Visualizing the Submicrocosm: A New Perspective on Atoms

[k_snelson]

What an atom looks like

I opened this thread to bring up a subject seldom discussed because no one expects anymore to see speculations about what atoms may “look like” -- ever since the uncertainty principle demonstrated that we’ll never be able to see an atom in detail. That shouldn’t have ended speculation about the activities of electrons but it seems to have done so. We have settled for the endless warnings that we shouldn’t expect such visualizations of the atom from science.

Is it feasible that in all of those planets among distant stars that all intelligence has settled for the Heisenberg principle and the Schroedinger wave equation as the only way to think of the submicrocosm?

Imagine a voyager who has descended and presented a totally different image from the one we’re used to. It would be featured on the front page of the New York Times!

Think of my model of the atom as a visit from outerspace then take a short trip to my website to see an otherworldly point of view for what electrons are doing as they build what we know as matter. (It’s based on earlier work done right here on Earth and not too outlandish.)

."Portrait of an Atom" Please see all 8 pages.

http://www.kennethsnelson.net/snelson_symmetry.pdf

 

[Gara]

aaw, i was interested.

 

[Gara]

i've read that site before but i still don't understand :(

 

[Dagenais]

Originally posted by k_snelson
Apparently no one is interested in this topic. Please delete.

You can delete posts yourself.

 

[vlamir]

Dear K.S.,
I am alarmed with your silence in both yours treads. How are you?
I think, that these problems are very topical and I would like to help for their development.
In the last month I have executed geometrical modelling and calculation of energetic parameters for atoms of hydrogen and helium.
Now I in parallel make geometrical modelling and calculation of thermodynamic parameters for lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, and also for simple molecules of these atoms. It is very interesting occupation. It reminds infinite expedition on almost impassable underground labyrinths. Out of each turn it is possible to meet unexpectedness.
See:
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/H_&_D_e.pdf
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/He_&_H_e.pdf
Me it “has fortunate” from first steps. The modelling of a molecule of hydride of lithium and calculation of thermodynamic parameters have shown, that in the nature there is no substance under chemical formula LiH. In the nature there is a substance, which molecule consist of molecule of lithium and molecule of hydrogen, and the molecule of hydrogen is inside the molecule of lithium.
One atom of lithium and one atom of hydrogen are not capable to incorporate in the same way, as molecules. What do you think concerning my words?

 

[chroot]

How in the world did I miss this one?!

- Warren

 

[munky99999]

Currently I believe the quantum view of atoms are the ones that play the standard model, which I haven't seen myself yet through very quick skimming of those posted above. The whole S P D F orbitals.

I also believe the string theory where, protons, electrons, and particles are made of strings, that vibrate in unique directions in space. I believe they have a new model on how an atom looks.

Now my favourite part, according to Planck there is a minimum length of an object, which i believe it was 1.605 x 10^-34 metres. A proton if my memory isn't playing tricks on me again is 10^-15 metres, so currently physicists are trying to discover/invent a device that will allow for particles to be compressed or shrunken down to almost the smallest length. Then use these extremely small particles like an electron microscope, then it is very easy for us to see visually what atoms look like.

 

[vlamir]

Currently I believe the quantum view of atoms are the ones that play the standard model, which I haven't seen myself yet through very quick skimming of those posted above. The whole S P D F orbitals.
...

Dear 99…,
I would be glad, if you have believed own eyes.
One atom of carbon occupies volume 5.7 cubic angstroms. In the electronic microphoto of a crystal of diamond in crystallographic plane 110 it is possible well to see the six-angle cell with the corresponding sizes (though the existing theory asserts, that it is a cubic cell?!). The molecule of hydride of lithium occupies 34 cubic angstroms. Hence, the electronic microscope is capable to see the geometrical form of atoms and molecules.

 

[munky99999]

id like see a source for that, I've been told that electron microscope are unable to see structures of atoms, I've never used an electron microscope though, I've got a poor school. well half a million is alot

 

[McQueen]

Scanning tunnel microscopes are certainly able to give us some idea of what atoms look like and results that have been published declare these atom shapes to be perfectly spherical. Today the perfecting of attosecond lasers actually enable to see the orbit of an electron within an atom.

 

[k_snelson]

It is curious that people everywhere "know" what an atom looks like since the endlessly reproduced logo-shorthand for the Bohr hydrogen model has become indelible. Strange that charge cloud pictures are much rarer. Maybe it's because those whiz-line electron tracks indicate speed and motion?

I'm trying to offer more options. You can click-download a small (288k) pdf file showing, on the first page, a dozen atom images collected from around the web. On the second page are atom pictures from my artwork, "Portrait of an Atom".

If one day a work-around is discovered enabling us to see things clearly, what will the pictures look like?

See here:

http://www.kennethsnelson.net/ImagesOfTheAtom.pdf

 

[vlamir]

McQueen, are you sure, that it is orbits of electrons?
May be, it is something another?
The principle of work of a tunnel microscope is very perspective, but I think, that this principle is necessary for using in a complex with a principle of compound eyes (as sight of insects). Then we can find out, how quantums of energy from microcrystals take off.
It will give the most exact information about the form of atoms and molecules.
As to electronic microphotos, they too give a lot of the perspective information, but, unfortunately, departments of education do not care of providing educational institutions with high-quality atlases.

 

[McQueen]

Vlamir , I think its something like using a flash , since an attosecond laser has almost the same frequency of the electron orbit , it can freeze the motion even though the energy imparted by thlaser to the atom might give not the orbit but a change in orbit , still it's getting closer.

 

[kawikdx225]

We can image atoms. As a matter of fact we just released a new TEM with a 1 Angstrom resolution.

Check it out http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?Feed=PR&Date=20040331&ID=3546468&Symbol=US:FEIC

 

[McQueen]

Here is a link to actual photos of carbon atoms taken with an electyron microscope , as you can see they appear to be perfectly spherical. http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/less-one-angstrom.html

 

[vlamir]

McQueen,
At temperature 850°Ñ diamond turns into graphite. Energy of transformation is equal 1.898 kJ/mol=0.2 eV/atom. Electrons in a beam of electronic microscope have energy in some hundreds eV.
Why diamond collapses as a result of action of thermal fluctuations of low frequency and why diamond does not collapse from influence of huge energy and very high frequency of electrons in a microscope?
Can you explain it with help of your “flash-theory”?

 

[McQueen]

Vlamir
I think if you follow the link you will get the technical information as to how electron microscopes have been used to get these pictures. As to the "freezing" of electron microscope by attosecond lasers , I read it at the nature magazine site but failed to book-mark it . Sory.

 

[vlamir]

McQueen,
A lot of years back I was designed electronic microscopes and other electronic-optical systems. Therefore I well know complexities of focusing of electrons, complexities of creation of high vacuum and cooling of samples of crystals, complexities of allocation of useful signals from noise.
Still at that time I have understood, that the standard model incorrectly explains the structure of atoms.
Now in the standard theory many questions, which it is impossible to answer, have collected. Most the complicated question is geometry of atoms.
Many substances (diamond, carbides, compounds of boron, etc.) possesses huge solidity and at the same time they easily collapse from weak thermal or chemical influences.
For example, in an atmosphere of oxygen, diamond turns into graphite at temperature 750°Ñ, i.e. 100°Ñ is lower. Oxygen is electropositive under the relation to carbon. According to the standard theory, electrons move from diamond to molecules of oxygen, therefore diamond collapses faster. Agree, that it is unsatisfactory explanation.
I think, that the reason of all of destruction is resonant vibration.
According to my calculations, electron has the form of a ring in diameter 2 angstroms. In electronic microscope the electrons fly in such a manner that axes of rings are directed along the direction of movement. At impact about a surface of crystal there are shafts of quantums and splinters of electrons, but the resonance at impact does not arise. Therefore diamond does not turn into graphite.

 

[McQueen]

Vlamir
I have also had occasion to use electron microscopes , and so had a general idea of their limitations which is why the scanning tunnel microscope was invented I suppose , but obviously since you have been designing electronmicroscopes you must have a much better idea. In any case it seems to me that you are referring more to the crystalline structure than the atomic structure or am I mistaken ? Vlamir it seems that there has been some confusion , on re-reading your post I see that you were not referring to the geometry (structure ) of atome but to the geometry of crystals

 

[curiousguy]

Current atomic theory

Fascinating reading... I am not at the same educational level (yet) as the rest of you. I am currently an undergrad in college. I find this fascinating. So I pose this question... knowing that the Bohr model is the current standard primarily used, what data has been documented that modifies the the Bohr model? Is it still relevant or has something new been discovered? I thought I heard a mention in the national news a few months ago, that some discovery has changed the accepted standard model of current atomic theory. If so, what is its quantum model? Thanks!

 

[vlamir]

McQueen, you are right.
I have put for myself a specific target to study the external form of atoms and molecules. Now I make geometrical calculations for first eight elements in Mendeleyev's table. But that is surprising – geometry of Euclid’s space prompts the internal structure of atoms. Each plane and each angle in the crystal repeat the form of atom or molecule and, besides, speaks that is located inside object.
Now I can declare with confidence, that Snelson's model on 50 % corresponds to the validity. He has not taken into account, that the majority of atoms are chemical radicals and cannot be for a long time in a free condition. Therefore, they are not symmetric, both in a free condition, and in structure of molecules.
K.Snelson has applied ring images of de Broglie’s waves and has precisely shown points of connection of waves. Now it is necessary to exclude nucleus of atoms and then all will be all right.

 

[vlamir]

Curiousguy,
The universe and life in the universe cannot exist without vibration and resonances. Quantums are resonances. You can invent own resonant model of atoms and it will be new quantum model.
Start to work right now, while you are young. Success for you.

 

[elas]

k.snelson

Great site, first time I have seen these diagrams and they are much better than mine; but the same criticism can be applied in that the script does not explain 'how or why'.

If you compare the diagrams with my proposed vacuum theory interpretation you will see that the Niels Bhor diagrams (group of three diagrams in section 1) can be said to represent (from top to Bottom)

a) the effect of the vacuum field on the electrons.

In that they are shaped like teardrops falling towards the centre.​

• 
  b) the effect of the shape conflict upon the wave pattern..
  
  Vacuum field seeks to be spherical, force carrier seeks to be crystaline.
  ​
  • 
    c) that on each concentric all points have the same rotation.
    
    The whole body is engaged in the wave action.​
    • 
      Similar explanations can be applied to the diagrams on the other pages. This makes my point that if we really want to understand what is going on inside an atom, we have first to deterrmine the cause of fundamental particle creation. and use this as a basis for understanding atoms.
      
      If you visit my revised website you will see that I now show how the vacuum force and wave patterns combine to create fundamental particles of the correct mass. This is something that is not explained in 'Portrait of an atom'. Indeed it cannot be done using the current interpretation. I am going to revise my old explanation of atomic structure and add it to website again. "Portrait of an atom" will be a great help.
      thanks
      elas

 

[chroot]

Fascinating reading... I am not at the same educational level (yet) as the rest of you. I am currently an undergrad in college. I find this fascinating.

I feel it is my duty to warn you. The posts here in the Theory Development section of our site are generally moved here from other parts of the site. Posts which do not make any sense, do not follow the scientific method, disagree with experiment, challenge well-established theory, or are generally overly speculative are moved here. By and large, posters in this subforum are not well-educated. You would do well to avoid this section of the forum if you hope to learn anything that will be useful in the rest of your academic career. The rest of our forum deals with real (not imaginary) science.

- Warren

 

[vlamir]

Hello Elas,
Since new year, I had already read three textbooks of chemistry (including the textbook of chemistry by L. and P. Paulings). I had sensation, that authors of these textbooks creaked with teeth, when they tried to explain huge variety of chemical bonds between atoms and molecules by means of sigma-pi-bonds of orbitals.
The Snelson's model and my polytronic model can provide, at least, four types of bonds. The strongest bond is realized in that case, when the atom or molecule of the greater size absorbs atom or molecule of the smaller size. This type of bond I could modeling by the examples of formation of hydride of lithium and oxide of lithium.
The second type of bond (less strong, than the first) is realized in that case, when polytrons of two neighboring atoms are located on one axis and are gravitate to each other due to the electromagnetic moments of polytrons. Resonant vibration of polytrons prevents with junction of two polytrons in one and during too time promotes to sliding of planes of polyhedrons relatively each other.
The following, the third type of bond is realized in that case, when free nodes of four polytrons of one atom incorporate with free nodes of four polytrons of other atom. By means of these bonds, diatomic molecules of one element, and also such linear structures, as hydrogen shanks in crystals of ice are formed.
The fourth, weakest type of bond is realized in that case, when one node on an edge of one atom-polyhedron incorporates with one node on an edge of other atom-polyhedron.
Energy of each ring in atom-polyhedron can be expressed with speed of light in vacuum. Hence, the amount of energy can be expressed as amount of centripetal acceleration.
If to turn an axis of a ring on some angle, then arises, well known for everybody, gyroscopic effect or angular acceleration.
Angular acceleration is a change of centripetal acceleration. The change of centripetal acceleration is a change of amount of energy-mass in atom. Hence, the change of crystallographic angles in atom should cause the change of an initial stock of energy of atom.
Depending on the geometrical form of atom, the axises of rings-polytrons are focused in one or more points inside atom. In these points angular acceleration has huge density, therefore these points can be interpreted, as nucleus of atoms. In these points there are no elementary particles (electrons, positrons, quarks, etc.), but in these points the laws of transformation of space work accurately.
The theory of relativity describes inertial systems which are located outside of atoms, therefore all these systems is indifferent identical.
I think, that the inertial system inside atom essentially differs from inertial system outside of atom.
Thus, we should distinguish two types of inertial systems, which are located on the opposite sides concerning a surface of atoms. The constant of speed of light in vacuum can be accepted as border of dividing between these inertial systems.

 

[vlamir]

Did you read about experiences of Russian scientist Nikolay Aleksandrovich Kozyrev?
His experiences have authentically confirmed, that time actively participates in all physical processes. Here are descriptions only of two the Kozyrev's experiences.

1) On one end of beam balance the gyroscope, which rotates clockwise, is suspended. On other end the counterbalancing cargo is suspended. After the pointer of balance has calmed down, to the basis of balance the acting electrovibrator put on. Frequency of the electrovibrator is picked up so, that vibration was absorbed by massive rotor of gyroscope, therefore the pointer of balance in experience does not react at all to vibration. After that, the rotor of gyroscope is untwist counter-clockwise, and again suspend on a former place. The pointer of weights shows, that the gyroscope became easier.
N.A.Kozyrev had explained this phenomenon as follows – at rotation of the gyroscope counter-clockwise, the direction of rotation of the rotor of gyroscope has coincided with a true current of time, therefore, the initial equilibrium on balance has been broken.

2) The second experience is carried out with the same beam balance and with the same gyroscope, which rotates on a current of time, i.e. counter-clockwise. After an equilibration of balance, near to gyroscope the thermos with hot water is put. There are no any miracles, and the pointer of balance remains motionless.
Then into the thermos add a glass of cold water. The pointer of balance shows, that the gyroscope became easier on four milligrams from initial weight of 90 grammes. After some time, when the temperature of water in the thermos was leveled, the pointer of balance has returned on a former place.
N.A.Kozyrev had explained this phenomenon as follows – while water in a thermos is in a nonequilibrium thermodynamic condition, it condenses around of herself the time and has the force influence onto gyroscope.

N.A.Kozyrev proved, that in the left and right inertial systems the time influences on the space by forces with various signs. At infringement of thermodynamic equilibration between these forces arises or condensation, or thinning of the time. Then, according to the law of preservation, we should accept an opportunity of thinning-condensation and for the space.
From time of experiences of N.A.Kozyrev has passed more half-century. For this half-century, the experimental physics has made huge progress. There were even messages, that was possible to measure weight of human soul.
Now let's look at models of some atoms from two sides – outside of atom and from within atom. I think, that there it is possible to find a logical explanation for N.A.Kozyrev's mysterious experiences.
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/Li_&_H_&_O_e.pdf
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/B_&_N_&_O_e.pdf

 

[elas]

chroot

Posts which do not make any sense, do not follow the scientific method, disagree with experiment, challenge well-established theory, or are generally overly speculative are moved here.

Relativity and quantum physics are by definition either mathematical prediction theories or philosophies, they are not science. If you look at my explanation of fundamental particles I use only the one force known to exist in scientific terms and show a mathematical relationship between particles, that is science; (the rest of my work is meant to show how the philosophies of ST and QT can be converted into a science simply by removing all unnecessary entities; the mathematics remain unaltered).

You are quite right of course, to caution students about there use of theory development forums, but the manner in which you have done so is totally unacceptable.

 

[chroot]

elas,

I don't care what you think.

- Warren

 

[mee]

atoms being spherical

Here is a link to actual photos of carbon atoms taken with an electyron microscope , as you can see they appear to be perfectly spherical. http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/less-one-angstrom.html

Doesn't this mean that they appear spherical when imaged by electrons?

 

[Yoda]

Vlamir
I think if you follow the link you will get the technical information as to how electron microscopes have been used to get these pictures. As to the "freezing" of electron microscope by attosecond lasers , I read it at the nature magazine site but failed to book-mark it . Sory.

You may find this website of interest then. It also features an amazing Quicktime view of the scale of the universe from minus (-) infinity to positive (+) infinity for those who may also be interested.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/index.html

 

[vlamir]

Yoda,
Thanks for the interesting information. Now, I model the crystal structure of beryllium, carbon and their compounds with other elements, but I have very scanty information. Please, inform me, if you will find the new information on electronic microphotos of crystals of these elements and compounds.

 

[elas]

McQueen

Here is a link to actual photos of carbon atoms taken with an electyron microscope , as you can see they appear to be perfectly spherical

Visited site and saw lattice of oblong shapes each of which appears to contain two spheres, are the atoms in pairs?

How are we meant to take the reference to 'columns' of carbon atoms?

I ask because I note that if this were described as a layer of carbon atoms, then by offsetting each layer by half the distance between layers, the resulting lattice could be described as made up of equalateral triangular pyramids; this is exactly the formation that my vacuum model claims to create the maximum binding force per unit for any structure.

 

[vlamir]

Elas, you have seen something in the microphoto in incorrect light.
First, the crystal structure of simple atoms and molecules cannot consist of triangular pyramids, because in the form of triangular pyramid the law of parity is not carried out.
Second, atoms cannot be spherical (as, for example, in drop model), because atoms of simple elements are chemical radicals and actively aspire to find the partner, to create a molecule more roundish and symmetric form. Exception of this rule are atoms of noble gases. But even the atom of helium is formed of four atoms of hydrogen, i.e. the law of parity all the same is observed.
Thirdly, in your vacuum model I do not see a source of vacuum force. If this force is located in stars, then than it differs from force found out in experiences by Kozyrev. If the source of this force is located inside atoms, then it is necessary to offer some variant for calculation of this force and its influence on the form of crystal.
I do not approve categorical axiomatics, which is used frequently by authors of new hypotheses. But I would like to see rational logic and precisely designated purpose of research in hypotheses.
The purpose of the given theme – “ What do atoms look like? ”
Conforming to this task, I have executed modeling for crystal of diamond and have compared the obtained form to the electronic microphoto.
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/Be_&_C_e.pdf

And, at last, in the fourth, I do not see the big interest on the part of participants of the forum neither to the form of atoms, nor to vacuum force or to my strict mathematical model.
Therefore, I think, that the further discussion of the form of atoms will not bring the new information and new ideas. I shall continue the theme about mysterious experiments by Kozyrev in mine thread “Puzzles of angular acceleration” and occasionally to place there references about new portraits of atoms and molecules.

 

[elas]

vlamir
Argee with statement on simple atoms but above element 16 there appears to be more order.
Dissagree with your reasoning on vacuum, why does vacuum need a source when it is the force of 'absolute nothing'?
Enjoyed discussion and I intend to continue by attacking the string theory concept of vacuum and also the views of anti-string theorist Peter Woit. I think I can place my ideas neatly between the two arguements, bringing some practicallity to string interpretation and knocking Woit's conceit down a peg.
regards
elas

 

[vlamir]

Elas,
Even if it is 'absolute nothing', all the same it should have the measured density and localization in space and time. Otherwise, we shall not move further phenomenological reasonings.
Look once again at the table of elements. To the right of lithium three smallest atoms – beryllium, boron and carbon are located. Below lithium three biggest atoms – potassium, rubidium and cesium are located.
Comparison of physical and chemical properties of these elements speaks that sources of all forces are located on a surface of atoms, but not in the center.
Even in the electronic microphoto of diamond it is well visible, none of the electrons have not hit in a so-called nucleus of atom of carbon.

 

[elas]

vlamir
Once again we almost agree but for quite different reasons. My proposed vacuum model has mass (force carrier) originating from the surface in opposition to vacuum force that originates from the centre. So the source of all forces (or force carrying substance) used in the Standard Model originate from the outside, but the missing fundamental force originates from the centre.

I realize that my work to date lacks distinction. In an effort to improve, I have taken a different approach and have produced a prediction of mass for both the graviton and Higgs particles; this will be on my webpage soon. As the Higgs particle is expected to be discovered when new machines start working in 2006, this should settle the debate providing no other theory makes the same prediction.

 

[vlamir]

In a head of each person there is a unique computer, which "prompts" as the world is arranged. At me, for example, a head with the mathematical processor. At you, J.Martin, and at K.Snelson, the heads with analog processors. (Certainly, the overwhelming majority of people have a head with the usual accounting calculator, but we shall hope, that for such people PF is not interesting).
I quite soundly considered, that the heads with analog processors should better, than me, to understand, that process of search of “the most elementary particle” is infinite.
In this sense, the way to the center of any particle also is infinite, as a way to the infinite universe.
We live in the world of real atoms and molecules, under protection of thick layer of atmosphere. There will be no this protection, there would be no neither us, nor our discussion. But we know about spatial structure of atoms and molecules very a little.
Physicists consider, that the cubic cell of diamond contains eight atoms of carbon, which are located on equal distances from neighbours. Chemists consider, that the cubic cell of diamond contains four formula units, i.e. four molecules.
Forces, which connect two atoms of carbon in a molecule, many times more, than forces between two atoms from the neighbouring molecules. The electronic microphoto of diamond does not help neither that, nor another. I think, that neither the gravitons, nor Higgs particles, also will not clear up the collected problems.
I, for example, calculate the sizes and the form of atoms with four methods – on a spectrum of radiation, on density, on parameters of crystal lattice, and on behaviour of atoms in structure of compounds. But even after the exact coordination of all parameters of atom in polytronic model, I cannot tell with full confidence, that it is the final form of atom.
In this picture there is not very important component, which would help to understand a principle of construction of ensemble. But, as long as, all invented particles (and all future particles) do not concern to this component, I do not see prospect in using these particles in development of my model.
I managed mathematically to show, that between mass and a square of inverse time there is a quantitative connection. But, you see, we at all do not understand, what is inverse time, not speaking about its measurement.
Best regards

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

To have an opportunity to move in any direction any particle should have components of fluctuations conterminous with a force vector. If such a component is absent then the particle cannot move in this direction.
Since the vector of force may have an any direction, than fluctuations in a particle should have components of all directions. To this condition in the maximal degree corresponds the spherical (pseudo spherical) form of atom as the sum of all component.

Michael.

 

[big-egg]

Too see what makes the atoms perfectly spherical and how they originate you may explore the link below.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/toi_esavov.htm
You’ll see that not only atoms are spherical. You’ll see how the spherical shapes are created.

 

[vlamir]

Eugene,
Recently, the book BEYOND THE BRAIN by Stanislav Grog is published in Russian.
You can find something interesting in this book concerning your theory.

 

[vlamir]

As always Michael F. Dmitriyev induces extremely actual task and as always he makes it carelessly. The name of this task – diffraction.
If we shall throw the BALL into a wall, from a wall the SAME BALL will jump aside. It is the MECHANICAL PRINCIPLE.
If we shall direct onto a surface of crystal a photon (or x-ray quantum, or electron), from a surface of crystal the SAME photon never will jump aside. From a surface of crystal OTHER photon (or x-ray quantum, or electron) "will be scattered". It is the NONMECHANICAL PRINCIPLE, but also not purely WAVE.
First two theories of diffraction have been offered two centuries ago – in 1800 by Th. Young and in 1816 by A.Fresnel. Since then, the great variety of such theories, but without essential difference from initial variants, is offered. Studying these theories everyone can draw the conclusion, that for every length wave of light, for each gamma-quantum or particle it is possible to write the individual theory of diffraction. We shall directly tell – a sad situation.
The word-combination the QUANTUM-MECHANICAL PRINCIPLE is erroneous in principle.
Now the main methods of research of structure of crystals are the method of diffraction of X-rays, a method of diffraction of slow electrons and a method of electronic microscopy. These three methods allow receiving almost identical results about a residence of atoms in crystal.
But the same methods can give also the information about the form of atoms and, probably, about internal structure of atoms.
This is my opinion.
But, to extract this information, the new theory of diffraction is necessary essentially.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

As always Michael F. Dmitriyev induces extremely actual task and as always he makes it carelessly.

May be. But I guess: nobody do not know how an objects move.
I know this.

 

[12345]

a model of the atom has progressed over the years to fit scientific laws, but scientists have not seen it before.

i believe that they are working on a telescope half a mile long so we can actually see the real atom.

 

[vlamir]

“A model of the atom has progressed over the years to fit scientific laws, but scientists have not seen it before.”

Alack, the scientists don’t see it and at present.
Indirect arguments, that the form of atom is not spherical it is possible to find, for example, at research of red border of a photoeffect for various crystallographic planes of monocrystals, or at research of superficial reconstruction of faces of crystal at various temperatures.

 

[12345]

^ scientists have not seen it, how can it be determined that they are crystalline?

help me please.

 

[vlamir]

Michael, how is consistent your “I know this” with following:
In the modern electronic theory of atom affirms, that all electrons in atoms are identical, but each electron takes own residence. Change of a residence of electron results either in radiation, or to absorption of quantum of light. In the given concept, radiation and absorption of quantums of light is considered as change of characteristics of electric dipoles "electron- nucleus". The reason of change of a residence of electron can be usual heating or cooling of atom, i.e. pumping-in or pumping-out photons.
Let's present mentally experiment with single atom, which warmed up to some temperature and is in vacuum. During some time the atom will radiate photons.
I hope, you will not begin to approve, that the atom is stuffed with photons, as a tin of sprats?
The length of a wave of radiation depends on initial temperature of atom. For each electron in atom there is a short-wave border of radiation (term T), higher which, the atom does not radiate any more photons, and simply throws out too restless electron outside.
Thus, if you agree with the modern theory, then you accept the concept of "a tin of sprats" concerning electrons in atom, but do not suppose the same concept concerning photons.
But the matter is, for example, that atom of hydrogen, after loss of the unique electron, should lose an opportunity to absorb and radiate photons.
It does not occur.
The difference between a photon and an electron consists in, that the first at once has speed of light, but has not charge and rest mass, whereas the second has not speed of light, but has a charge and rest mass.
Existence of photon and electron is consequence of final size of speed of electromagnetic waves in vacuum. Therefore, for example, at disappearance of charges in process of annihilation an electron and a positron, the radiation continues to exist and after process of annihilation.
According to the modern theory of beta-decay, an electron (positron) and electronic anti-neutrino (neutrino) do not exist in nucleus of atoms, and are formed at moment of a start of decay, as a result of weak interaction. I.e. the standard theory does not suppose the concept of "a tin of sprats" concerning electrons (positrons) in a nucleus of atom.
Rather illogical position concerning to the same object – concerning to atom.
Now I want to repeat base idea of the polytronic concept:
The electron and positron, in such kind, how they exist outside of atoms, are not components of atoms – the electron and positron are the limiting variants of photons, in which the energy is rolled into ring forms by means of some force.
This force needs to be investigated there, where it exists, i.e. on a surface of atoms and molecules. Therefore, it is necessary to develop special experiments, which would exclude an opportunity of mechanistic interpretation of diffraction.

 

[12345]

oops...i just read that you said it was 'possible'.

 

[vlamir]

Why the titmouse that has flown through a window leaf, tries to fly out into street through glass in a window?
As soon as we have started talking about light, I would like to cite an instance of successful comparison: the theory is a spectral resolution of scientific sight.
The good theory should be capable give the exhaustive answer in many areas of science, and, first of all, it should be focused on the solution of secret of the alive matter. Therefore any author of new ideas should be quite good erudite not only in the exact sciences, but also in areas, which the official science ranks as a category pseudoscientific and mystical.
Already enough long time I try to collect in one theme “Puzzles of angular acceleration” various and conflicting ideas with hope, that, eventually, something will be crystallized.
Given below idea is intended for this theme, but I think, it will be interesting and here.
So, in “MATHEMATICAL MODELLING of POLYTRONIC RADIATION”
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/pt_e5.pdf
it is shown, that the photon consist of two parts: first half of photon has been named, as compressing concerning speed of light, the second – as decompressing.
In the work “NEW INTERPRETATION of GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT”
http://vlamir.nsk.ru/dipole_of_speed_e.pdf
this idea has been advanced in more detail and with application of mathematical ways for finding-out of the nature of gravitational field.
Anyway, it has been established, that expression of gravitation and mass through angular acceleration does not give the exhaustive answer to the problem of space and time.
Now I want to offer for discussion a variant of interaction of space and time, which, as consequence, follows from dipole of speed of light.
Speed of light in vacuum "c" is natural border of interface between two worlds, or, we shall tell so, between two polar conditions of the universe.
On the one side of border there is a condition (c+0), on the other side – a condition (c–0). Accordingly, the width of border between the worlds is equal to zero.
Inhabitants of the first world live in motionless (c+0)–space and with mobile, so they imagine it, time.
Inhabitants of the second world live in motionless (c–0)–space and also with mobile, so they imagine it, time.
The hypothetical exterior observer, could see, that in one world the space is motionless, whereas in the other – time is motionless.
In our world the space is a continuity, in which any conditions for atoms are allowed, but only one condition for photons. In the parallel world any conditions for photons, but only one condition for atoms are allowed.
I would like to warn, that attempts to draw these two worlds on a paper will not give any result. These two worlds exist in each other and cannot exist each without other.
Excuse, but I have the same brain, as well as at other people, therefore to describe the parallel world with the help of analogies of our world it is impossible.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

The electron and positron, in such kind, how they exist outside of atoms, are not components of atoms – the electron and positron are the limiting variants of photons, in which the energy is rolled into ring forms by means of some force.

Vlamir,
You’re know my point:
Any particle is the set or combination of photons, i.e. the wave of some frequency.
The ring is a particular form of particles. Only charged particles can have such the form.