Large Hadron Collider

Gregg and Jim:

Gregg the evidence that electrons orbit a nucleus is observed when: metals conduct electricity using predicted free electrons, when periodicity occurs (which is observed), and in Reduction/Oxidation reactions when there is a quantifiable exchange of free electrons that can be put to work.

Jim: Models are not reality, they are a representation. Even when talking about the electron cloud, Heisenberg's Uncertaintity principle takes over. We cannot pinpoint the exact location of the electron, attempts energize them and place them above their ground states. I have asserted in conversations and writings here on this board and in other forums, and with debates with Tom, that one of the principal effects of controlling gravitation would be an application of gravity as a microscope. Only then can we answer these questions. Do the electrons just orbit like planets around the Sun? Perhaps, they jump to higher orbitals and back again almost constantly. That electrons are particles with a field should not be of dispute because all of the conversations that are said here do not cancel out the best model for the evidence available. The Bohr model with electron cloud is the best atomic model that explains the KNOWN information. Are there things to learn? Sure. Saying that scientists better than ourselves are wrong because of how we feel about models and/or those scientists is irrational. If you think that the electron doesn't exist, then all applications that we have made from this line of thought must occur too. Did your computer screens just stop working?

Mark Vitrone

Let's assume that the model for the strong atomci force is correct. I put two cue balls onto the billiard table and have them touching. I say that there's a force of attraction between them of 1 newton. Then I move hem apart a short distance. The force of 1 newton falls because we assume an inverse square law.

Now i say, that's not the case here. This is the strong atomic force and moving the balls apart <b>increases</b> the force between them. Further, the range is extremely short. Move them apart a tiny bit and the force increases hugely.

What's happening vis a vis the Le Sage model?

(edited) A little more thought on this. Protons and neutrons are made up of threee quardk of different "colours." They can vary slightly and create a tint, which force an ajacent neutron say, to take on the same tint and be attracted to its neighbour by aomething analogous to Van Der Waals. This Van Der Waals force is the strong atomic force, extremely weak compared to the force between the quarks but about 200 times that of the electromagnetic force of repulsion between two like charges.

So, let's play something of a hunch, and say that the nucleus is a Dyson sphere. Years ago it was suggested that we should be looking for Dyson spheres as signs of super technological cultures. Then people looked at the problems of keeping the parent sun in the centre of such a structure. As I recall the maths got quite tricky.

MV, I have nothing against any model. Its the assumption they have anything to do with real stuff that I don't agree with.

<i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />Gregg and Jim:

Gregg the evidence that electrons orbit a nucleus is observed when: metals conduct electricity using predicted free electrons, when periodicity occurs (which is observed), and in Reduction/Oxidation reactions when there is a quantifiable exchange of free electrons that can be put to work.

Mark Vitrone
<hr noshade size="1">
<i>There is absolutely no relationship between metals conducting electricity and "electrons" having orbits about nuclei. The electricity is far more likely a flow of "liquid" elysium. Are you talking about periodicy in the Periodic Table? This is a human construct and the "periodicy" can be better explained as a result of geometry. Reduction/Oxidation confirms electron orbits? I have worked with ionic chemistry professionally for 35 years. I take atomic weight and valence seriously,; the rest is religion and has no utility. Conceptually, the "electron" is headed for the same fate as the "photon". It will turn out to be a construct of millions of elysons brought about by the geometry of the proton and the gravitational flux.

Bohr "proved" his quantum mechanics for electrons by assuming it true in the first step. His equations prove nothing and Reality is utterly indifferent to the results of his equations. It never ceases to amaze me at how much credence is placed by people in equations. I write equations and equation sets on a daily basis. And I have to correct them many times. Do you really believe that fundamental particles are somehow alive, have consciousness and make decisions? This is what is required by quantum mechanics. The ultimate result of holding equations over Reality is Stephen Hawking. He has reached a dead end.</i><hr noshade size="1">
Jim: Models are not reality, they are a representation. Even when talking about the electron cloud, Heisenberg's Uncertaintity principle takes over. We cannot pinpoint the exact location of the electron, attempts energize them and place them above their ground states. I have asserted in conversations and writings here on this board and in other forums, and with debates with Tom, that one of the principal effects of controlling gravitation would be an application of gravity as a microscope. Only then can we answer these questions. Do the electrons just orbit like planets around the Sun? Perhaps, they jump to higher orbitals and back again almost constantly. That electrons are particles with a field should not be of dispute because all of the conversations that are said here do not cancel out the best model for the evidence available. The Bohr model with electron cloud is the best atomic model that explains the KNOWN information. Are there things to learn? Sure. Saying that scientists better than ourselves are wrong because of how we feel about models and/or those scientists is irrational. If you think that the electron doesn't exist, then all applications that we have made from this line of thought must occur too. Did your computer screens just stop working?
Mark Vitrone
<hr noshade size="1">
<i>Can you distinguish between critical faculty and "insulting" scientists? This, on the face of it, is Dr. Van Flandern's big crime. Hasn't he "insulted" Newton?

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is an oxymoron. Bohr did not propose an electron cloud. He proposed quantum states for the electron. My computer screen is still working. God knows how since I don't believe in orbiting electrons. Will Reality punish me?

If you start off with an assumption and then through circular logic prove your assumption, this accomplishes nothing. Electron "orbits" prove why my computer screen works? I don't think so.</i>

Gregg Wilson

I quote Niels Bohr ""There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

ex cathedra. Case closed.

Gregg Wilson

Isn't irresponsible to discount the body of work leading to the fundamental particles? I have always contended that the use of quantum numbers seems farcical. Elysium interactions and pushing forces can still define what we call charge.

Mark Vitrone