physicists like to do is accelerate protons to near-light velocity and smash them into things. But particle accelerators use electromagnetic fields to accelerate particles, which means only charged particles can be accelerated. Neutrons and neutrinos cannot be accelerated because they have no charge.

The fact that protons have an electric charge is experimentally verified thousands of times a year in different particle accelerators around the world.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

A photon is simply a wave in space at a certain frequency.

Great idea, but it raises the question as to what medium the wave is propagating through. A wave needs a medium to exist. The same applies for all the other particles that you're also claiming are waves.

Perhaps you could propose the idea that space is not simply vacuum, but is actually permeated by some kind of luminous aether that we cannot directly observe.

Hey... we could also try doing some experiments, such as calculating the speed at which we're passing through the aether by comparing the measurable speed of light in different directions?

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

An exception again? That sounds suspicious. In my model deuterium for example, is an atom with two nucletrons while hydrogen is an atom with one nucletron. So deuterium in my model is a different chemical element than hydrogen.

In that case you should refer to that isotope by it's proper name, protium. The word hydrogen refers to both protium and deuterium.

But if you're going to have every possible isotope as a different chemical element, I'd like to see what the table of elements looks like in your system.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I haven't checked this yet, but a simple prediction my model makes is that the number of nucleons (protons plus neutrons) for the chemical elements in the periodic table plus all their isotopes will follow the natural numbers (positive integers) up to a certain number N, such as: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... N.

In the standard model periodic table there is no such sequence, and instead isotopes fill up gaps in the sequence of number of nucleons in each atom.

So on your table of elements, the element 204 would include stable isotopes of both lead and mercury? And element 114 would include stable isotopes of both tin and cadmium? And element 50 would include stable isotopes of both titanium and chromium? (I won't even get started on the unstable isotopes.)

That'd certainly make chemistry... interesting.

PixyMisa · 11th August 2012, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

This seems dubious:

"The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

Antimatter? Sounds more like science fiction than science.

Only if you are spectacularly ignorant.

PET scans, used in medicine for thirty years? Use antimatter.

dlorde · 11th August 2012, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

The fact that protons have an electric charge is experimentally verified thousands of times a year in different particle accelerators around the world.

Also, since protons and electrons have equal and opposite charges (together they have zero charge), measuring the charge on an electron does the job, e.g. Experimental Measurements of the Elementary Charge.

PixyMisa · 11th August 2012, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

How can this be possible?

"Carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 through beta decay." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14

"In nuclear physics, beta decay is a type of radioactive decay in which a beta particle (an electron or a positron) is emitted from an atom." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay

How can carbon turn into nitrogen by emitting an electron or positron? That doesn't compute. How could that cause a neutron to become a proton?

Proton charge is +1.
Neutron charge is 0.
Electron charge is -1.

If a neutron decays and emits an electron (and a neutrino, which is how the process works), it is left with a charge of +1 and exactly the same mass as a proton. In fact, it is a proton.

Perhaps you should learn this very basic stuff before you propose a new "hypothesis"?

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 03:46 AM

Originally Posted by dlorde

Add geometry to the list of what Anders doesn't understand.

I was going to suggest this thread was moved to Humor, but it's become a little sad & disturbing.

If a standing wave is fitted onto a spherical surface, then with 1 period it will form one crest and and trough on the surface. With 2 periods it forms 4 crests and 4 troughs. With 3 periods it will form 9 crests and 9 troughs. And so on in the form N² where N is the number of periods.

Here is a 1-dimensional version:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standing_wave_2.gif

Standing Waves Generated by String Vibration - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no7ZPPqtZEg

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Only if you are spectacularly ignorant.

PET scans, used in medicine for thirty years? Use antimatter.

That's gamma rays they detect. That's photons, not antimatter.

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Proton charge is +1.
Neutron charge is 0.
Electron charge is -1.

If a neutron decays and emits an electron (and a neutrino, which is how the process works), it is left with a charge of +1 and exactly the same mass as a proton. In fact, it is a proton.

Perhaps you should learn this very basic stuff before you propose a new "hypothesis"?

Whoops. Yes, I got it backwards.

When the decay of a neutron happens it must be an electron that's emitted, not a positron.

Still, why are only some neutrons unstable and decay?

dlorde · 11th August 2012, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

If a standing wave is fitted onto a spherical surface, then with 1 period it will form one crest and and trough on the surface. With 2 periods it forms 4 crests and 4 troughs. With 3 periods it will form 9 crests and 9 troughs. And so on in the form N² where N is the number of periods.

How is that in any way an explanation of your "two-dimensional spherical shape" and 1D circle ? A sphere is, by definition, 3D. A circle is, by definition, 2D.

Kid Eager · 11th August 2012, 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

That's gamma rays they detect. That's photons, not antimatter.

You really are determined to hand over your own head on a platter, aren't you? Pixy is 100% correct, and your selective non-response indicates that you probably known she's right.

Troll threads are fun though, as long as nobody starts running with scissors....

GeneMachine · 11th August 2012, 03:59 AM

Before spamming your "all known physics is wrong" bat-guano crazy threads all over, you might really want to learn something about physics first.

Guys, don't feed it.

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Great idea, but it raises the question as to what medium the wave is propagating through. A wave needs a medium to exist. The same applies for all the other particles that you're also claiming are waves.

Perhaps you could propose the idea that space is not simply vacuum, but is actually permeated by some kind of luminous aether that we cannot directly observe.

Hey... we could also try doing some experiments, such as calculating the speed at which we're passing through the aether by comparing the measurable speed of light in different directions?

Correct. Space is not a complete vacuum but consists of vacuum energy:

"Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when the space is devoid of matter (free space). The concept of vacuum energy has been deduced from the concept of virtual particles, which is itself derived from the energy-time uncertainty principle. The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the van der Waals bonds[citation needed] and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

And yes, such experiment would be possible to do. Take the light from stars in a galaxy for example. The light from a star on the 'left' side of the galaxy would have different velocity that the light from a star on the 'right' side of the galaxy, when the galaxy is flat (thin) towards Earth. I don't know if any instruments with precision enough for that exist today though.

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by dlorde

How is that in any way an explanation of your "two-dimensional spherical shape" and 1D circle ? A sphere is, by definition, 3D. A circle is, by definition, 2D.

The surface of the sphere is 2D. A circle is a 1D line in a loop. A filled circle is 2D, and a filled sphere is 3D.

Brian-M · 11th August 2012, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by dlorde

Also, since protons and electrons have equal and opposite charges (together they have zero charge), measuring the charge on an electron does the job, e.g. Experimental Measurements of the Elementary Charge.

I was going to suggest a simple experiment involving rubbing a balloon or plastic comb through his hair in order to prove that protons have a positive charge, but then I got to thinking how he might interpret the results differently. It'd have been too easy for him to conclude that when the electrons in bits of paper are repelled by the strong negative charge of the balloon or comb that it's the positrons rather than protons in the atom which cause them to be attracted to it.

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

You really are determined to hand over your own head on a platter, aren't you? Pixy is 100% correct, and your selective non-response indicates that you probably known she's right.

Troll threads are fun though, as long as nobody starts running with scissors....

"The system detects pairs of gamma rays emitted indirectly by a positron-emitting radionuclide (tracer), which is introduced into the body on a biologically active molecule." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_scan

Kid Eager · 11th August 2012, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

"The system detects pairs of gamma rays emitted indirectly by a positron-emitting radionuclide (tracer), which is introduced into the body on a biologically active molecule." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_scan

You're doing well so far. For bonus points, feel free to quote wiki on what a positron is....

Anders Lindman · 11th August 2012, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

You're doing well so far. For bonus points, feel free to quote wiki on what a positron is....

The key here is that there is no direct measuring of positrons.

Brian-M · 11th August 2012, 04:31 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

And yes, such experiment would be possible to do. Take the light from stars in a galaxy for example. The light from a star on the 'left' side of the galaxy would have different velocity that the light from a star on the 'right' side of the galaxy, when the galaxy is flat (thin) towards Earth. I don't know if any instruments with precision enough for that exists today though.

Excellent idea, I don't know why nobody's thought of it before.

But measuring the speed of light isn't easy. You might be able to get useful results from a much simpler setup.

For example, splitting a beam of light in two with a half-silvered mirror, reflecting the beams off mirrors in different directions, and combining the beams in an interferometer. This wouldn't tell you how fast the light was traveling, but a change in the interference patterns would let you know if the measurable speed of light from either direction changes by even a tiny amount.

Of course, this setup would have to change velocity or direction in order to measure a change in the relative speed of light through the ~~luminous aether~~ vacuum energy, but the earth is rotating as well as orbiting the sun, so that shouldn't be a problem even with immobile equipment.

10th August 2012, 11:29 PM	#121
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Is it possible to get rid of the neutrons in the atom model? No. Neutrons are real, and are included in all atomic nuclei except ¹H.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

10th August 2012, 11:34 PM	#122
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,527	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Sounds rather ad hoc to me. Don't worry. Your "simple" model will suffer the same fate, in time. Reality is always going to be complicated. And, it doesn't care if people think it works in ways that might sound "ad hoc" to you.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

11th August 2012, 12:11 AM	#126
Kid Eager Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Australia Posts: 3,504	I think we're on a winner here: The Lindman Theory posits that "Neutrons are not really neutrons because of no particular reason, but are instead Nevilles, which are just like neutrons and do the same job but aren't really neutrons and oh by the way the rest of atomic theory isn't quite right either because I think it's different."
	__________________ What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

11th August 2012, 12:36 AM	#128
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,327	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I'm removing a particle: the neutron. A helium atom in the standard model has two protons and two neutrons. In my model a helium atom has four protons of zero charge. If a proton doesn't have a charge, it's not a proton any more.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

11th August 2012, 12:53 AM	#131
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Yes, that has been discussed already. I now call the neutrally charged particles in the nucleus nucletrons. We know protons exist. They exist singly, we can measure their properties, they can be absorbed by nuclei, and they can be emitted by nuclei. We know neutrons exist. They exist singly, we can measure their properties, they can be absorbed by nuclei, and they can be emitted by nuclei. You want to simplify nuclear physics, but everything you're trying to do will only complicate it without even being able to reproduce standard results. You're trying to develop a theory in which neither neutrons nor protons even exist within nuclei, even though we see them outside of nuclei. They simply pop into and out of existence, because... well, because you felt like it. How in the world can you even think that this would simplify anything? Your theory is not even wrong. Give it up already, you have no clue what you're talking about and you have zero chance of stumbling upon any great insight by random chance.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th August 2012, 11:54 PM	#123
svenax Thinker Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 169	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Lol. The Lindman particle. Where the heck is my Nobel Prize? And here I thought you were aiming for the Ig Nobel prize.

11th August 2012, 12:00 AM	#124
svenax Thinker Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 169	Originally Posted by Wowbagger But, physics has to deal with reality. If reality happens to be "messy", there is nothing you can do about it. If you try to start from scratch, it will only get messy, again, before you're done with the new model. Of course there is. Hasn't it many times been said that "I reject your reality and substitute my own"?

11th August 2012, 12:09 AM	#125
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by frskeptic Spectral lines are a representation of the energies that the electrons around the nucleus can take, they are bound by quantum mechanical laws. I the photon has the right energy to get an electron from one state to another, it has a chance of being absorbed, and thus will get you a black spectrla line for example. Colorful spectral lines (e.g. hydrogen lamps) are due to this : You excite your atom with a large band of energy (thermal, electric, whatever), some of this energy will excite electrons to a higher energy level, and the energy will decay to the lowest energy level by emitting the photon that corresponds to the difference in energy. Energy is absorbed through various means in matter, the excitation of electrons that create spectral lines is not the only mechanisms. There is vibration of the system, what we call phonons (heat) for example. If energy can be absorbed by other means, then a if a photon has a higher energy than the electron can take by jumping to one level and lower energy than the next level ofter that, then some of the energy is 'shaved' off into heat (phonons etc) so that energy for jump + heat = photon energy. Ok, that sounds reasonable. In my model the electron is standing waves around the nucleus in a two-dimensional spherical shape. This means that only exactly n² whole waves (360 degrees) can fit around the electron sphere. The square is because it's a surface (2D) instead of just a circle (1D).

11th August 2012, 12:15 AM	#127
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by PixyMisa No. Neutrons are real, and are included in all atomic nuclei except ¹H. An exception again? That sounds suspicious. In my model deuterium for example, is an atom with two nucletrons while hydrogen is an atom with one nucletron. So deuterium in my model is a different chemical element than hydrogen.

11th August 2012, 12:40 AM	#129
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	I haven't checked this yet, but a simple prediction my model makes is that the number of nucleons (protons plus neutrons) for the chemical elements in the periodic table plus all their isotopes will follow the natural numbers (positive integers) up to a certain number N, such as: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... N. In the standard model periodic table there is no such sequence, and instead isotopes fill up gaps in the sequence of number of nucleons in each atom.

11th August 2012, 12:41 AM	#130
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by a_unique_person If a proton doesn't have a charge, it's not a proton any more. Yes, that has been discussed already. I now call the neutrally charged particles in the nucleus nucletrons.

11th August 2012, 12:56 AM	#132
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I haven't checked this yet Why didn't you check it before coming here and telling us all about this idea of yours which has no empirical support?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

11th August 2012, 01:02 AM	#133
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman An exception again? NO. Quote: That sounds suspicious. In my model deuterium for example, is an atom with two nucletrons while hydrogen is an atom with one nucletron. So deuterium in my model is a different chemical element than hydrogen. Then your model is wrong.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

11th August 2012, 01:10 AM	#134
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,122	Examine neutron beta decay. In some sense a neutron is a semi-stable melange of a proton, an electron a neutrino and some energy. Accounting for these and the mass defect we can obtain the mass difference between proton & neutron, but we can factor any baryon in many different way. This is a closed-minded and shallow way of thinking about things and leads nowhere useful; No - neutrons are not just effeminate protons.
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,122

11th August 2012, 01:17 AM	#135
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman But remember that the quantum model is based on the assumption that neutrons are real. What if that assumption is wrong? Did you miss the part about the "way too much evidence"? It's not an assumption.

11th August 2012, 01:30 AM	#136
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Why didn't you check it before coming here and telling us all about this idea of yours which has no empirical support? Because I would have to enumerate all the chemical elements and all their isotopes. That's tedious work. A simpler prediction is that there are no isotopes with the number of nucleons equal to that of a chemical element in the periodic table. I checked this, and carbon 14 (¹⁴C) has 14 nucleons, which is the same number as the number of nucleons for the chemical element nitrogen. This falsifies my model. Unless carbon-14 is a hoax.

11th August 2012, 01:45 AM	#137
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	How can this be possible? "Carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 through beta decay." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14 "In nuclear physics, beta decay is a type of radioactive decay in which a beta particle (an electron or a positron) is emitted from an atom." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay How can carbon turn into nitrogen by emitting an electron or positron? That doesn't compute. How could that cause a neutron to become a proton?

11th August 2012, 01:51 AM	#138
Kid Eager Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Australia Posts: 3,504	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman How can this be possible? "Carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 through beta decay." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14 "In nuclear physics, beta decay is a type of radioactive decay in which a beta particle (an electron or a positron) is emitted from an atom." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay How can carbon turn into nitrogen by emitting an electron or positron? That doesn't compute. How could that cause a neutron to become a proton? like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
	__________________ What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

11th August 2012, 02:01 AM	#139
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by Kid Eager like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle This seems dubious: "The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron Antimatter? Sounds more like science fiction than science.

11th August 2012, 03:07 AM	#140
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman It was a serious question! Has the electric charge of protons been experimentally verified? Google foo failed again? Try this.
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	__________________ Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

11th August 2012, 03:12 AM	#141
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	"Billions of particles of anti-matter created in laboratory LIVERMORE, Calif. – Take a gold sample the size of the head of a push pin, shoot a laser through it, and suddenly more than 100 billion particles of anti-matter appear." -- https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleas...-08-11-03.html This is how the positrons were measured: "However, the plasma jet does not contain the total amount of positrons generated, such as those still in the target. The data recorded from the spectrometers is compared with computer simulations to infer how many pairs were created overall. Chen and Wilks directly detected more than 1 million particles per laser shot. They infer that a total of about 100 billion positron particles were produced." -- https://str.llnl.gov/JulAug09/pdfs/07.09.3.pdf The difference between 1 million and 100 billion is 5 orders of magnitude. It could just as well have been noise that Chen measured I think. And the use of a computer model similar to the one Al Gore used to show a hockey stick graph for global warming. I don't buy it.

11th August 2012, 03:18 AM	#142
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by dlorde Google foo failed again? Try this. I have tried that. I didn't do many searches but I couldn't find anything then.

11th August 2012, 03:21 AM	#143
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman In my model the electron is standing waves around the nucleus in a two-dimensional spherical shape. This means that only exactly n² whole waves (360 degrees) can fit around the electron sphere. The square is because it's a surface (2D) instead of just a circle (1D). Add geometry to the list of what Anders doesn't understand. I was going to suggest this thread was moved to Humor, but it's become a little sad & disturbing.
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	__________________ Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

11th August 2012, 03:27 AM	#144
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,268	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman It was a serious question! Has the electric charge of protons been experimentally verified? One thing particle physicists like to do is accelerate protons to near-light velocity and smash them into things. But particle accelerators use electromagnetic fields to accelerate particles, which means only charged particles can be accelerated. Neutrons and neutrinos cannot be accelerated because they have no charge. The fact that protons have an electric charge is experimentally verified thousands of times a year in different particle accelerators around the world. Originally Posted by Anders Lindman A photon is simply a wave in space at a certain frequency. Great idea, but it raises the question as to what medium the wave is propagating through. A wave needs a medium to exist. The same applies for all the other particles that you're also claiming are waves. Perhaps you could propose the idea that space is not simply vacuum, but is actually permeated by some kind of luminous aether that we cannot directly observe. Hey... we could also try doing some experiments, such as calculating the speed at which we're passing through the aether by comparing the measurable speed of light in different directions? Originally Posted by Anders Lindman An exception again? That sounds suspicious. In my model deuterium for example, is an atom with two nucletrons while hydrogen is an atom with one nucletron. So deuterium in my model is a different chemical element than hydrogen. In that case you should refer to that isotope by it's proper name, protium. The word hydrogen refers to both protium and deuterium. But if you're going to have every possible isotope as a different chemical element, I'd like to see what the table of elements looks like in your system. Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I haven't checked this yet, but a simple prediction my model makes is that the number of nucleons (protons plus neutrons) for the chemical elements in the periodic table plus all their isotopes will follow the natural numbers (positive integers) up to a certain number N, such as: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... N. In the standard model periodic table there is no such sequence, and instead isotopes fill up gaps in the sequence of number of nucleons in each atom. So on your table of elements, the element 204 would include stable isotopes of both lead and mercury? And element 114 would include stable isotopes of both tin and cadmium? And element 50 would include stable isotopes of both titanium and chromium? (I won't even get started on the unstable isotopes.) That'd certainly make chemistry... interesting.
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim

11th August 2012, 03:36 AM	#145
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman This seems dubious: "The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron Antimatter? Sounds more like science fiction than science. Only if you are spectacularly ignorant. PET scans, used in medicine for thirty years? Use antimatter.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

11th August 2012, 03:39 AM	#146
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	Originally Posted by Brian-M The fact that protons have an electric charge is experimentally verified thousands of times a year in different particle accelerators around the world. Also, since protons and electrons have equal and opposite charges (together they have zero charge), measuring the charge on an electron does the job, e.g. Experimental Measurements of the Elementary Charge.
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	__________________ Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... Last edited by dlorde; 11th August 2012 at 03:41 AM.

11th August 2012, 03:40 AM	#147
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,913	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman How can this be possible? "Carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 through beta decay." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14 "In nuclear physics, beta decay is a type of radioactive decay in which a beta particle (an electron or a positron) is emitted from an atom." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay How can carbon turn into nitrogen by emitting an electron or positron? That doesn't compute. How could that cause a neutron to become a proton? Proton charge is +1. Neutron charge is 0. Electron charge is -1. If a neutron decays and emits an electron (and a neutrino, which is how the process works), it is left with a charge of +1 and exactly the same mass as a proton. In fact, it is a proton. Perhaps you should learn this very basic stuff before you propose a new "hypothesis"?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

11th August 2012, 03:46 AM	#148
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by dlorde Add geometry to the list of what Anders doesn't understand. I was going to suggest this thread was moved to Humor, but it's become a little sad & disturbing. If a standing wave is fitted onto a spherical surface, then with 1 period it will form one crest and and trough on the surface. With 2 periods it forms 4 crests and 4 troughs. With 3 periods it will form 9 crests and 9 troughs. And so on in the form N² where N is the number of periods. Here is a 1-dimensional version: From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standing_wave_2.gif Standing Waves Generated by String Vibration - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no7ZPPqtZEg

11th August 2012, 03:49 AM	#149
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Only if you are spectacularly ignorant. PET scans, used in medicine for thirty years? Use antimatter. That's gamma rays they detect. That's photons, not antimatter.

11th August 2012, 03:53 AM	#150
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Proton charge is +1. Neutron charge is 0. Electron charge is -1. If a neutron decays and emits an electron (and a neutrino, which is how the process works), it is left with a charge of +1 and exactly the same mass as a proton. In fact, it is a proton. Perhaps you should learn this very basic stuff before you propose a new "hypothesis"? Whoops. Yes, I got it backwards. When the decay of a neutron happens it must be an electron that's emitted, not a positron. Still, why are only some neutrons unstable and decay?

11th August 2012, 03:54 AM	#151
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman If a standing wave is fitted onto a spherical surface, then with 1 period it will form one crest and and trough on the surface. With 2 periods it forms 4 crests and 4 troughs. With 3 periods it will form 9 crests and 9 troughs. And so on in the form N² where N is the number of periods. How is that in any way an explanation of your "two-dimensional spherical shape" and 1D circle ? A sphere is, by definition, 3D. A circle is, by definition, 2D.
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	__________________ Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... Last edited by dlorde; 11th August 2012 at 03:56 AM.

11th August 2012, 03:55 AM	#152
Kid Eager Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Australia Posts: 3,504	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman That's gamma rays they detect. That's photons, not antimatter. You really are determined to hand over your own head on a platter, aren't you? Pixy is 100% correct, and your selective non-response indicates that you probably known she's right. Troll threads are fun though, as long as nobody starts running with scissors....
	__________________ What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it.... Last edited by Kid Eager; 11th August 2012 at 03:56 AM.

11th August 2012, 03:59 AM	#153
GeneMachine Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Bavaria Posts: 332	Before spamming your "all known physics is wrong" bat-guano crazy threads all over, you might really want to learn something about physics first. Guys, don't feed it.

11th August 2012, 04:11 AM	#154
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by Brian-M Great idea, but it raises the question as to what medium the wave is propagating through. A wave needs a medium to exist. The same applies for all the other particles that you're also claiming are waves. Perhaps you could propose the idea that space is not simply vacuum, but is actually permeated by some kind of luminous aether that we cannot directly observe. Hey... we could also try doing some experiments, such as calculating the speed at which we're passing through the aether by comparing the measurable speed of light in different directions? Correct. Space is not a complete vacuum but consists of vacuum energy: "Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when the space is devoid of matter (free space). The concept of vacuum energy has been deduced from the concept of virtual particles, which is itself derived from the energy-time uncertainty principle. The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the van der Waals bonds[citation needed] and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy And yes, such experiment would be possible to do. Take the light from stars in a galaxy for example. The light from a star on the 'left' side of the galaxy would have different velocity that the light from a star on the 'right' side of the galaxy, when the galaxy is flat (thin) towards Earth. I don't know if any instruments with precision enough for that exist today though.
	Last edited by Anders Lindman; 11th August 2012 at 04:30 AM.

11th August 2012, 04:15 AM	#155
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by dlorde How is that in any way an explanation of your "two-dimensional spherical shape" and 1D circle ? A sphere is, by definition, 3D. A circle is, by definition, 2D. The surface of the sphere is 2D. A circle is a 1D line in a loop. A filled circle is 2D, and a filled sphere is 3D.