Atomic Shells

Atomic Shells

Researching the Rutherford Atomic Model it becomes apparent that just because humans have developed technologies to smash the atom it does not automatically follow that humans have the first idea about the structure of the atom.

Smashing is the easy part – even humans can do it.

Logo of the United States Atomic Energy Commission 1946-1974

Logo of the United States Atomic Energy Commission 1946-1974
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_model

It is also apparent that although disintegrating particles might be smashing fun it does not automatically follow that the debris and triage created by particle annihilation represents the original component parts of a particle.

Smashing particles is the easy part which might reveal Higgs Bosons or it might simply demonstrate that science has more that its fair share of Higgs Bozos.

Simulated Large Hadron Collider

Simulated Large Hadron Collider CMS particle detector data depicting a Higgs boson produced by colliding protons decaying into hadron jets and electrons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Evidently, scientific subtlety is not a strong suit in atomic science.

Additionally, it is doubtful whether atomic scientists tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

This is demonstrated by the curious case of the Alpha Particle which can “pass through” gold foil whilst at the same time is simply “stopped by paper”.

Rutherford’s experiment consisted of a beam of alpha particles, generated by the radioactive decay of radium, directed normally onto a sheet of very thin gold foil in an evacuated chamber.

Although many of the alpha particles did pass through as expected, many others were deflected at small angles while others were reflected back to the alpha source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger-Marsden_experiment

Alpha rays (alpha particles) and beta rays (beta particles) were differentiated by Ernest Rutherford through simple experimentation in 1899.

Rutherford used a generic pitchblende radioactive source and determined that the rays produced by the source had differing penetrations in materials.

One type had short penetration (it was stopped by paper) and a positive charge, which Rutherford named alpha rays.

The other was more penetrating (able to expose film through paper but not metal) and had a negative charge, and this type Rutherford named beta.

This was the radiation that had been first detected by Becquerel from uranium salts.

In 1900, the French scientist Paul Villard discovered a third neutrally charged and especially penetrating type of radiation from radium, and after he described it, Rutherford realized it must be yet a third type of radiation, which in 1903 Rutherford named gamma rays.

Radiation Penetration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation

Furthermore, it’s difficult to know what is scientific when it comes to atomic science.

This is demonstrated by the curious case of the Atomic Radius which scientists are happily measuring [although it “is not a uniquely defined property”] so that they can published results that “cannot be compared” [i.e. cannot be replicated].

The radius of an atom is not a uniquely defined property and depends on the definition.

Data derived from other sources with different assumptions cannot be compared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radii_of_the_elements_%28data_page%29

Empirical atomic radius trends

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table#Atomic_radii

However, if we accept they are actually measuring the “gaps” in an element then the calculated Atomic Radius might be either:

a) The “gap” between two atomic nuclei divided by two [as per the Rutherford Model.]
or
b) The “gap” in the centre of an atomic “shell” divided by two.

The Nuclear Gap

The mainstream has followed Rutherford’s interpretation of the “empirical” data and settled upon a central nucleus which can only be explained by quantum mechanics if “each nucleon has multiple locations at once” whilst they are simultaneously “bound together by the residual strong force”.

A model of the atomic nucleus showing it as a compact bundle of the two types of nucleons: protons (red) and neutrons (blue).

In this diagram, protons and neutrons look like little balls stuck together, but an actual nucleus (as understood by modern nuclear physics) cannot be explained like this, but only by using quantum mechanics.

In a nucleus which occupies a certain energy level (for example, the ground state), each nucleon has multiple locations at once.

Atomic Nucleus

Nuclei are bound together by the residual strong force (nuclear force).

The residual strong force is a minor residuum of the strong interaction which binds quarks together to form protons and neutrons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus

Therefore, whilst the mainstream is playing fantasy football [at “multiple locations” simultaneously] it seems opportune to look for any evidence supporting an alternate approach based upon Atomic Shells where all the entrained atomic particles are externally accessible to other particles [and not hidden in a nucleus behind an Electron cloud].

Referring back to the Atomic Radius graph there appears to be a clear indication that there are [at least] five Atomic Shells [starting at Li – Lithium, Na – Sodium, K – Potassium, Rb – Rubidium and Cs – Caesium] which slowly grow to accommodate additional electrons, protons and neutrons.

Intriguingly, these five starting elements are immediately preceded in the Periodic Table by Nobel Gases so it is possible that the remarkable properties of the Nobel Gases indicate that these elements are actually very basic Atomic Shells.

The noble gases make a group of chemical elements with similar properties: under standard conditions, they are all odorless, colorless, monatomic gases with very low chemical reactivity.

The six noble gases that occur naturally are helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), and the radioactive radon (Rn).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_gas

However, the mainstream states that Nobel Gases are “full” structures.

The properties of the noble gases can be well explained by modern theories of atomic structure: their outer shell of valence electrons is considered to be “full”, giving them little tendency to participate in chemical reactions, and it has been possible to prepare only a few hundred noble gas compounds.

The melting and boiling points for a given noble gas are close together, differing by less than 10 °C (18 °F); that is, they are liquids over only a small temperature range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_gas

Strangely, the Wikipedia Atomic Radius graph excludes the Nobel Gases and very intriguingly the associated Wikipedia data page indicates there is no empirical data for any of the Nobel Gases.

Nobel Gases

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radii_of_the_elements_%28data_page%29

Adding to the mystery is the observation that these “full” Nobel Gases are not dense.

This implies the Atomic Shells begin by infilling their structure and then switch to extending [to quite an extraordinary degree] their structure longitudinally [whilst their latitudinal radius remains fairly constant] so that the final density of the completed “full” Nobel Gas structure is extremely low.

For example:
Copper [atomic number: 29] has a density of 8.96 grams per cubic centimetre.
Krypton [atomic number: 36] has a density of 0.003749 grams per cubic centimetre.

Density

Doc Brown’s Chemistry
http://www.docbrown.info/page07/ASA2eledata96.htm

The density transformation from Copper to Krypton is truly extraordinary.

Either, the Krypton structure [compared to Copper] has increased its volume by a factor of 2,390 times [whilst incorporating additional material] or [looking across the board] the Periodic Table has a very ambivalent attitude towards the concept of Newtonian mass.

Spiral Periodic Table

Concept of Chemical Periodicity
E. V. Babaev and Ray Hefferlin
http://www.chem.msu.ru/eng/misc/mendeleev/hyper/

However, the graph of Ionization Energy clearly suggests the Nobel Gases are the final “full” structures of the Atomic Shells.

First Ionization Energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

The graph of Ionization Energy also suggests there are actually seven stable Atomic Shells which [very coincidentally] utilise a precisely matching number of Electron Shells.

Electron Shells

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_shell

Intriguingly, the Atomic Shells starting at Li – Lithium and Na – Sodium both become “full” when 7 additional protons have been added to the framework.

Similarly, the Atomic Shells starting at K – Potassium and Rb – Rubidium both become “full” when 17 additional protons have been added to the framework.

Similarly, the Atomic Shells starting at Cs – Caesium and Fr – Francium both become “full” when 31 additional protons have been added to the framework.

This pattern of duplicate capacities strongly suggests a balanced form of structural replication also occurs as the Atomic Shells increase in size [and capacity].

Dumb-Bell Periodic Table

Concept of Chemical Periodicity
E. V. Babaev and Ray Hefferlin
http://www.chem.msu.ru/eng/misc/mendeleev/hyper/

Reviewing the following graph of Atomic Decay suggests that Neutrons might be an important structure feature of Atomic Shells because an increasing proportion of Neutrons are required as the number of Protons increases [in the Periodic Table of elements].

Table of Isotopes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_decay

The structural importance of the Neutron is reinforced in the following example of nuclear fission because introducing a Neutron into the uranium Atomic Shell triggers the fission of the atom into two separate Atomic Shells.

Nuclear fission

A neutron-induced nuclear fission event involving uranium-235
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

Intriguingly, the mainstream “quark structure” of the Neutron is very suggestive of the dielectric structure of the water molecule.

Quark structure of the Neutron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

A dielectric material (dielectric for short) is an electrical insulator that can be polarized by an applied electric field.

When a dielectric is placed in an electric field, electric charges do not flow through the material as they do in a conductor, but only slightly shift from their average equilibrium positions causing dielectric polarization.

Because of dielectric polarization, positive charges are displaced toward the field and negative charges shift in the opposite direction.

Dielectric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

If the Neutron proves to be dielectric then the Neutron would facilitate the binding of Electrons and Protons in the Atomic Shell without having to invoke [invent] the “nuclear force” [aka “residual strong force”].

The nucleus of an atom consists of protons and neutrons (two types of baryons) bound by the nuclear force (also known as the residual strong force).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus

In conclusion, there is observational evidence to support the concept of Atomic Shell.

Conceptually, externally facing Electron and Protons present a real world opportunity for bonding and real world interactions – especially if the Neutron is dielectric.

Physicists Periodic Table

Physics 315 Lecture Notes – Chapter 2: The Elements
N.J.C. Ingle
http://www.phas.ubc.ca/~berciu/TEACHING/PHYS315/LECTURES/FILES/Nik-elements.pdf

However, given our overall lack of knowledge it is advisable to apply Occam’s Razor and to avoid being in “multiple locations at once”.

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Science. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Atomic Shells

  1. Pingback: Phi in the Sky – As Above So Below | MalagaBay

  2. Pingback: Tim Cullen: Phi in the sky: As Above – So Below | Tallbloke's Talkshop

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s