Member

• Atoms don't comprise nuclei and electron shells.
• Nuclei don't comprise Z protons and (A ? Z) neutrons.
• There are no perpetually spinning protons, neutrons and electrons.

Rutherford's scattering experiments and Moseley's X-ray experiments are not crucial for the nuclear atomic model. The same set of data can be explained by another atomic model.

The main characteristics of the Rutherford-Bohr-Chadwick nuclear atomic model are:

1. A nucleus, which is made up of Z protons and (A ? Z) neutrons, where A is mass number and Z is the atomic number of the periodic table
2. An electron cloud is located around the nucleus.

The Z extra nuclear electrons are placed in shells. The electron shells are arranged according to aufbau rules that determine spins and angular momenta of the electrons. Similar rules exist for the arrangement of nuclear shells. Both, scattering experiments with metal foils and X-ray experiments for nearly all elements were able to introduce the atomic number Z of target atoms as the variable of the corresponding metal foils or of the corresponding elements, respectively. This supposition is not justified because

1. Rutherford's scattering theory considers electrostatic scattering only and disregards therefore the magnetic scattering effect.
2. Most elements possess isotopes, which have obviously the same atomic number Z.

Rutherford left out of consideration isotope scattering experiments. According to Rutherford, the scattering of Sn-112 and Sn-124 (for example) is identical, but this is improbable, rather an isotope shift can be expected. Presumably, the isotope shift is due to magnetic scattering too. Consequently, it is not possible to infer that the distinctive property for scattering is atomic number Z.

Rutherford's scattering formula allows not in the least to infer that the atom consists of a nucleus with Z protons, (A-Z) neutrons and Z extra nuclear electrons. Mass number A is probably the predominant distinctive property for scattering. But there are isobars (same A) that should yield different scattering results. Then allotropes are known, for instance two for K-40, which have different atomic structures and therefore should have different scattering features.

Prout's thesis in 1815 that the constituents of atoms are hydrogen atoms and that therefore the chemical equivalents in reactions and compounds are expressable by integer numbers is proved true. Stoichiometry shows that for example carbon, oxygen, and the two isotopes of chlorine consist of 12, 16, 35 and 37 hydrogen atoms, respectively. If for convenience carbon has the atomic weight 12, then why the atomic weight of oxygen is not exactly 16?

Inertial mass has nothing to do with an intrinsic property of an atom but is a measure of the resistive force that an electromagnetic medium exerts during acceleration and high velocity upon the ionized atom. These so-called inertial forces (a misnomer) are not additive magnitudes, e.g. the repulsive force for a structure of 16 hydrogen atoms may be smaller then 16,00 if for carbon the repulsive force are 12,00 for convenience. The number of hydrogen atoms determines a chemical element. Isomers have the same number of hydrogen atoms but different structures.

• Hydrogen atoms are destabilized during decomposition of the atom.
• Unstable neutrons are not components of the atoms
• All atoms are made up of hydrogen
• The discoverer of the decaying neutron was Robson in 1950 and not Chadwick

The concept of a neutron was the life-belt or sheet anchor for quantum atomic theory. If for an element with atomic number Z, this number represents both the quantity of protons in the nucleus and the number of extranuclear electrons then the nucleus must incorporate chargeless particles because the mass number A is greater than Z. Take for example beryllium: Z = 4, A = 9; A ? Z = 5: the nucleus should consist of 4 protons and of uncharged particles that are responsible for the remaining mass-quantity 5 of the nucleus. So it was conjectured that 5 socalled neutrons are embedded in the nucleus.

Another question for the possibility of the existence of such a nucleus was the problem that the positively charged protons repel each other. The neutron was again the life belt: the claim is that neutrons and protons are bound together by a hypothesized strong nuclear force ? mere words! Why the 2 protons and 2 neutrons of the He-nucleus bind together especially tightly and the 4 protons and 4 neutrons of beryllium-8 do not remain unexplained. How do we get neutrons? ...

Who has detected the neutrino? It was not detected, it was ordered as a remedy to save a theory in trouble.

• The neutrino energy crisis: Quantum mechanics ignorance to determine the energy balance of neutron decay.
• The neutrino: A stopgap to save E = mc².
• The neutrino spin crisis: Why protons, electrons and neutrons have spin? Spins are not detectable.

Photoelectric Effect indicates that release of metallic electrons is not due to a collision photon vs. electron but that it is essentially a frequency dependent resonance effect, which is explicable only in terms of wave theory. There is no inference possible from the stopping potential V (that represents a potential energy) to the kinetic energy of photons, i. e. there is no measurement of a photon energy E = hf possible.

Inherently flawed mechanics survived the failure of the Bohr atomic model

• Objections to spinning photons
• Derivation of photon radius if photons had spin
• Polarized photons possible? Dividing a photon allows to double its spin?

Atoms absorb energy in precise and definite amounts because the atom is an oscillator with natural resonant frequencies. When frequencies of incident EM waves coincide with these natural frequencies, then the majority energy absorption takes place. Incident photon lumps cannot explain conceivably the energy absorption process. ?Quantisation? means natural frequencies of an oscillator and not quantised energy packets.

• The hydrogen line spectrum shows Raman shifts
• Hydrogen spectra indicate some features of the atom
• The Rydberg formula represents a forced vibration

Molar heat capacities of metals depend on crystal structure. According to the prevailing quantum theory metallic bonding is an interplay of the free valence electrons that constitute the so-called electron cloud and the ion cores of the lattice atoms. The electrons allegedly drift in a random manner through the lattice of ion cores. The bonding model explains metals as a lattice of ion cores held together by a gas of free electrons! The electron gas cannot hold together the ion cores that are repelling each other!

Here I propose an atomic model according to William Prout (1815): each chemical element is made out of hydrogen atoms. The so-called mass number A represent the number of the constituting hydrogen atoms. Bonding is due to magnetic coupling because each hydrogen atom is a magnet; hydrogen itself is composed of 4 elementary ring magnets that are charged +?+?.

Molecules are atoms conjoined in some way. Bonding in molecules is also due to magnetic coupling. Bonding agents are hydrogen atoms. There are 3 varieties of H-bonds: a single hydrogen, 2 hydrogen atoms in series or 2 hydrogen bonds parallel. Molar heat capacity depends on the crystal structure of the element or molecule and on hydrogen bonding. The known crystal structures and heat capacities indicate the existing hydrogen bonding.

Stern-Gerlach experiments revisited for H and H₂. Magnetically deflected hydrogen rays indicate ortho- and paramagnetic varieties. Of H and H₂, there is no extranuclear electron in the hydrogen atom. Pauli's exclusion principle and the H-atom: according to Pauli even any valence electron has zero angular momentum. From a physical point of view a zero angular momentum is a zero angular velocity of the electron. It must crash into the nucleus and destroy the wonderful arranged electron shells. Pauli made the assertion that the orbital angular momentum in the ground state is zero in order to save the phenomena, namely the 2-beam outcome of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. The Phipps-Taylor experiment shows for hydrogen also a branching of 2 beams but there is a central undeviated beam, too. This experimental result contradicts the exclusion rules of Pauli.

Flawed quantum atomic electrodynamics: Magnetic moments are not inversely proportional to inert mass.

Faraday versus Amp?re: electrical conduction is not a flux of an electrical fluid (or a stream of charged particles) but a propagation of a polarization state of adjacent electric dipoles According to the prevailing quantum theory metallic bonding is an interplay of the free valence electrons that constitute the so-called electron cloud and the ion cores of the lattice atoms. The electrons allegedly drift in a random manner through the lattice of ion cores. The bonding model explains metals as a lattice of ion cores held together by a gas of free electrons! The electron gas cannot hold together the ion cores that are repelling each other! On no conditions the electron gas constitutes the electric current, namely a stream or flux of charged particles. Electrical conduction is not a transport of something along the wire. Nature has chosen the wave as a means of propagating states with a minimum transport of masses and charges. Case studies show that electrical conduction depends on crystal structure. This is not explainable in terms of the model of drifting electrons.

Empiricists can be impressed only by experimental outcomes that counter the predictions of a formula. This is done here for fission of U-235:

U-235 + n ?? Ce-140 + Zr-94 + 2n + Q (208 MeV calculated)

Because the atomic sub particles p, e, n are not converted into energy, the binding energy of the daughter elements and the energy released (Q) can be only due to the binding energy of the parent element! The energy imbalance is obvious:

1784 MeV ?? 1173 MeV + 815 MeV + 208 MeV

The formula E = gmc² for binding energy is based on the mass/energy conversion formula E = mc² that relates energy to inert rest mass. Here it is shown that this relation is mistaken because applied to fission it violates the energy conservation bookkeeping rule!  This failure of the formula for rest energy is an indication that the derivation is

Also different intensities of adjacent lines show that E = hf is not a natural law. Consider the wavelengths of hydrogen radiation. For the familiar two red lines the splitting is about 0.016 nm. According to quantum physics the lines have a corresponding minute energy difference of only 0.000045 eV because energy is allegedly E = hf. If this were the case, the relative intensity difference of 50% for the two red lines is not explicable. Remember that in terms of quantum theory the intensity of a line means the number of photon shots and that all photons assigned to a line have the same energy. So, when the brighter hydrogen red line is caused by 50% more photon shots than the less bright one, there is only one explanation for this difference: When the 2 spin states (spin up or spin down) of the orbiting electron occur in a ratio of 1 : 1.5 then the ratio of the produced photons with the energy difference of 0,00045 eV is the same. For this quantum behaviour QM offers no explanation. Therefore, in terms of QM the different brightness of adjacent lines is not explicable!

The nuclear atomic model with extra nuclear electrons or standing waves is untenable. Atoms as magnetically coupled oscillators. Stern, Gerlach, Rabi and others detected the magnetic properties of the atoms. This suggested one conjecture, namely that the atoms are made up of tiny magnets. The ring magnets are not solenoids but elementary permanent ring magnets. It is assumed that hydrogen is made up of four permanent elementary ring magnets. I assume that hydrogen exists in two varieties, namely ortho-H and para-H. Both varieties have many degrees of freedom and therefore many vibration modes with the corresponding eigenfrequencies. Hydrogen is the building block of all elements. The formation of elements is due to magnetic coupling. Helium for example consists of 4 hydrogen atoms. The neutron is a decaying hydrogen atom in fission processes.

No empirical evidence for nuclear spin. Magnetic coupling is the bonding agent of molecules. Molecules possess magnetic resonance frequencies. A molecule is an electromagnetic oscillator with many degrees of freedom. When atoms or molecules are placed in a static magnetic field, the atomic magnets (N-S dipoles) experience a torque, which aligns their magnetic poles with the external field vector. The oriented atoms are now irradiated with electromagnetic radiation. If this radiation has the eigenfrequencies of the atomic or molecular oscillator, resonance occurs. What we measure are only resonant frequencies. Quantum physicists claim that the resonant frequency is identical with the frequency of an alleged magnetic moments precession of a nucleon. The cause of the magnetic moment is the spin of the charged nucleon. But the measured resonant frequencies do not imply the existence of spinning nucleons! The precessing proton ? a myth. The alleged spin-spin coupling. Nuclear precession and spin flip. BrCH₂CH₃CH₂OD case study refutes spin-spin coupling model. "Decoupling" does not occur.

In mechanics the principle of inertia is the result of an erroneous thought experiment (Gedankenexperiment) and not a law of experience. The inventor of the thought experiment was Descartes, Euler perfected it and postulated it as one of the fundamental laws of mechanics. Instead of describing the origin of the principle of inertia in great detail, I will try to capture the essence of the doctrine through the assumptions:

1. Only one body is moving in vacuo.
2. Velocity is a state of the body like its shape, its hardness or its colour. That is to say: velocity is absolute and belongs to the body and is therefore without any relationship to other bodies. In other words: velocity is an intrinsic property of the body.
3. The body is ?dead? and does not have inner forces in the meaning of motor or impetus.

and conclusions of the Gedankenexperiment:

1. The state of velocity v is persisting: v = const. Therefore, the motion continues in the present state of velocity, moving uniformly forward in a straight line. There is no sufficient reason for the body to change its state of velocity or its direction of movement.
2. Only an external force !F !can disturb the body persisting in its inert state (or in its laziness) !v = const., hence change this state. Without an accelerating or decelerating force !F,! the velocity and therefore also the momentum mv of the body is preserved: mv = const. (m... mass).
3. The quantity of the force necessary for a change of velocity (acceleration) is proportional to the mass m of the body, mass being understood as the quantity of matter.