Notices
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: a new atom model

  1. #1 a new atom model 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    225
    in atomic nucleus, neutron is identical to proton.

    electron is not a part of Atom. It is sent out by proton.

    jin guangnian


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: a new atom model 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    945
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    in atomic nucleus, neutron is identical to proton.

    electron is not a part of Atom. It is sent out by proton.

    jin guangnian
    I always understood that the electron was considered to be a component of the atom.
    Now I'm off to study neck (red) injuries.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: a new atom model 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    in atomic nucleus, neutron is identical to proton.
    What about charge?

    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    It is sent out by proton.
    What evidence do you have to support this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: a new atom model 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    in atomic nucleus, neutron is identical to proton.

    electron is not a part of Atom. It is sent out by proton.

    jin guangnian
    rubbish

    Go read about quarks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: a new atom model 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    in atomic nucleus, neutron is identical to proton.

    electron is not a part of Atom. It is sent out by proton.

    jin guangnian
    No, no, no.

    The nucleus of an atom consists of protons and neutrons, where protons have a charge of +1 and neutrons are neutral (hence the name). Their mass is very similar, but the neutron is a bit heavier than the proton. Atoms are made electrically neutral by electrons (charge = -1) that are on orbitals around the nucleus.

    In the case of beta decay, neutrons do emit an electron and an anti-neutrino. What remains is a proton.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    225
    the problem is how to define charge.

    what is charge?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    the problem is how to define charge.

    what is charge?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(physics)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    the problem is how to define charge.

    what is charge?
    tomjin, you didn't bother to answer my questions, so I believe that relieves me of a duty to be diplomatic.

    You are wrong. Neutrons and protons are not identical. The most obvious difference is in the charge on the proton. It doesn't matter hwo we define that charge, it is evidently there and distinguishes the proton from the neutron.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    the problem is how to define charge.

    what is charge?
    In the case of an electric charge, one definition could be how a particle reacts on an electric field when flying through it. Neutral particles like neutrons are not affected, protons are pushed into some direction, while electrons that have opposite charge are pushed into another. This is a simple experiment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior JennLonhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Under the Sun, Moon and Stars
    Posts
    215
    I just think this poor guy is confused about pretty much everything there is o.O
    "Be the change you want to see in the world"
    Mahatma Gandhi

    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace"
    Jimmy Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    225
    your guys answers are very interesting. don't you really think how ridiculous that in some atoms, more than 100 electrons revolves around the atom nucleus. Is it possible?

    Without electron, every thing look perfect. There is only 1 kind of particle (proton) in the atom nucleus. Scientists have been looking for this result for more than 2 thousand years.

    proton and neutron are identical in atom nucleus. The reason why we thought they are different is they looks different when they come out of nucleus.

    Proton has some vibration, neutron hasn't. We knock neutron out of atom nucleus with energetic particle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    your guys answers are very interesting. don't you really think how ridiculous that in some atoms, more than 100 electrons revolves around the atom nucleus. Is it possible?
    So, the only justification for your view of the atom is that you cannot imagine how an atom could be surrounded by many electrons. fortunately the advance of science is not dependant on your imagination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    I think it's silly that some people think of electrons as being part of an atom. That's like saying my clothing is part of my body. It's highly unlikely that you would ever see me walking around in public without my clothing, mind you, but I would still be myself if I didn't have it.

    Fundamentally, a free proton is just an ionized Hydrogen atom with a +1 charge to it.

    However... I fully agree with everyone else that the OP is wrong in saying that Neutrons and Protons are the same thing. A free Neutron decays into a proton by emitting an electron and an electron neutrino, but that still implies that there is a substantial difference between them.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    225
    the reason why I don't believe current atom model is Millican oil drop exp.

    I don't believe in this exp. the mass of electron is 9.3*10^(-31)kg. this exp is too simple, there is no way to get electron's mass through such a simple exp.

    If you really look into this exp, probably you will be shocked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    You have to be careful focusing all of your attention on just one test. The question of how much an electron weighs is tested again and again every time you turn on a TV set. The magnets in the cathode ray tube steer electrons from an electron gun so they precisely hit each of the pixels on your screen. If the mass of an electron were wrong, those magnets would steer the electrons into the wrong place, and they would miss the pixels, and you couldn't watch TV.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    225
    how electron works in a TV set has nothing to do with mass and charge.

    it's all about speed and voltage. engineer figure out how to make it work after 1000 failures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    the reason why I don't believe current atom model is Millican oil drop exp.

    I don't believe in this exp. the mass of electron is 9.3*10^(-31)kg. this exp is too simple, there is no way to get electron's mass through such a simple exp.

    If you really look into this exp, probably you will be shocked.
    Ha, you are being very funny. Once again you argue against a well established fact in physics with your inability to understand it. How can you not believe in an experiment? It exists, has been executed many times and closely follows the predictions. What else is needed? Maybe the understanding that it determines the value of the electron charge, not its mass.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

    An experiment to measure its mass is given and described here:
    http://phoenix.phys.clemson.edu/labs...erm/index.html

    I agree with other posters in this thread that many applications very much rely on the precise value of the electron mass and charge. And a TV is a perfect example. But yet you write ...
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    how electron works in a TV set has nothing to do with mass and charge.

    it's all about speed and voltage. engineer figure out how to make it work after 1000 failures.
    ... which proves that you don't understand that gravity pulls down the electrons. And the charge of an electron defines the direction and speed that results from the voltage and magnetic field.

    Here is another one: There are very precise experiments that determine the photon energy that is needed to produce an electron-positron pair (1.02 MeV). This energy corresponds to a rest mass that is almost exactly that value that you are debating (511 keV/c^2). Almost exactly, because the exact value is 9.1x10^(-31) kg.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    225
    please stop repeating what you learn from books. if scientists want to make some progress, they have to abandon something written in books.

    quantum physics have one problem. it built all its theories on one exp, which is Millican oil drop exp.

    look into it, it will shock you. how can Millican get charge of electron from a oil drop.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    225
    it is ridiculous that oil drop goes up and down just because of 2 or 3 extra electrons in it.

    my major is electronics. I learned some theories about how electrons work in TV set. engineer know how to steer electron. they don't have to know mass and charge. after knowing electron can be steered, they can figure it out by keep doing exps.

    there are about 4 or 5 big problem in Millican exp, the reason we accept its result is we need it, not because it is correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    please stop repeating what you learn from books. if scientists want to make some progress, they have to abandon something written in books.

    quantum physics have one problem. it built all its theories on one exp, which is Millican oil drop exp.

    look into it, it will shock you. how can Millican get charge of electron from a oil drop.
    Read and learn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    please stop repeating what you learn from books. if scientists want to make some progress, they have to abandon something written in books.
    Where did you get the idea that scientists learn from books? Science students learn from books. Scientists learn from the latest research findings, including their own findings which they share with others. Do you honestly expect us to take you seriously when you appear to have drawn conclusions on how scientists do their jobs based on no actual personal experience of reality of it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    it is ridiculous that oil drop goes up and down just because of 2 or 3 extra electrons in it.

    my major is electronics. I learned some theories about how electrons work in TV set. engineer know how to steer electron. they don't have to know mass and charge. after knowing electron can be steered, they can figure it out by keep doing exps.

    there are about 4 or 5 big problem in Millican exp, the reason we accept its result is we need it, not because it is correct.
    It's you again.

    Don't be vague when you argue, and don't ask questions. Answer them?
    Give evidence, and what you have found. Don't leave it half-hanging. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously if you're claiming controversial things like the Earth is Flat.

    证据。
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    how electron works in a TV set has nothing to do with mass and charge.

    it's all about speed and voltage. engineer figure out how to make it work after 1000 failures.
    An electron is fired by an electron gun, and then electro-magnets in the tube steer it after it is fired. The amount of force required to steer something depends on its inertia, which in turn depends on its mass.

    If you have the wrong mass, then you will also have the wrong inertia, and the object won't go where you want it to go.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    225
    please look into Millican oil drop exp first.

    this exp covers a horrible truth. I can't tell you what's wrong if you don't look into it by yourself. believe me, it 's very vulnerable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    225
    we can't talk about mass of electron without mention Millican oil drop exp.

    you can take a photo of oil drop in exp and measure its radius from it. you will found out what's wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    please look into Millican oil drop exp first.

    this exp covers a horrible truth. I can't tell you what's wrong if you don't look into it by yourself. believe me, it 's very vulnerable.
    I have seen and understood it. I learned it during studying physics. So, now tell me, what exactly is wrong with it. I think you are a troll, and you are laughing your ass off. Right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by tomjin2000
    please look into Millican oil drop exp first.

    this exp covers a horrible truth. I can't tell you what's wrong if you don't look into it by yourself. believe me, it 's very vulnerable.
    I have seen and understood it. I learned it during studying physics. So, now tell me, what exactly is wrong with it. I think you are a troll, and you are laughing your ass off. Right?
    I totally understand debate about atom model is too much for you. it's too complicated.

    you should try your best to understand Cavendish's exp. human being can't weigh the mass of earth through 4 lead balls. this is first step.

    focus on that topic first.

    after you understand this, then you can try to understand the mistakes in the law of universal gravitation. human being don't know where gravity come from, but we have already got a formula to calculate it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    225
    probably we should name proton "atom". human being have been looking for it for more than 2000 years.

    we don't need to imagine how 100 electron revolve around atom nucleus. everything goes back to logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    52
    http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

    This link shows the flaws in Cavendish's experiment, however, it accepts Newton's equations. I don't really see why you would doubt universal gravitation from it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    225
    the gravitation between 2 objects is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them (the law of universal gravitation)

    I found out, without changing distance, the gravitation between 2 objects changes all the time. this gravitation can be affected by surrounding.

    we still don't know where gravity come from, can we really got a equation to calculate it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •