What is the truth behind the atomic model?

  • Thread starter QuantumNet
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Atomic
In summary, a universe where every point is an origin point must have a net. The linked forum discusses the atomic model and the theory of QuantumNet, which proposes that neither the classical nor modern atomic models are correct. The modern model works well, but there are slight differences in the presumed orbit. The theory also suggests that advanced net physics may explain the movement of atoms.
  • #1

QuantumNet

Please, take a look on my atomic-model based on that
a universe in which every point can be counted as an origo, must be a net.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8610

You can also read the rest of my theory on http://www.quantumnet-string.tk [Broken]

This explains the math around the atom, right?

Through this pictures, we obtain that neither the classical or the modern atomic model is correct. Do you agree?
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/classical_atomic_orbit.gif [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by QuantumNet
Through this pictures, we obtain that neither the classical or the modern atomic model is correct. Do you agree?
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/classical_atomic_orbit.gif [Broken]
The modern model of the atom works quite well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Er... Bohr isn't exactly the modern model of the atom...
 
  • #4


Originally posted by russ_watters
The modern model of the atom works quite well.

if boblock was right,
aa
bb
would lead to
a bb a
since b attracts b and a repells a were b is sink and a is source.
Let's say this is a primitive sort of helium atom.
If two b are on a certain distance from each other, it is discovered that they move from each other:
<-- b b -->
This is due of advanced net physic, and it's not my case to crack.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Originally posted by FZ+
Er... Bohr isn't exactly the modern model of the atom...

No, but... the only difference is the presumed orbit. Mathematically there are no greater differences.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by FZ+
Er... Bohr isn't exactly the modern model of the atom...
I didn't mean to imply it was. Just take my statement as-is.
 

1. What is the atomic model?

The atomic model is a scientific theory that describes the structure of an atom. It explains how atoms are composed of smaller particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons.

2. Who first proposed the atomic model?

The atomic model was first proposed by the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus, who believed that all matter was made up of tiny, indivisible particles called atoms.

3. How has the atomic model evolved over time?

The atomic model has evolved significantly over time as new evidence and technologies have been discovered. It has gone through several major revisions, including Dalton's solid sphere model, Thomson's plum pudding model, Rutherford's nuclear model, and the modern quantum mechanical model.

4. What evidence supports the atomic model?

There is a vast amount of evidence that supports the atomic model, including experiments such as the gold foil experiment conducted by Ernest Rutherford, which provided evidence for the existence of a small, dense nucleus in the center of the atom. Additionally, advancements in technology, such as the development of the electron microscope, have allowed scientists to directly observe and study atoms.

5. Is the atomic model a proven fact?

The atomic model is a scientific theory, which means it is the most widely accepted explanation for the structure of atoms based on current evidence. It is constantly being tested and refined, but it is not considered a proven fact as new evidence may emerge in the future that could lead to further revisions or a new model altogether.

Suggested for: What is the truth behind the atomic model?

Back
Top