Is the "inverse square of the distance" a principle or a "party joke"...?

[humanbydefault]

"...So the ratio of the size of the hydrogen atom to its nucleus is about 100,000:1. If an atom were the size of a stadium, the nucleus would be the size of a marble. Nearly all the mass of an atom is in its nucleus, yet almost all the space in an atom is filled by its electrons.
Atoms of different elements do vary in size, but the sizes do not scale linearly with the mass of the atom. Their sizes are roughly the same to within a factor of 2. The reason for this is that heavy elements have large positive charge on their nuclei, which strongly attract the electrons to the center of the atom. This contracts the size of the electron shells, so that more electrons fit in the only a slightly greater volume..." [wikipedia]
Let's see it again in a close-up: "The reason for this is that heavy elements have large positive charge on their nuclei, which strongly attract the electrons to the center of the atom."
How could we be so sure that's the underline cause for that?
According to human logic and common sense if you assumed the structure of all atoms to be an ordered one, based on the "Pauli Exclusion Principle" and the alleged "accumulation" of "sub-atomic particles" with a FIXED CHARGE OF THEIR OWN >>> How come heavier atoms behaved differently?
If we stick to the way physicists [as we speak] conceive the atomic model wouldn't be a violation to everything we have said before?
I guess that we could EXTEND this "picture" into the BIG SCALE too! Are solar systems with heavier stars in their planetarium center also "suffering" the same exceptional observation just as the case seen in our atoms back here on Earth?
In other words... the bigger the sun the closer its planetarium orbits? >>> It couldn't be simpler than this (!) <<< Who cares to answer this question?
I have to disagree with those SIMPLISTIC and TAKEN-FOR-GRANTED sort of "quick fix" explanations... Sorry! To convince me about your story you have to do better than that...

Gravity is assumed to behave the same way as electromagnetism when it comes the the strength of the filed versus an increase of the distance from it. I'll be here waiting for any with some plausible answers to these simple questions... I don't plan to go anywhere.

So! Give me your best shot!

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[Guille]

HBD,

Great starter. The assumtion you make isn't completelly true. A bigger sun will atract more a body of mass, but it also depends on the forces of push. And with bigger suns, the planets have much more force pushing them further away from the sun than with smaller suns, this is as obvious as the fact that an ant gives less pressure to the ground than an elefant (it's a good analogy). Therefore, the distance is more or less the same, with the difference that middle sized suns have the planetarium orbits nearer, whiles bigger or smaller suns have the planetarium orbits further away. But it also depends on the amount of bodies that we around the sun whe it formed, etz... Too many factors as to reduce it all to gravity.

[pagan3142]

AHH But Planets are not electrons and I don't know of any force powerfull enough to swap them to another sun (Nucleus).
Take the example of a Nuclius (Sun) of copper in a wire, with an electrical potential the electrons would be moved from atom to atom.
Thus stripping (or Swapping ) Them from thier original Nuclius.
I can't see that happening with planets though, where is the potential to move planets ?
Also planets have moons and as far as i know electrons do not.
As well, electrons do not collide with the nuclius as a planet may well do if caught in the Sun's Gravity well.
I cannot see an electron falling into a gravity well

[humanbydefault]

I’ll try to use the familiar configuration of magnets to give you my side of the story about the puzzling size of atoms. But first I feel important to distinguish what the entire scientific community states on the subject and what HUMANBYDEFAULT (the author of this post) believes different, otherwise my words will sound like “static” on the TV screen at 2 A.M.
Physicists assume magnetism as the product of charges >>> negatively charged electrons>>> moving inside atomic orbits. I have denied the existence of charges no where inside the atom since MATTER (considering the atom as the smallest piece of it) is PURE MOMENTUM (!)
Charges are according to the way I see it the result of collapsing >>> OUTSIDE THE ATOMIC STRUCTURE<<< a pattern of (entangled) energy waves whose net density equals that of one electron-charge. Charge is position and therefore it can move and be observed as macro-world “particles” often are.
The tracking inside the CHAMBER left by electrons and other “sub-atomic particles” is the path left by the actual charge of a collapsed quantum. The same electron seen before refracted from the structure of crystals acting like pure waves is the path of the propagation of entangled waves component of the quantum (in this case one electron). I’m referring here to the same electron discovered by Thompson more than hundred years ago… Is that clear?
However what actually exist inside those orbits making the outer layers of atoms is far from being what Thompson measured with his vacuum tubes then. My theory interprets those energy levels entirely differently to what the so-called “modern physics” claim.
So… I can not admit the crazy idea supporting the causes for a magnetic field around a magnet as the result of spinning charges after being oriented and amplified. Since I don’t accept the existence of charges inside the atomic structure I see myself in a collision course with 99.99% of the human scientific community… probably the other 0.01% includes stamp collectors only.
Seriously now, I see those lines of force surrounding the core of the magnet as the amplification of individual spins previously oriented in the metal structure with a big difference >>> a new way of looking at REALITY.
SPIN >>> I can say what I conceive to be such concept but you know what? They don’t!
There is no place in the entire literature about Quantum Mechanics where you could find a plausible “mental representation” an “abstract image” telling you what spin actually is.
SPIN is a pattern of interference carrying the official name of STANDING WAVES. It is a ROTATIONAL physical configuration brought to life as the consequence of two (entangled) waves “passing across” each other in the vacuum. “MY ATOM” is made out of a complex superposition of those SPINS as more and more ‘”pieces” (hydrogen atoms) bond together inside the nucleus of heavier atoms.
SPIN has a geometrical property and that is a 360 degrees angle of rotation. As the “virtual” wave (the sum of the two moving through) completes its perfect elliptical or circular path the magnetic field alternate the net strength of its polarity as it moves from one spatial dimension into the next one (x, y, or z).
An orbit is not made by two electrons with some sort of pairing features like being one “up” and the other “down.” The neutrality of the orbits of the atom is due to the nature of the orbit itself just as the way it was mentioned above.

***************************
Q>> How could any particle physicist justify the atomic model (the building block of matter) without considering the actual presence of CHARGES spinning around in orbits?
Q>> After all these years confering Noble Prizes to dedicated researchers in the field... How could a NOBODY (speaking about myself) dare to deny everything said about the internal structure of the atom?
A>> Only a "lunatic seating on the grass" could do "such thing."

***************************

"WHY THE NON-LINEAR SHRINK IN ATOMIC SIZE"

If we saw the nucleus as a sort of compact and vibrating "collection" of protons (fused-quarks since the last decades) I wouldn't doubt for a minute how complex and "hard to swallow" may look the argument given to justify it. Let's see the details first (for the fun of it).
Let's assume that including more quarks in the nucleus increases the overall positive charge exerted on the electrons orbiting it... (God forgive me!). We know and it has been theoretically proposed that electronic orbits followed a configuration "resembling" standing waves>>> (De Broglie's thesis)<< So! If more POSITIVE CHARGE is now present inside the nucleus and AN EQUAL number of electrons are "attracted" toward it F O L L O W I N G the "Pauli Exclusion Principle" = standing wave configuration... How come the shrink?
I guess the only plausible way to fundament such puzzling event was by trying the "OTHER APPROACH" instead. Since Quantum Mechanics is the perfect "compromising" tool where we could always find an alternative excuse they began to speak about quarks having the same standing wave rearrangement seen with electrons. Of course knowing that "protons" were bigger in size and extremely attached to each other inside the nucleus (Fermions) the sole idea of imagining them spinning with entire freedom is pretty "delicate." It's like having a family of 25 members living confortably inside a one-room condo...!
Based on that premise you could attempt to justify the shrink which in fact is what causes it in the first place! My "problem" is that is not about CHARGES and it never was about charges at all>>> Neither in magnetism nor atomic size either.
"Shell Theory" proposed a long time ago the distribution of "nucleons" in quantized energy levels in a standing wave configuration. The structure proposed then was proved with evidence based on the spectrum of scatterred radiation obtained. Using the same method used before to calculate the hydrogen orbits in what's called the "Bohr's atom."
"Shell Theory fel short to its goal because it was still considering atoms made by spinning "particles" with inherent charge of their own attracted to each other based on those charges.
Why the presence of "non-linearity"?
The answer is much more simple: Because the configuration based on standing waves is symmetric only when we are talking about equal waves interfering with each other in the pattern. Once the intrinsic-energy of the waves vary the entire pattern will READJUST ITSELF or reset itself into a completely different orbital-extension. Since the harmonics spinning in the nucleus (seen by "them" as protons) are in fact occupying different levels >> distance=radius from the very core<< we could expect nothing more than a NON-LINEAR relationship between atoms of different atomic numbers.

Thanks for you comments too!

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

"...Why the need for a "strong" and another "weak" force? Think about this my friend! One energy-One pattern the interaction of two [or more] high density energies in a pattern that holds only two possibilities for spin [UP and Down] and besides one that decreases its density level with the square of its distance from the center!
NO NEED FOR PARTICLES AT ALL! A marvelous structure of constantly changing and mutating energies based in a pattern the entire universe has forced upon them..."

This quote was written in my thread "What may have troubbled Einstein" right here in this forum.

http://www.toequest.com/forum/quantum-physics/1450-what-might-have-troubbled-einstein.html

I cared to explain (then) how and why REALITY >>> The constantly changing and adapting structure of mater>>> may be see in a different context... One entirely different than the "official one."

Thanks

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

"...Yet one can point to zones within the assemblage where less than a full charge resides, such as the area around an atom's nucleus. This is possible in part because particles are not like mathematical points--which must be either inside a zone or outside it--but are smeared out by the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Because of this smearing effect, if you define a sufficiently small zone, a fundamental particle may be both partly inside and partly outside it..." (Wikipedia).

The fragment above was posted in the following web page>>> Check it out!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_charge

Do you still remember my "Clock Model"...? The point referred on that specific page about the alleged "side effect" due to the so-called "unceratinty principle" is clearly understood analyzing the status of the standing wave at 3 O'clock and 9 O'clock. I expalined the REAL "transition" of the spinning wave in the three spatial dimensions.
For references you could visit:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1667
In the thread "D e c o d i n g >>> Light" I gave you the true image of what's really going on inside a close pattern formed by a two-waves-entanglement.
Since every single layer in the structure of the atom is in a 100% MOMENTUM where NO CHARGES are present whatsoever... It wouldn't be to hard to imagine that during the different phases of the spin (360 degrees) the strength of the magnetic field will progressively change as the given orbit (harmonic) closes the loop. We could only speak of "whole charges" when:

1>>> Both wavelengths were in phase>>> 12 O'clock(!)
2>>> Both wavelengths were in opposite phase>>> 6 O'clock(!)

However at 3 and 9 O'clock both halves of the strength of the magnetic momentum have been split in 2 (two) spatial dimension (!)
I believe that it is at 3 and 9 O'clock the points we see as the place with the electrons could be "up" and/or "down." That specific inter-atomic region is the one ACTIVE in the making of BONDS between atoms.
What I trully find amazing is the fact that it is precisely the coupling or bond between atoms that makes molecules to present partial polarities and therefore the (further) OPTIONS to allow more bondings ahead.
Just look what happens with the molecule of water. If we were to apply the old concept of "whole charges" it would practically impossible to explain what we know today as HYDROGEN BONDS. In other words, the bond between two hydrogens "willing" to donate one (1) electron to the incomplete orbit of the atom of Oxigen would be the end of the story. Water wouldn't even exist as a real possibility which we know it is an absurd (!)
That puzzle along with others are being explained thanks to the wave-analysis of the orbits brought to you by the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics. WEIRDNESS because the THEORY insists in keeping the duality "particle-wave" and what's worse yet the EXISTENCE OF CHARGES phisically present inside the atomic structure.

Would you asked yourselves what is the exact value measuring the strength of the CHARGE acting between molecules of WATER? Would that be a "whole number" by any chance? I didn't think so either!

The Standard Model conceives the actual EXISTENCE of fractional CHARGES interacting inside the atomic structure. With 1/3 th. of a CHARGE and its variations scientists are trying to justify a REALITY they should know by now it is totally ABSURD.

Bonds are brought into a physical reality when the perfect MATCH between two atomic orbits find themselves close enought to "feel" their magnetic "push."

Orthodox physics states that a bond between two atoms is the result of a SHARING PROCESS using their "electrons" to complete their available "empty space." I am perfectly aware that today's quantum mechanics "signed" a convenient "COMPROMISE" leaving the nature of "electrons" to be ASSUMED as it fits more convenient to the specific situation. When it fits to consider an electron (inside the atom) as either a "particle" or a "wave" it moves from one extreme to the other with entire FREEDOM (?)
I [however] have EXPOSED the WAEKNESS of Quantum Mechanics as an incomplete THEORY to explain the atomic structure <in WRITTING and for the first time > by DENYING THE PRESENCE OF CHARGES INSIDE THE ATOM.


Even Albert Einstein himself believed in the physical presence of real ELECTRIC CHARGES inside the atomic structure (!) I have always felt puzzled by the fact that the brightest physicist of the XXth. Century could have missed such important piece of the puzzle and one that could have helped him to prove the incompleteness of the Theory... (?)
My next comment about this important side of Reality will bring to you some insides concerning TIME in the nature of those "Chemical Bonds."

Until our next encounter...

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

To continue with our REVISION started a while ago I prepared to you a surprise... Pay close attention to the quote below:

[From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]


"Electrical conduction is the movement of electrically charged particles through a transmission medium. The movement can form an electric current in response to an electric field. The underlying mechanism for this movement depends on the material..."

In other words, electricity is the flow of "electrons" (because that "used to be" the name when referred to charges) across a conducting-medium.
Let's go back to the atomic structure for a short time and remember the changing-in-time pattern explained with the help of my "Clock-Model."
I said that [inside every atom] there were two positions around the "clock" where the intensity of the pattern is perfectly symmetrical >>> just like an object and its mirror-image<<< At 3 and 9 o'clock respectively!
It is then when we obtain the status of energy called "UP" and "DOWN." So! according to my theory AT NO INSTANCE ATOMIC ORBITS WILL SHOW AN "UP" AND A "DOWN" CONFIGURATION SIMULTANEOUSLY (!) Just as the same order we see with the clock's arms the same way the configuration of the standing wave will proceed its spin. Scientists consider (still today) that sub-shells are SIMULTANEOUSLY occupied by TWO "negatively charged-particles"
(electrons) one spinning "up" and its "partner" "down."
I say -NO WAY JOSE!

Q>>> What is then ONE ELECTRON-CHARGE moving across a medium?
A>>> It is the superposition on space of the two entangled waves components of the net charge. In conducting-mediums THERE ARE TWO ENTANGLED WAVES ALSO MOVING IN HEAD-ON COLLISION COURSE (in opposite direction) >>> Just as observed with neutrino oscillation but crossing one another.
The fact that we observe those "units of electric charges" (as they prefer to call them lately) as "point-particles" moving at relatively slow speed is due to the logical delay needed for the oscillating process.
We wrongly "think" that those charges were "moving" all the time from the + pole of the battery to the - one when in fact reality was entirely different.
To understand why we see them moving in the first place found its explanation in the density-difference of each wave component of the entanglement. Remember that a battery is the result of a storage of a previously polarized group of molecules. Those POLES IN THE BATTERY also reflect two opposite configurations: one "up" and one "down" only those are PERMANENT!
When the circuit is closed one wave is moving from the negative pole of the battery toward the positive pole and viceversa. It is this wave-interaction what's responsible for the physical presence of localized charges across the conductor.
Just like the lights on the front facade of a movie theater at night we see them moving toward one single end when in fact they were turned off and on in a specific synchronization. In the particular case of charges moving on a medium the direction will depend on which wave carries the higher density and which one the lower one.
ELECTRIC CHARGES are the product of the oscillation of its component waves
after their collapse. They never came from inside the atomic structure -as physicists repeat all the time and every single book of physics depicts- instead charges are created also by waves moving across a conducting medium.
Chemical bonds are part of the magnetic process of compensation between two "matching-orbits." I believe that hydrogen bonds (the building pattern for our DNA as many other applications in nature) are a product of a non-linear match between two molecules. It is not a question of keep dividing in some "partial charges" every piece of space near and around the nucleus. We need to finally realize that CHARGES are not part of REALITY inside the structure of MATTER.

Take a look to this simple quote... I think it says it all:
"Electricity is a property of matter that results from the presence or movement of electric charge..." (wikipedia)

A property of MATTER? That's why I keep writing against those metaphysical
ideas preventing us from discovering the THEORY OF EVERYTHING >>> Our quest in this forum.

HUMANBYDEFAULT