Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Atomic radii

  1. Jun 29, 2003 #1
    [SOLVED] Atomic radii

    I need to know precisely how the average atomic radii are calculated or found?
    I would expect it to be on the average contents of an experimental sample with adjustment for differing percentages. This would mean that isotopes missing from the sample are not included in the calculation of the average. Alternatively it could be adjusted for all known isotopes.
    The precise figures and method are required to enable a check on my work on the atomic radii of istopes, which is still ongoing thanks to the replies to previous questions.
    There was three different answers to my earlier questions-
    a) all isotopes have the same radii, determined by the number of electron shells (same for all isotopes of a given element).
    b)Isotopes have different radii, but the difference is to small to measure.
    c) It is not possible to determine whether or not there is any difference.
    I am still hopeful that a table of isotope atomic radii is achievable.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 29, 2003 #2
  4. Jul 1, 2003 #3
    It does help in that it provides another lead.
    The Hyperphysics graph of Atomic Radii illustrates my claim that efforts to explain radii (and particle physics in general) are mathematically orientated rather than structurally orientated. This enables us to see the true state of modern physics in that the early Egytian pyramid designs were mathematically orientated leading to structural failure while later structurally oriented designs are still standing today.
    As with modern particle physics the mathematics were correct but on their own they are insufficient for understanding and explaining the fundamental laws of structure.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2003
  5. Jul 1, 2003 #4
    You're missing the point. How can particle physics be structurally oriented? Being structually oriented is nothing without math backing it up. You mentioned pyramids for some reason. Lets choose another building example. Say I want to build a skyscraper. Do I go out and start throwing pieces together right off the bat? No. We take a group of engineers and design the building using mathematical concepts that were based on experimentation (particle physicist experiment too). Mathematics and structure go hand in hand. Math explains the underlying structure. There is plenty out there on atomic radii. You just have to look. It is important for understanding things like average bond length.




    http://members.aol.com/profchm/radii.html

    http://www.westga.edu/~chem/courses/chem1211d/lecture/Chapter7/sld046.htm

    http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/modern-atomic-theory/atomic-radii.html

    http://www.engr.ku.edu/~rhale/ae510/lecture2/sld015.htm

    http://intro.chem.okstate.edu/WorkshopFolder/Ionicradii.html
     
  6. Jul 2, 2003 #5
    All pyramids were constructed according to a mathematical formula, but the early designers new little or nothing about the structural qualities of their building material.
    Likewise physicist have an excelent mathematical theory for predicting how atoms and particles will behave, but little idea of the cause of this behaviour.
    A typical example is magnetism, for which we have a complete numerical theory whose actions can be explained in words; but try and explain what causes magnetism or what is meant by magnetism in real terms rather than in behavioural terms. Fermi said this is the question that will never be answered.
    I disagree; by laying out a table of isotopes in a manner designed to illustrate the structural changes caused by the addition or subtraction of one of each type of particle (proton, neutron and electron),I believe it is possible to say more about the reasons why particles behave in the way they do than is said at present.
    Originally I concentrated on sub-atomic particles but there is insufficient data to develope a new concept at the sub-atomic level. This forced me to turn to atoms where I was surprised to find that we do not know the relationship between content and volume, and almost nothing about how sub-atomic particles behave within an atom. Every experiment produces a slightly different list of possibilities, none of which is definitive.
    By building a structurally biased table of isotopes I hope to improve my case that the current interpretation can be radically improved. This is not a question of challenging the mathematics of quantum theory, but rather of challenging the way it is explained in words.
    Just trawl through the web and look at the different ways people try to explain the basics, what is a force or force field; what is the relationship between waves and matter. Some experts believe waves exist others believe the need to use wave mechanics to explain particles is purely a coincidence. Even more annoying is the way some people think the way they have been taught is the definitive answer because they are unaware that other experts think differently to the ones they studied under.
    I would like to see a return to inquisitive science where experts explain what they do not know with the same enthusiasm as they explain what they think they know. The perfection of Quantum Theory is blinding us to our ignorance as to the answer to the questions of 'how' and 'why' and this is not a healthy state of affairs.
    There is plenty out there on the purely mathematical approach and on the chemistry, but very little on the structure.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2003
  7. Jul 2, 2003 #6

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The web is a highly questionable source for this sort of information. Have you actually made an effort to learn even the basics of partical physics? Or are you just assuming that our current models are flawed because you really do not understand them?

    Are you trying to think outside the box without understanding the current box?

    OFF to Theory Development.
     
  8. Jul 3, 2003 #7
    Mentor judgements

    Integral
    I ask questions within the box and the answers tend to lead outside the box.
    It is clear to me now that no one has any worthwhile statement to make about isotope radii as no such table exists. The simple fact that these can be calculated from Emsley 'Table of Elements' has been completely missed by my peers; but the question was within the box.
    In order to check my work I need to know how the averages given in Emsley's and others tables, are arrived at, as clearly there are a number of different possibilities; this question is also within the box.
    There seems to be a difficulty for those trying to add to the current model rather than develope another way out theory. The calculation of a previously unknown quantity is not the same as a new theory particularly when a successful calculation would be an addition to current theory rather than a new theory.
    When developing a new theory such as my Single Force Theory, I stay with theory developement and my own web site, but the single force concept cannot be developed without at the same time calculating new values in the Standard Model and this aspect of my work is of no interest to the way out boffins on that other wavelength. I think I need a clarification of the rules.
     
  9. Jul 5, 2003 #8
    Hello ELAS,

    I am glad, that one more man in PF has paid attention to a complete confusion in relationships between content and volume, and behavior of sub-atomic particles within atoms.
    I think, it is necessary to start from crystal lattices.
    For example, such elements, as argentum, copper, gold and aluminium are the best conductors of electrical current and have a face-centered cubic lattice.
    The face-centered cubic cell contains four atoms.
    The simple calculation displays, that volume come on one atom:
    Ag – 17.06 cubic angstrom/atom – 4 atoms in cell
    Cu – 11.8 cubic angstrom/atom – 4 atoms in cell
    Au – 16.9 cubic angstrom/atom – 4 atoms in cell
    Al – 16.6 cubic angstrom/atom – 4 atoms in cell

    Other elements, for example carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, at particular temperatures also have a cubic crystal lattice:
    C – 5.7 cubic angstrom/atom – 8 atoms in cell
    N – 22.7 cubic angstrom/atom – 8 atoms in cell
    O – 13.3 cubic angstrom/atom – 24 atoms in cell

    But nobody can explain, why the X-ray diffraction methods cannot reveal more fine details of cubic structure, for example, in nitrogen.
    My simulation of crystal lattices of atoms uniquely displays, that all elements are constructed from pyramid-shaped cells. Each pyramid-shaped cell is half-atom or radical. As yet I have detected only two sets of crystallographic angles in these pyramid-shaped cells.
    Most interesting is that the angles of the Egyptian pyramids have the same values.
     
  10. Jul 6, 2003 #9
    Vlamir
    As Integral is the PF mentor I have to respect his comments. Therefore I cannot deal with 'four unit bonding' on this forum. Please go to the Members list and click on my web site where you will find my proposed solution. Note that the web address given at the bottom of each page is incorrect, it should be-
    www.Jemphys7396@aol.com
    I have completed a rough table of isotope atomic radii and now have to go over it again to check for errors. All I can say at present is that it appears to contain something of the mathematical series that I was hoping to find.
    Given that atoms, particles and corpuscular quantum are all force carrier fields, my long term aim is to produce one formula or a sries of related formulas that explain the field structure of all fields. This will extend the Standard Model of Particle Physics down to the corpuscular quanta that form the fundamental particles; from there it should be to extrapolate to the corpuscular quantum of gravity. This would at last unite all the forces in a simple numerical series.
    Of course, the chances of success are small, so it is important not to get over excited.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 6, 2003
  11. Jul 6, 2003 #10
    Dear John,
    I for a long time have yours homepage, and today has looked it once again. But I don’t see the table of isotopes. It would be interesting for me to look at it and mathematics.
     
  12. Jul 9, 2003 #11
    Vlamir
    I referred you to my site for the piece on bonding. I cannot publish the Atomic Radii page until I am at least certain that I have something worth saying.
    Meanwhile, have you been reading Tyger's forum on vacuum force. I have just read the reference papers and realise that they contain enough simple maths (I only do simple)to build a totally different approach to the vacuum force than the Atomic Radii/Corpuscular Quantum route that I am struggling with at present.
    I have yet to check it out, but it seems that the difference between forces can be accounted for by comparing strength and direction with my vacuum diagrams. It seems that plus and minus pair off with force directions in the vacuum diagrams to form a mathematical grid that links the forces.
     
  13. Jul 13, 2003 #12
    Elas,
    In the meantime I don’t see ways for solution of phenomenon of transmission of forces through vacuum, except for research of geometry of atoms and molecules at low temperatures and high pressures. The very detailed experimental data about properties of atoms and isotopes are necessary. But many very important data are omitted in the literature at all, or they are unsystematically scattered in different areas of sciences. At that, the cases are frequent, when the data from the physical and chemical references do not coincide. I have tried to make the table for hydrogen and deuterium, but for me nothing it has turned out (see attached file). For other Elements of The Table the situation is even worse.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Jul 14, 2003 #13
    Vlamir,
    It is not normal practice to pass on imformation until work is completed and checked. I shall publish my method regardless of success or failure when I have completed the table as far as possible.
    All but one of the background proposals have been discussed in forums and I am surprised that on reading Ribduncan table, no one else has realised how to proceed.
    Another hint, look at Newton's graph of a gravity field without a central body and look at the forums that mention Zero point energy and you should realise that Newton, who believed that "the universe is corpuscular in nature" made a major error in his graph.
     
  15. Jul 16, 2003 #14
    Well,
    I shall wait, as far as our age allows. However I don’t think, that the information exchange in PF is the publication. It is usual creative work. Those few in number readers, who look in forum, are not a wide audience.

    As to atomic radii, I don’t think, that they can give the useful information for understanding of an inner structure of atoms. The atomic radii are evaluated for excited atoms. Therefore conditionally to take into account, that atoms have the spherical form. Actually, set of experimental facts point that atoms and molecules have the form of polyhedrons. Most precise information about it can be obtained by researching of spectrum of crystals at low temperatures, i.e. at physical state close to zero-point energy.
    Imagine, that you heat up one molecule in absolute darkness. At temperature of absolute zero the molecule is “silent”, i.e. does not radiate nor one photon.
    At some temperature on the surface of molecule there are several red points arise. At further heating up the intensity of luminescence of red points is magnified, but then they simultaneously disappear and instead of them there are orange points arise. But the orange points are located in other places on the surface of molecule.
    The following transition: the orange points die away and yellow points come up, etc.
    The pure crystals and matrix receivers of single photons are necessary for realization of such researches.
    And that and another the experimental physics has.
    Unfortunately, information on such experiments I never saw.
    Therefore, I utilize in calculations that there are - parameters of crystal lattices, rough data of density of crystals, dissociation energy of molecules and energy atomic spectrums.
    Last my calculations have shown, that if to cool hydrogen to 0 degrees Kelvin and to compress it, outputting superfluous heat, it is possible to receive density of 175 kg/cubic meters.
    If to warm up hydrogen up 6000 degrees and to compress it, outputting superfluous heat, it is possible to receive density of 215 kg/cubic meters.
    The data, missing in the table, and besides, density of solid ammonia and period of inversion of molecule of ammonia are necessary for calculation of parameters of deuterium.
    Please, report, whether you have these data.
     

    Attached Files:

  16. Aug 8, 2003 #15
    Vlamir
    I do not have sufficient training to argue the mathematics of Quantum theory, but I do have a reputation for reducing an arguement to its bare essentials. This is my objective when I keep repeating that my arguement is not mathematical but with the words used to explain the mathematics. Your comment on isotope radii is revelant to this arguement. You say they are not important but I am sure that you are aware that one of two things occur when an electron (and a proton) are added to an atom. If the electron does not complete a shell the radius is reduced; if the electron does complete a shell the radius is increased.
    When I asked two questions on this subject in Physics Forums, it was clear from the answers that a certain haziness exist on the link between radii and electrons and electron shells. But if you explain this in Vacuum Force terms then the cause is easily understood; moreover I have linked the vacuum force to the isotope radii uniting Mass, Binding force and Vacuum using graphs. This means that there must be a mathematical link or I would not be able to produce the graphs.
    Which brings me to the crux of my arguement that is that we do not need any other force but vacuum force to explain particle physics and gravity. Moreover by using only vacuum force and vacuum force carrier we can explain more than can be explained using the current model of particle physics.
    Quantum physics can fit the forces into a mathematical framework but they cannot explain in words what the various entities are our how they came into existence. In my view this inability is entirely due to the fact that in reality they do not exist, they are nothing more than an interaction between the force of vacuum and the vacuum force carrier.
    I have made some progress on revising my website, Iam not satisfied with the Isotope page and will try and do better but at least you can see the direction I am going in.
    What pleases me most of all is that my proposals can be used to explain those experiments and observations that dissagree with current theory such as Braithewaite's work on gyroscopes, the Japanese experiments with spinning cylinders, the rotation of galaxies and universal expansion.
     
  17. Aug 8, 2003 #16
    Neutroncount
    Let me assure that I am by no means certain. The whole point of putting an idea up for debate is to give others the opportunity to prove me wrong, or give advice etc.
    The sites you brought to my attention give one radius for each element; my original question was "does each isotope of each element have a different radius?".
    The answers show an uncertainty exists and it is clear that to date no table of Isotope Radii has been published.
    I have shown that by converting to a vacuum theory and laying out a table of isotopes in a particular manner it is possible to see where a solution can be found. Unfortunately I cannot find any clear statement as to which isotope of each element, the given radius (in the tables) applies, it might even apply to the figure given for the average mass (of each element). This uncertainty prevents me from putting forward my own table.
    I am fairly certain that a Vacuum Theory of particle physics is both possible and plausible and hope you will continue to add your thoughts to the debate.
     
  18. Aug 13, 2003 #17
    Dear ELAS,
    As I already had spoken, the true sizes of atoms and their isotopes need to be determined by physical properties of the elements at temperature of absolute zero.
    If we add an electron to atom or we pull off it from atom, it means, that we disturb a balance of forces, which operate inside atoms and between atoms. It can result both in resizing atom (isotope), and to change of its geometrical form.
    I try to find mathematical method to test both my ideas, and your ideas concerning vacuum force. But the problem is, that there is no satisfactory understanding of a nature of interacting objects.
    I partially have got acquaintance with an alternate hypothesis by Moscow physicist Alexander Kushelev. It has name the nanoworld theory. In this theory there are the same problems, as for us. If you have superfluous time, glance at its huge website. In it it is possible to find thoughts, which have something in common with your ideas.

    http://ftp.decsy.ru/nanoworld/DATA/TEXTS.ENG/index.htm
     
  19. Aug 14, 2003 #18
    Dear Vlamir
    I think the crux of the arguement lies in two of your phrases

    ....it means that we disturb the balance of 'forces'
    and
    ....there is no satisfactory understanding of a nature of interacting forces

    Current theory uses the 'magnetic attractive' and 'magnetic repulsive' forces to explain the changes in radius, but neither of these forces can be defined nor can their origin be explained except by speculation on actions inside a plasma; there is no experimental proof of there cause of existence. My arguement is that we do not need either force to explain the radii change other than the one force that does not have to be created i.e. vacuum force. I have shown how both binding energy and mass measurements can be used as vacuum measurements. I am of the opinion that it is best to use the mass figures that can be converted to vacuum measurements by sign reversal (mass 1 = vacuum -1).
    I have shown how I think the vacuum force is related to radius and am at present revising the Isotope page to make this point clearer. I shall also add an explanation of the part played by electrons in defining the radius and why complete electron shells have even numbers of electrons. In doing so I hope to show that it is the elctrons that determine the whole wave structure and not vice versa as believed at present.
    The key to winning the arguement is to insist on the proper application of The Law of Economy throughout particle physics. That means no new forces (including 'electromagnetism, strong, weak and gravity) until some thing or event is discovered that cannot be explained as a vacuum force action. So far I have not found one.
    The mathematics will come together when the known masses and radii of all fundamental particles can be expressed in one formula. It is a long way off but not out of reach.
     
  20. Aug 16, 2003 #19
    Dear ELAS,
    I would like to talk about elasticity once again and to express one a thought, which for a long time does not give me a rest and sits in my head as a rusty nail.
    I have added one formula in the file "Quantum transitions" and has renamed the file in "Coefficient of elasticity" (see attached file). It is the formula for calculation of own resonance frequencies of atomic oscillators. In this formula there is a nondimensional coefficient kd. On conditions of my experiments this coefficient characterizes elastic force, which arises at transversal deformations of the medium.
    Our universe almost completely consists of hydrogen and helium. For a part of remaining elements there are less than one percent of a mass of universe.
    My thought consists that, probably, all properties of vacuum actually are the averaged properties of hydrogen and helium at temperature of absolute zero.
     

    Attached Files:

  21. Aug 19, 2003 #20
    Vlamir,
    I think you are heading in the right direction, but have not yet made the ultimate deduction. Before giving my view on waves I will explain my latest modification.
    This is that all Zero Points exert the same vacuum force but the force can be almost wholly within the ZP as is the case with a corpuscular strong force quantum; or almost wholly without as is the case with a graviton. In order to exist outside the ZP Vacuum Force must have an associated Vacuum Force Carrier.
    Previously I have proposed that mass arises from the density of the Vacuum Force Carrier but I am now of the opinion that mass as we conceive it may be totally wrong and that by expressing mass as a negative quantity (i.e. vacuum) the force carrier can be ignored. This does not necessarily mean that the force carrier does not exist; it does mean that the force carrier is not part of the mathematical structure just as a piece of paper is not part of a sum written on it, but the sum cannot be written without it.
    With regard to elasticity I have recently drawn a diagram similar to the first diagram in the sequence of diagrams in your enclosure which I am using to explain the cause of the shape of an electron cloud. Note that the radius of the atom is increased by the presence of an electron, but we know that adding a nucleon to the nucleus decreases the radius. Now look at this in vacuum terms adding vacuum (nucleon) to the nucleus causes the field to shrink, adding a new shell of vacuum fields to the exterior increases the combined radius of both nucleus and shells (i.e. the nucleus contracts but the shell expands). This of course is exactly what would be expected of vacuum fields and explains what we observe without resorting to the creation of two new forces i.e. electromagnetic attractive and electromagnetic repulsive.
    No atom is a true sphere, therefore the wave structure acting on the radius has to adjust from maximum to minimum radius and this is proof of the existence of elasticity, but I do not think a wave structure or elasticity can exist without a force carrier.
    All text books show waves on a straight line thereby ignoring the effect that field shape has on the wave. Draw a wave on a radius and the adjust the amplitude to allow for concentricity of the field and you will realise that at maximum amplitude the wave acts to expand the radius this allows the external vacuum force to expand the electron binding field. This means that every time the addition of an electron completes an electron shell the external vacuum is able to expand the atomic structure simply by forcing the creation of an electron binding field.
    If you now take into account the effect of the nuclear vacuum on the electrons you will observe the cause of the teardrop shape of the electron cloud, found by experiment.
    I am rewriting the Quantum and Atom pages with new diagrams to illustrate these ideas. In addition to the above I will show that my proposed corpuscular quantum structure of sub-atomic particles produces the same structural patterns as the sub-atomic particles show in the structure of atoms.
    Finding the mathematical theory of a vacuum concept is the difficulty. I hope to show that I have made a start and if I can explain the concept with sufficient clarity, you will be able to offer some ideas on how to proceed. Regards
    Elas
    P.S. It is interesting to note that just as the weakest particles form the most stable particles, so it is the weakest atoms that form the most stable part of the universe. Stars come and go but the hydrogen and helium remains and will probably be the last part of the universe to disintergrate.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2003
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Atomic radii
  1. Atomic radii (Replies: 37)

  2. Atomic radii (Replies: 8)

  3. Atom /.? (Replies: 5)

  4. Atom ? (Replies: 4)

Loading...