November 14th, 2016, 08:35 AM  #1 
Banned Camp Joined: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,028 Thanks: 24  Electron's jumps model...
Electron's jumps model... I'm glad to present you the new model for the electron's jumps (in case is linear): Blu line: the jumps In red Elastic reaction is what we call the "obscure energy" at work. All come's from Newton's develope for square: $\displaystyle A^2 = \sum_{1}^{A} (2X1)$ So if $P$ is any possible number in $N$: $\displaystyle P = A^2 + Rest = \sum_{1}^{A} (2X1) + Rest$ Where $A^2$ is the biggest Square included in P: $A^2< P$ Of course it can be quadratic: $\displaystyle A^3 = \sum_{1}^{A} (3X^23X+1)$ So if $P$ is any possible number in $N$: $\displaystyle P = A^3 + Rest = \sum_{1}^{A} (3X^23X+1) + Rest$ Where $A^3$ is the biggest Cube included in P: $A^3< P$ ...I hope... 
November 14th, 2016, 11:24 AM  #2 
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 1,689 Thanks: 670 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff. 
I admit I haven't been following your posts. What the heck does any of this have to do with electrons?? Dan 
November 14th, 2016, 08:56 PM  #3 
Banned Camp Joined: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,028 Thanks: 24 
It's how I think electrons suck a continous flow of energy. Here can be more clear since the levels of tha jumps seems quadratic: But, of course, it's just how I dream about it.... 
November 15th, 2016, 12:32 PM  #4 
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 1,689 Thanks: 670 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff.  
November 16th, 2016, 12:59 AM  #5 
Banned Camp Joined: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,028 Thanks: 24 
It's a possible configuration for Jumps. If it is on one of the step you see on the blue line, for example 10 (9+1) you've to increase energy till 16 to see a jump. But it means that 1610 is less than expected 169 that is the separation energy (ex. 1s2s or else). It's just a math model, to le physicist let indague where the Rest is. I have in mind that this non visible energy it's a sort of "torsion" since a flat orbit can't react to cross flux... so the right orbit it has to be 3D to react to energy in any direction... 
November 16th, 2016, 01:14 AM  #6 
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 2,091 Thanks: 701 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions 
What phenomenon are you trying to model?

November 17th, 2016, 12:38 AM  #7 
Banned Camp Joined: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,028 Thanks: 24 
Playing with my numbers I discover this seems fits well with orbit jumps. I'd like to discuss this with involved physicist. The point is:  We know we have to spend energy to see a jump At this moment what I know is that if we give not enough energy we see nothing. This is one of the point let common peoples think: quantum mechanics works differently by "spring" driven classic mech. But I would like to ask if it's possible to remove my suspect that classic mechanics always works, we are just not able to understand how... So I won't confutate that quantum mech fails !!! It is our best working model, at the moment. But I wanna discover if there is a way to understand the jump with classich mech. So the point is:  THERE MUST BE SOME DIFFERENCE FOR THE SYSTEM IF WE START FROM 3M2 + 0, OF FROM 3M2+ 5.  It's necessary to invent a sort of experiment where will be possible to check what happen to electron's and or it' orbit if we start from different levels. I suspect that the system adsorbe energy till is not enought to jump and than it make a sort of short of hysteresis loop on the Jump where, in case, the extra energy present in the status 3M2+5 (so +5) was dissipated. You see also XSL has to "curve" close to the jump to hold continuity... There is NO reason to believe in a "Quantum" Ghost. Einstein is probably right, just fails to accept that the next jump in our knowledge we have to make is to start from Quantum models, that works on the big numbers, to understand the more sophisticated classic model that will lead us to the complete controll of the energy/mass transformation process. I hope someone will be able to perform this test asap... Last edited by complicatemodulus; November 17th, 2016 at 12:42 AM. 
November 17th, 2016, 06:01 AM  #8  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 2,091 Thanks: 701 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions  Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
$\displaystyle \Delta E = hf$ There is no classical explanation of merit to adequately describe such behaviour. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
 
November 17th, 2016, 08:54 AM  #9 
Banned Camp Joined: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,028 Thanks: 24 
Tanks, but: Till one consider an electron like a planet it's clear he has no chance to understand. For me it's well clear why Quantum mech works: an electron is an energy vortex that turns around other vortex. We call "mass" what, viceversa are just "compact" vortex. If we see a rock in the sky we know what happen since it's enought to follow it's C.G. to know where it will land, but also here we often forgot aerodynamics, so the flow around it. If we return on the electron and we think to it as as a vortex (in water or air) it's more clear that if we change the main flow of water, the vortex behavior change. To explain with standard mech mat you've to solve a very complex serie of integrals... we actually are not able to do with fluent linera flow... it's clear that for a photon that it's probably subject to $10^{50}$ different source... (from light to black holes in our universe)... will be simply impossible for us at the moment... but we are able to play with messy think using their probabilistic behavior. It's clear that a vortexhas as it's proper dimension that is not finite, since also at a very distant point it is possible to hear his (very weak) presence... So as planet curve the spacetime, so electrons curve it's spacetime around the nucleus, and probably, like a vortex or a comet in the sky, leaving an energy track behind it. But I think we cannot think it engrave a track in the space, but he lives it's "material" trail that he probably prefer to shun in the next turn... and this perform what I call "torsion"... etc... With this point of view it's clear why you cannot observe a flying photon: it's like to observe a very weak and little vortex in a pipe: once we make our hole in the pipe to "mesure" it, we destroy the real flow, so we see nothing of real. So to became able to see and mesure, we have to discover, if it's possible, to make the same we did in aerodynamic: to mesure speed, we mesure pressure (90° degree vector) Pressure don't need to suck flow or lot of energy from the flow (not soo much...).  Sorry "XLS" program... means Excel. Last edited by complicatemodulus; November 17th, 2016 at 08:56 AM. 
November 17th, 2016, 10:46 AM  #10  
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 1,689 Thanks: 670 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff.  Quote:
First, as I mentioned before, we need to consider a potential function for the electron in order to describe it's particular quantum numbers. (At least I'm assuming that's what you are trying to do.) For example, an electron in a Coulomb potential (hydrogenlike atom) will be different in the details to an electron in a harmonic oscillator potential. In both examples the electron will not so much "jump" as it will change its quantum numbers...the electron can be considered to be in a "probability cloud" not specific orbits so changing energy levels is more subtle than you are describing: The sum of the probability distriubutions for an electron with a common principle quantum number, n, in a hydrogen atom is pretty much a sphere so the electron essentially stays in the same regions of space as any other electron with that quantum number. I have no idea what you mean by the terms "vortex" and "torsion." Your descriptions sound similar to an electron orbiting the Bohr atom, which as you know, has some predictive aspects but is a miserable model to reality. Dan  

Tags 
electron, jumps, model 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Proton to Electron Mass Ratio  phxmarker  Physics  14  March 4th, 2016 06:01 PM 
Another try at a classical electron  J Thomas  Physics  0  February 2nd, 2015 08:55 AM 
Which has the most Negative electron affinity?  girlbadatmath  Chemistry  1  November 24th, 2014 03:13 AM 
electron  a wave and a particle  TwoTwo  Physics  19  July 8th, 2014 06:18 AM 
Magnitude of force between electron & proton  sivela  Physics  1  January 27th, 2011 04:51 PM 