Chapt13.4.04 Coulomb law binds protons to electrons; Ampere law binds like charges into structures; Chemistry is mostly Ampere's law #1028 New Physics #1148 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Nov 23, 2012 3:34 PM
We have a massive overhaul of both physics and chemistry. Not only with light waves being double transverse waves not just single transverse waves, but we have the entirety of chemistry overhauled in recognition that chemical bonds are mostly the Ampere law in action and that electron-structure without repelling away each other is due to one of the Maxwell Equations-- the Ampere law.
I need a new chapter for this, since I discovered it round-about via the "spin of particles" but it was in the back of my mind for a long time now as evinced by previous writings that "parallel currents forms an attraction force".
It is bewildering and mystifying how chemistry and physics could have functioned at all in the 20th century where the protons are stuck in a small space of the nucleus and the electrons surrounded the nucleus, and how no-one in that century dared to ask "why would electrons stay together as a structure when they repel?"
There was the Plum Pudding Model given by Thomson in 1904, and Thomson was doing excellent physics by proposing the plum pudding model because that model is what the atom should be if you have only the Coulomb law in force for atoms. When Rutherford via experiments found the nucleus to be a small concentrated structure of protons, the physicists were rapid and fast at dismissing Thomson's plum pudding model, but were derelict in logic by failing to add another Maxwell Equation law that would allow for electrons to have structure regardless of the Coulomb law of repelling one another.
So actually Thomson was more correct with his Plum Pudding Model than all the physicists who threw out his model and failing to add another Maxwell Equation to allow for electron structure and only allows Coulomb law.
What Thomson should have done after Rutherford found the nucleus to be concentrated with protons is that Thomson should have proposed the Ampere law as the law that allows electrons to mass ensemble into structure.
The chemical bonds of covalent, ionic, metallic bonds are a Ampere law interaction of parallel currents attract. Chemistry is more about the Ampere law in action than it is about the Coulomb law.
In quantum mechanics, particles do not have spin if those particles are in isolation. Spin forms only with particles when they are in groups and where the Ampere law is in action. So that a electron has spin +1/2 or -1/2 only when there are at least two electrons and in obeyance of a Ampere law interaction. A photon has 0 spin for it never has a Ampere law interaction with particles. A neutrino has 0 spin also for it does not have a Ampere law interaction as does the proton or electron. A neutron can have either spin +1/2 or -1/2 because inside a neutron resides a proton and electron and those residual composite particles inside the neutron can commit and obey the Ampere law.
So the 20th century was at sleep at the helm of the ship of chemistry and physics as regards to how an atom can have electron structure, for the 20th century saw the atom as only the Coulomb law and none of the other laws of the Maxwell Equations.
Why is that? Why were they so asleep at the helm of physics and chemistry? It is because very few scientists of that century had an ample amount of reasoning-logic. There were a few such as Dirac and Bell, but for the most part, logic is a very rare commodity in science. Sure, there were thousands who could crank misleading mathematics and do mathematical computations. But when you lack logic, you can never know whether what math you crank about is bad science or good science. We see that now in the Higgs boson where poor logic and crankery math ends up with fire breathing dragons and Higgs boson.
Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts and halted a proper archiving of author, but Drexel's Math Forum does not and my posts in ?archive ?form is seen here: