What do real Atoms look like?
65
What does an atom look like?
Well, the model of the atom you’ll generally see in textbooks is called the planetary model. According to this model, electrons orbit a nucleus of protons and neutrons. However, the mathematical physics establishment will tell you that they don’t actually believe in this model anymore. Apparently they just use this as a metaphor for the new “cloud model”. The so-called cloud model is basically the same as the planetary one though. The “cloud” actually refers to a mathematical probability of finding the electron somewhere around the nucleus.
Mainstream quantum theory alleges that these particles have nonsensical attributes such as being in two different locations at once.
But apparently the scanned images of real atoms appear to contradict this model. This is what real atoms look like:
These images were made by traces left by particles. This is analogous to a blind man poking at a rock with his stick to figure out its shape. This can give us a very good idea of what atoms are shaped like. As you can see, these atoms look absolutely nothing like the planetary/cloud model. So the protons, neutrons and electrons cannot possibly be arranged in the atom in the manner that the planetary model would have you believe. The only lame excuse is that the electrons are buzzing around so fast that they create the 'illusion' of these ball shaped atoms. The planetary/cloud model of the atom does not stand up to scrutiny and is invalidated by the evidence.
|
Dell Optiplex FX160 - 2GB nVRAM, 1 GB RAM, XPe OS, Intel Atom FREE SHIPPING
Current Bid: $75.00
|
|
Windows Home Server 2011, micro ITX, Intel ATOM 330 dual core, 2Gb RAM, 2x 500Gb
Current Bid: $102.50
|
Related Hubs
CommentsLoading...
"Everything is made up of energy."
Actually, nothing is energy. Energy is just a concept. It's no different than love or justice. Everything cannot be made of an abstract concept such as energy. Energy does not exist. Only matter exists.
"electrons around the nucleous of the atom and protons within each atom."
I just showed that this model does not stand up to scrutiny. Images of real atoms refute this planetary model of the atom.
"3D images of the atom being like a blind man with a stick depicting the shape."
Yes, the blind man can get a very good idea of the shape of the object he's interacting with by feeling around with his stick. Likewise, these images were produced by firing particles at atoms. These images refute the current planetary model of the atom.
"It's like trying to describe the shape of water.It's liquid form is different from it's solid form due to the amount of energy it has absorbed or lost.The same with gases that can become liquid or visa versa."
This has nothing to do with "energy"(whatever that is). Solid, liquid and gas matter have to do with how the atoms and molecules are arranged in the object.
If,as you there is no such thing as energy.Why causes metal expand and contract? Why does Ice cystalize when ity freezes? Why does metal melt? Why ,do we need gasoline or electricity to run a car? Why does your body need food in order for muscles to work? Why causes solar panels to give off electricity? How does a battery work?
Etc.............................................
Everything you just listed is the motion of matter. Atoms interacting with other atoms, etc. Energy is vague and poorly defined concept.
Superb article. Concise, well written.
What I'm currently trying to understand about Gaede's theory of the atom is how the thread manages to tangle up so — despite having the property of being able to go through itself like we observe when two lasers cross.
The atoms in those pictures look so round and pulled-tight, like spherical balls of interconnected tangles and knots in the EM ropes; and it's amazing to me how nature achieves this "compactness" given the odd nature of the threads.
Anyway nice to see some rational folks out there! Keep up the good work.
Well, the ropes being able to pass through each other is one of the problems I have with Gaede's theory. I don't think that that's possible, especially since the threads which comprise the rope are hypothesized to be the fundamental units of matter. I think his criticisms of mathematical physics are superb, but I don't agree with his Rope hypothesis.
I'm not sure on it yet either. On the one hand we observe something strange with light on light and we can be sure that whatever the fundamental constituent of matter *is*, it has unique properties.
On the other, I can't visualize how anything which is 3d can pass through itself.
The best analogy in the book is like two river currents meeting; the water "passes through". Also, what we understand or experience as macro-world "touch" in teh first place is clearly not all it seems to be and the Rope Hypothesis gives an intruiging solution to this dilemma (details in WGDE).
Thanks again for your great hubs.
Of course I should have mentioned that Gaede to his credit also suggests that there may be a kinf of "merging" going on at the point where one thread crosses another.
The way I think about it is that this point of crossing is a new form of "matter" (just by definition since it is in a new configuration) just like an atom itself (under RH) is a certain configuration of interconnected (knotted, weaved) threads and ropes.
What I'm also trying to understand in Thread Theory & RH is how a rope develops in the first place if threads can pass through themselves. Gaede mentions that speed plays a part but I need to go back and re-read those sections again to grasp his ideas better.
Absolutely fantastic article! You write about many ideas I've hypothesized over the years, especially with the infinitely small particle idea. I have to say I totally agree with your criticism of quantum physics, and, while I've been trying to grasp some of these concepts, I've come to the realization that it's not nature that doesn't make sense, it's our definitions that don't make sense (i.e. 2 places at once). Also, your response about energy is also fantastic. This just goes to show how much we have yet to learn about Physics.
I don't understand how these images refute the cloud model. ALL we see here are the nuclei, not the electrons, because they are to small and fast for us to capture. You're assuming that the image you found of a theoretical atom is to scale, as if electrons are the exact same size as protons or neutrons. With our current technology, all we see are nuclei.
P.S.: I could be totally mistaken, as I have not educated myself in the capturing methods for seeing atoms. This is just a thought.
Kevin,
"ALL we see here are the nuclei, not the electrons, because they are to small and fast for us to capture."
Actually these are claimed to be the full atoms, not just the nucleus. The mainstream claims that the orbiting electrons are so fast that they create a sort of 'spherical fan' effect.
"You're assuming that the image you found of a theoretical atom is to scale, as if electrons are the exact same size as protons or neutrons."
No I'm not. I know that the tiny electrons are hypothesized to orbit the nucleus at a great distance. That's beside the point. The point is that we should see some kind of indication of electrons orbiting a nucleus. Instead we see 'blob'-like structures.
Someone please tell me. Are the chemical elements pre-eternal? Are the atoms pre-eternal? Are elementary sub-atomic particles, such as quarks, and electrons, pre-eternal? Are there a few reputable astro-physicists who suggest this? What does Infinite712 think on this? I never could not figure out how Big Bang Theorists supplied the spark that set off the Big Bang. It seems to me, for Energy to be pre-eternal, it would have to have elementary particles like quarks and electrons. And this is what supplied the spark. The standard modle though suggests elementary particles seconds or minutes after the Big Bang. It did not make sense to me. Infinite Universe Theory could correct some of this, not sure. I am studying this, it is vexing my mentally, this week. Thanks.
Joseph041167,
"Are the chemical elements pre-eternal? Are the atoms pre-eternal? Are elementary sub-atomic particles, such as quarks, and electrons, pre-eternal?"
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-eternal". The word 'eternal' means "lasting forever". I'd say that matter (molecules, atoms, particles, etc.) are eternal. In other words, the parts of matter simply split apart and clump together in an endless recycling event. This completely gets rid of the supposed need for a "beginning" of the universe that almost everyone has been brainwashed to accept in this Judeo-Christian culture of ours.
"I never could not figure out how Big Bang Theorists supplied the spark that set off the Big Bang."
I completely agree. The Big Bang supporters say that this "singularity" was all that existed at first. They often illustrate this singularity object as looking like some kind of ball or blobby thing. Okay, but now their difficult task is to explain how and why this ball expanded and became the entire known Universe. Why would this singularity/ball exist for all eternity and then suddenly expand/explode into a universe? That obviously does not make any sense at all. All creation myths have these type of problems. That's why the universe must be infinite and eternal. It cannot have a beginning.
"It seems to me, for Energy to be pre-eternal, it would have to have elementary particles like quarks and electrons. And this is what supplied the spark."
Well, the problem here is that "energy" is not even real at all. Energy was originally nothing but an abstract concept that mathematicians used in their equations. It's only more recently that mathematical physicists (and people in general) have mistakenly reified this term into a sort of pseudo-object. In fact, the word energy is still defined as, "the ability to do work". Therefore, anyone who suggests that the universe was created from energy has no idea what he's talking about. You cannot convert "the ability to do work" into matter.
Thanks for the interesting questions.
I should add, however, that the so called "singularity" that they hypothesis would only be an object if what they're referring to is some kind of "primeval-atom" or something to that effect. But obviously if they define a singularity as being "0d" then that would be nothing but a shapeless concept, in which case they would have even more problems!
"singularity" is an irrational term which has been given many conflicting meanings and therefore should not even be used at all.
On energy, the only common ground between new agers and scientists (yes they're mutually exclusive except for sagan): is the acknowledgement of a relationship between the concept of energy and motion/change.
To a new ager, energy is invisible stuff that you need to make other stuff happen. For scientists, the concept of energy is used to understand and measure a change.
each change/movement is an infinitely divisible pixel of the universe.
Technology/Language is the combination of a finite set of variables to achieve a desired variation.
unlike human technology/language, the universe codes itself using a limitless alphabet, infinite resolution, able to generate endless chaos, endless patterns, and sometimes a damn elegant cohesion of both.
Pepper,
"relationship between the concept of energy and motion/change."
yes, energy is an abstract concept/calculation which is used by mathematicians usually (though not always) in the context of motion. However, this word appears to be used in many conflicting/contradictory ways and has also been reifed into a pseudo-object. We don't even need the word 'energy' at all. It's a completely worthless word as far as I'm concerned.
"To a new ager, energy is invisible stuff that you need to make other stuff happen. For scientists, the concept of energy is used to understand and measure a change."
Well, actually the scientists sometimes treat the word energy as 'invisible stuff' as well. The problem is that they can't make up their minds. Is energy an abstract concept or is it a type of physical matter? They have to choose one or the other. They can't have it both ways.
Hey, I am just a "layman" here or whatever, but energy is physical, it is evaporated matter in gas form, it has to have molecules flying around, or electrons, etc. or inertia related or gravity related, such as pool balls flying around on the table, it all breaks down into the physical, down to sub-atomic particles. And Carl Sagan was definately not a New Ager. Carl Sagan was Agnostic, he refused the Atheist label, though in today's terms, he would be a passive Atheist, but not a hard positive Atheist. He could be really rude on Astrology and UFO's. A lot of Pagans and New-agers use his icon and material for their own purposes.
Joseph041167,
"energy is physical, it is evaporated matter in gas form"
No, this is a very a common misconception. There's actually no such thing as energy. Energy is an abstract concept. It's defined as: "the capacity of a physical system to do work".
But now the word energy is being fallaciously used as both an abstract concept (ability to work) AND a material object (presumably matter in the gas state, like you said). But that is completely absurd. That's like saying that the word 'love' refers to both an abstract emotion AND a physical object such as a heart. The mathematicians have to decide weather their word 'energy' refers to matter, motion or abstraction. They have to use their words consistently. Otherwise they end up committing logical fallacies.
Well let's see. We already are aware of the existence of what makes up an atom electrons, protons, and neutrons, and the plum pudding model has already been discredited with the gold foil experiments, but if that is the case how would one explain this evidence which contradicts known reality.
Maybe it's faulty equipment. The tunneling microscope uses a machine wish measures the changes in topography at a microscopic scale. However to do this it uses an electromagnetic field in order to measure shifts in a small needle located at the tip of the microscope. The problem with this when dealing with atoms is that the shell creates a constant electrical charge in the shape of a sphere, this is what stops atoms from simply slipping through each other, the repulsion of the shell, which is why you don't simply sink through the floor, or actually just fall into a puddle.
If you take this into account then a microscope which operates off of changes in the field would simply see them as the observed sphere.
Quick question.
What causes magnetic and gravitational force.
Nemo,
"What causes magnetic and gravitational force."
Not entirely sure. But matter can only push (surface to surface) against other matter. Matter cannot 'attract' other matter at a distance. So, whatever the mechanism of these motions/actions are, it must involve a mechanical interaction of sub-atomic objects coming in surface to surface contact with other objects and pushing against them. Matter cannot pull on other matter. For example, when you 'pull' on a rubber band, then what literally happens is that your fingers PUSH against the rubber band and then the atoms that comprise the rubber band PUSH against each other. It's all pushes, no pulls.
I wish for a response to the first as well. By the way, if you believe that these phenomena are due to particles then what do you think of the theory of gravity being a curvature in space?
Nemo,
"I wish for a response to the first as well"
Okay, you said that "electrical charge" is allegedly what is creating the ball shape of these atoms? Then apparently "electrical charge" is a spherical shaped object which is encapsulating these atoms? Is this what you're hypothesising? If not, then what does this "electrical charge" nonsense mean to you?
"what do you think of the theory of gravity being a curvature in space?"
The proponent of this theory first needs to tell us what this mysterious word 'space' refers to. Otherwise we can't even begin to understand what he/she's talking about.
Yes, a uniform negative electric charge which exiss on the outer regions of the atom. It's what keeps them seperate. It would not be an object persay, it is more likely a continuous radiation of particles from the electrons themselves which in some way interact with particles of the same type, either that or a movement of the lower regions of existence brought on by the specific vibration of that particular type of matter.
Space for them would be a yet percieved fourth dimension of movement which affects the other three, either that or it is simply cauing the particles which make up existence to fold in upon themselves due to a large conglomeration of them existing at one point.
Nemo,
What?...
someonewhoknows 11 months ago
Everything is made up of energy.Electrons,protons and neutrons make up the atom.Each atom or element is different from all the others depending on the number of electrons around the nucleous of the atom and protons within each atom.
As,for 3D images of the atom being like a blind man with a stick depicting the shape.It's like a blind men trying to describing an object that is so small or so large that he can't tell by touching it wheather he touched the same spot more than once.
It's like trying to describe the shape of water.It's liquid form is different from it's solid form due to the amount of energy it has absorbed or lost.The same with gases that can become liquid or visa versa.