Johannes Maria FrankBirkbeck, University of London
Johannes Maria Frank
Master of Science
About
2
Publications
440
Reads
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
1
Citation
Introduction
I am following a rather heretic idea, the atom might not have a core.
I have several questions I cannot answer with our current model and also follow ideas how atoms might look like if the core idea is overturned.
I am a hobbyist and therefore aware that I am not taken serious. But I try to follow scientific standards as close as possible.
If you read my work, be aware that Michael Faraday had exactly the same problem and while this is not a proof at all, it should make you aware that it should not be my status but the quality of my work and the questions that are asked that should guide your judgement.
Thank you
Skills and Expertise
Publications
Publications (2)
In this article, we look at the dependency between quantum mechanics (QM) and classical mechanics (CM). We state the theorem that CM = false → QM = false, given the observations of experiments and their deviations from predictions, and prove it using lean4. We also look at the possibilities of QM = true despite CM = false and the changes in the axi...
In this article, we present an explanation for the crisis in theoretical physics, showing that two errors in early physics were made, leading to the crisis of the foundations of physics as we see today. The first error was a simple false theory on the interior of the atom, the second the multiple attempts to fix all of this by involuntarily accepti...
Questions
Question (1)
It sounds like a ridiculous question to ask. But if I look at my own history I learned about the model at the age of about 11, so as a childhood belief I never questioned it. But recently I started to question the current model especially its idea of it having a core and this is what I came up with:
1. The separation of charges is not what we expect from the electromagnetic force. While normally opposite charges attract each other, inside the atom they do exactly the opposite. All charges magically order themselves to their likewise charges. We have an explanation of the static behavior but any dynamics like the creation or the behavior on the core getting of center is unexplained.
2. The separation of charges creates a dipole. Not just a little like water, but on a massive scale. Unlike the data, which show atoms to be rather neutral, the model would make it to be massively negatively charged. The effect of the positive core in the nearby of the atom is because of the 1/r**2 law a lot lower than the negative. Therefore the whole construct should only be neutral with sufficient distance from it.
3. According to the model almost all mass is centered in the core. Acceleration and deceleration in a gravitational field is no problem as these are independent of the mass. But acceleration or deceleration by electromagnetic fields are hard to explain. Imagine a gold ring dropping on a wooden table. The acceleration is done by gravity but the deceleration by electromagnetic fields. These fields can only act from the outside first and thus stop the electrons. For a gold atom the core is an order of four magnitudes heavier. Stopping the atom corresponds to stopping a falling car from a 12 store high car park at the ground level by grabbing its mirror.
4. Atoms are spheres. Electron microscope images clearly show this.
But the model predicts for example d orbitals and they have a clear 3 to 1 dimension, meaning they are not symmetrical. You cannot blame missing resolution, as already electrons have enough resolution to detect such an asymmetry. LHC collisions at least should have come up with any asymmetric behavior but the data do not show such asymmetry.
5. A very common application of the beta plus decay are PET scans. Almost any major hospital is equipped with such a device. A common PET radiating element is Iodine 124. Iodine It's shell according to the model contains 53 electrons. The positron used is emitted from core, but never seems to bother to annihilate with any of the 53 electrons but instead chooses to annihilate with a free electron. This rather seems to point to the fact the positron must be emitted from the surface of the atom rather from the inside.
6. Covalent bonding is explained by Lewis pairs. We need a strong force for the core to be explained stable but we have no problems readily accepting the same issue with electrons. Electrons simply do not pair. They have the same charge and thus repel each other.
7. Similar to the above electrons have no "desire" to fill in a missing place. They are no dining philosophers missing a colleague. They repel each other and thus distribute as good a possible over the surface. Thus adding an additional electron means the average distance between all of them decreases.
For the last two we have explanations like MO-LCAO, but non of the explanations speak of forces. They assume potentials to be a force replacement and thus covering the subject. We also should not forget that MO-LCAO is a replacement of the octet rule and the octet rule is a simple observation. It seems nobody ever considered the force problem, because from chemistry we simply know "It works"
Imho the above show sufficient evidence for at least a discussion with the model of atoms having a core.
I looked for reasonable explanations for the above issues, but could not come up with anything logical.
The core is derived from our planetary system but in the meantime we know how unstable such a system actually is. Modelling the atom like this is simply not stable.
I am also extremely startled by the fact that this model is over 100 years old and none of the great physicists of the last century has ever questioned it. But looking for evidence supporting a core the gold foil experiment of Rutherford is basically the only source for this model.
Maybe I can find here someone who claims to have done the gold foil experiment of Rutherford and actually has a good data set one can look at.
If you would like to defend the idea of a core, have experiments that support it, please come forward with it. This is science and if the above is wrong and can be well explained I'll be happy to learn.
Thank you.
