Atom or Nucleus?

[rockytriton]

I was wondering what others here thought of this article: http://members.dancris.com/~bfraser/4v4a/ATMORNUC.html

[Eclogite]

I thought it was well written, but intrinsically ignorant. Here is one example of many of the ignorance:

Scientists should have concluded that the thing that has all the mass of the atom and which accounts for all the properties of the atom, is, quite simply, the atom itself. Instead, they concluded it was a "nucleus" of the atom.

I know of no scientist (and very few high school students) who would make this claim. The closest they could come would be to say that the greater part of the mass of the atom resides in the nucleus. The properties of the atom are largely dependent upon the character of the electron orbitals, especially the outer orbitals. The writer seems to be wholly ignorant of this fact, or is being intellectually dishonest in pretending it does not exist.

 

I'm sure you can find many similar instances where the author's understanding of the atomic model is seriously flawed.

[CraigD]

I was wondering what others here thought of this article: http://members.dancris.com/~bfraser/4v4a/ATMORNUC.html

I think the article fails to account for the experimental data underlying Bragg’s law. Although it accurately describes this data in its “The Origin of the Nuclear Model of the Atom”, it doesn’t appear to further consider it.

 

The article also attempts to support its claims by asserting a conspiracy of “mainstream science” to suppress them. This rhetorical technique, while not inherently disproving the supported claims, a sign of a fallacious and non-scientific reasoning. It, and other qualities of the article, are grounds for the reader to be wary.

[rockytriton]

Yea I agree with you both. He does have some decent points, but he doesn't try to explain why certain things happen in his model. If he doesn't think that electrons orbit atoms, how does he explain the makeup of molecules, is there no covalent bonds or anything like that in his model?

 

After looking more at his site, it seems he is on some kind of quest to create some theory of physics based on things taught in the bible. So, I guess he is just one of the scientist bashing quacks.

[UncleAl]

Scriptural Physics

Not even wrong. The spew is trivially falsified for its irreconcilable disagreement with common chemistry overall and spectroscopy/spectrometry in particular.

 

Google

"10 Dq" 20,100 hits

"10Dq" 17,200 hits

 

If electrons were orbiting a charged nucleus, they would quickly radiate away their energy and also neutralize the positive charge on the nucleus.

Horrible crap. Lamb shift of the H atom compared with U(91)+.

One Christian's Perspective on Quantum Mechanics

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

 

Yahweh was no goddamned good at pi. Why should Yahweh be any better at anything else?

[Qfwfq]

Uhm, yeah, this guy is perfectly right but, yawn... hmmm, ah, <stretch> he could have made his point a lot quicker by saying that the word 'atom' etymologically means "something that can't be cut, divided, split or smashed to pieces", so the very notion of an "atom smasher" has been a colossal, complete waste of the taxpayer’s money all along!

 

What's this guy proposing anyway, to replace the Standard Model with?

[Farsight]

I read this article with interest, and thought it was somewhat soft and general but reasonable. It wasn't saying a great deal. Then yow, Scriptural Physics put me off.

 

There's a big difference between religion and science. Religion is about faith, science is about evidence. But history tells us that even rational scientists can end up keeping the faith with a wrong idea, which is only obviously wrong with the benefit of hindsight.

 

So I like to keep an open mind. Particularly since I'm not satisfied with the Standard Model. One day there will be an article or paper that people quickly dismiss as nonsense, but it'll be right.

[Qfwfq]

So I like to keep an open mind. Particularly since I'm not satisfied with the Standard Model. One day there will be an article or paper that people quickly dismiss as nonsense, but it'll be right.

Uhm, the only thing not yet observed is the Higgs Boson.

 

I'm quite sure that, whether or not this last piece will be confirmed, there's the possibility of future refinement or evolution but I wouldn't reasonably expect QED, QCD or spontaneous symmetry breaking to just be swept away. What is your dissatisfaction with it due to?

 

P. S. What most put me off was his arguing that fundamental particles turn out "not to be fundamental", after all. After that, he simply has a lack of consequentiality.

[Farsight]

What is your dissatisfaction with it due to?

 

Particles. Or the billiard-ball baggage that comes with them. For example, I'm not happy with "messenger particles" like gluons. I'd be happier with a concept that involved some sort of distortion or geometry.

[CraigD]

Particles. Or the billiard-ball baggage that comes with them. For example, I'm not happy with "messenger particles" like gluons. I'd be happier with a concept that involved some sort of distortion or geometry.

The standard model of particle physics evokes an dissatisfying feeling in most people I’ve spoken with about it. However, I think the reason for this is that, to make sense of it, most of us visualize interactions in terms of classical, “billiard ball” particles, when the theory is formally in terms of quantum wave functions. So, while we visualize an atom as a of a complicated “swarm” of magnetic photons, gluons, W and Z bosons carrying force interaction between quarks and electrons, what’s “really” happening is a more complicated, less imaginable change over time of the quantum wave functions associated with these particles, which though complicated, has a smooth numeric/geometric character.

 

Whenever I think much about modern physics, I’m reminded of a quote from some 1980s string theorists (who’s name I’ve forgotten), to the effect that the formal techniques of theoretical physics have reached a point where human beings are just not smart enough neurological thinking systems to have much satisfying intuition about them. The present relationship of even the brightest human beings to more advanced physics may be like that of a very smart dog who’s been taught to do algebra – he can pull it off, but it's not a natural activity, like running or eating, so is, most of the time, troubling and unsatisfying.

[Farsight]

IMHO the concepts and the mathematics will remain unhappy bedfellows until people find a better word to use in place of "particle". By the way, I rather like the sound of Topological Quantum Field Theory.

[Qfwfq]

When particle physicists pronounce the word 'particle' they know they are talking about something which is neither a billiard ball, nor a wave or field, or anything that we can imagine. The same goes for the word 'field' in quantum field theory. They simply have never seen the need to adopt a new word, they just understand each other.

 

The problem is especially when these topics are taught to people without an understanding of the whole formalism, because the difficulty increases and misconceptions abound.

 

An example of something commonly portrayed is that of light travelling through a material medium. The speed of propagation is lower because, as often said quite simplistically, photons are absorbed and re-emitted; while the velocity is c through the space between collisions, the overall one is less. This is an oversimplification and, if that were actually what happens, optics couldn't be explained by it because it would be unpredictably altering the phase. The very explanation of refraction in terms of the reduced velocity would collapse. One could say that these absorptions and re-emissions have a potentiality of occuring. When they actually do occur, it is a hard interaction but, for the most, the interaction between photon and material is soft and the velocity is reduced coherently.

[Farsight]

When particle physicists pronounce the word 'particle' they know they are talking about something which is neither a billiard ball, nor a wave or field, or anything that we can imagine... They simply have never seen the need to adopt a new word, they just understand each other.

I'm not entirely convinced about that, qfwfq. And IMHO there's something unscientific about using the wrong word, particularly when it comes with the suggestion that we can't understand something. All I'd say is keep a sharp eye out for the word "particle", and after a while it'll maybe stick in your eye like it does mine.

[CraigD]

When particle physicists pronounce the word 'particle' they know they are talking about something which is neither a billiard ball, nor a wave or field, or anything that we can imagine.

…

The problem is especially when these topics are taught to people without an understanding of the whole formalism, because the difficulty increases and misconceptions abound.

I'm not entirely convinced about that, qfwfq. And IMHO there's something unscientific about using the wrong word, particularly when it comes with the suggestion that we can't understand something.

I think both Q and P raise valid points, though P, I think, underestimates how difficult it is to change a conventional word usage, once it has become well established in discussion and literature.

 

From the Renaissance until about the early 20th century, scientists often distinguished a concept not exactly equivalent to an analogy to it by giving it a peculiar Latin name. With the decreased in the teaching of Latin to all college students, this practice waned. In the 1930s, former engineer and later linguist Alfred Korzybski (who coined the phrase “the map is not the territory”) proposed that a systematic improvement in the precision of human language would solve many social problems, and founded the theory/social movement of “General Semantics” to promote this. Although a cadre of people continue to study and promote General Semantics, it never really caught on – while it was never branded pseudoscience, it has failed to gain widespread academic acceptance and become a central fixture of precise language, as Krozybski hoped.

 

Popular joins a long tradition of people who wish language was more precise. There’s reasonable evidence that it never will be, and students are doomed to having to forever master the mental juggling trick of understanding words in varying contexts.

[Qfwfq]

All I'd say is keep a sharp eye out for the word "particle", and after a while it'll maybe stick in your eye like it does mine.

I'd be willing to take your advice, except that it's been a couple of decades that I've been thinkng about these things, since studying to graduate in physics. :doh:

 

The use of the words isn't unscientific, it's just a practicle "choice", as long as there is understanding of what is meant and what isn't. Call it a Blue Blazer, if you prefer, but for most modern physicists it is sufficient to realize that it's neither a billiard ball, nor a wave in the classical sense.

 

Particle? Field? It's a bit of both and neither of the two!?!?!? :)

[Farsight]

...though P, I think, underestimates how difficult it is to change a conventional word usage, once it has become well established in discussion and literature...

Yes, I think you're right Craig.

 

Qfwfq: Did I hear you say "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less" ? :confused:

 

I'll try to point out some examples where the wrong word is maybe causing a problem.

[Qfwfq]

That's exactly why, when :hyper: I use the word 'particle', it means exactly what I choose! And I choose the same as other particle physicists... :)