My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Science Forums > Physics

Physics Physics Forum


Thanks Tree2Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
November 14th, 2016, 09:35 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:

$\displaystyle A^2 = \sum_{1}^{A} (2X-1)$

So if $P$ is any possible number in $N$:

$\displaystyle P = A^2 + Rest = \sum_{1}^{A} (2X-1) + Rest$

Where $A^2$ is the biggest Square included in P: $A^2< P$

Of course it can be quadratic:

$\displaystyle A^3 = \sum_{1}^{A} (3X^2-3X+1)$

So if $P$ is any possible number in $N$:

$\displaystyle P = A^3 + Rest = \sum_{1}^{A} (3X^2-3X+1) + Rest$

Where $A^3$ is the biggest Cube included in P: $A^3< P$

...I hope...
complicatemodulus is offline  
 
November 14th, 2016, 12:24 PM   #2
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,659
Thanks: 652

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
I admit I haven't been following your posts. What the heck does any of this have to do with electrons??

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
November 14th, 2016, 09:56 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....
complicatemodulus is offline  
November 15th, 2016, 01:32 PM   #4
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,659
Thanks: 652

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by complicatemodulus View Post
It's how I think electrons suck a continous flow of energy.
A continuous flow of energy from what? The electron would have to be in some kind of potential. What potential?

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
November 16th, 2016, 01:59 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 16-10 is less than expected 16-9 that is the separation energy (ex. 1s-2s 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...
complicatemodulus is offline  
November 16th, 2016, 02:14 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 2,081
Thanks: 698

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
What phenomenon are you trying to model?
Benit13 is offline  
November 17th, 2016, 01:38 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 01:42 AM.
complicatemodulus is offline  
November 17th, 2016, 07:01 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 2,081
Thanks: 698

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
Quote:
Originally Posted by complicatemodulus View Post
- 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.
Correct. If an electron absorbs a photon that does not have enough energy to allow the electron to jump to a new energy level, it almost instantaneously releases another photon of the same energy and frequency. It is basically scattering.

Quote:
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...
Classical mechanics fails horribly at the particle level for a great many phenomena, including thermodynamics, radiation, solid state physics and more. It is simply incorrect at describing phenomena relevant for individual particles or collections of them of order unity.

Quote:
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.
Sorry, but that's never going to happen. Electrons are simply not classical particles and therefore don't follow rules associated with classical mechanics. It is well documented precisely why the classical theory fails and what evidence there is to support quantum mechanics as the prevailing theory, so you'd make a lot more progress by getting hold of an introductory quantum mechanics textbook and reading about it in detail.

Quote:
- 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.
No, this does not happen. If you shine black body radiation onto a sample of hydrogen gas, the only energy that is absorbed is the energy at precise wavelengths that correspond with the possible energy level differences. That is, you get absorption spectra. Furthermore, the radiation released by the excited orbital electrons is at specific frequencies corresponding to the energy level differences:

$\displaystyle \Delta E = hf$

There is no classical explanation of merit to adequately describe such behaviour.

Quote:
You see also XSL has to "curve" close to the jump to hold continuity...
What is XSL?

Quote:
There is NO reason to believe in a "Quantum" Ghost.
What is a quantum ghost?

Quote:
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...
Thanks from topsquark
Benit13 is offline  
November 17th, 2016, 09:54 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 space-time, so electrons curve it's space-time 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 09:56 AM.
complicatemodulus is offline  
November 17th, 2016, 11:46 AM   #10
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,659
Thanks: 652

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by complicatemodulus View Post
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 space-time, so electrons curve it's space-time 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.
There's sooo much here to respond to. I'm just going to make a couple of responses to the more important questions in the above.

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 (hydrogen-like 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
topsquark is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > Science Forums > Physics

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 07:01 PM
Another try at a classical electron J Thomas Physics 0 February 2nd, 2015 09:55 AM
Which has the most Negative electron affinity? girlbadatmath Chemistry 1 November 24th, 2014 04:13 AM
electron - a wave and a particle TwoTwo Physics 19 July 8th, 2014 07:18 AM
Magnitude of force between electron & proton sivela Physics 1 January 27th, 2011 05:51 PM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.