Visualizing the Submicrocosm: A New Perspective on Atoms

[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.