Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: 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

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 10,051
Registered: 3/31/08
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

Posted: Nov 23, 2012 3:34 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.