What If

Odysseus wrote,

How do you explain the fact that the s
orbitals, including the one representing
the ground state of a hydrogen atom, are spherically symmetrical?

They are spherical in the classical model. The CBB model modifies the
sphere to make it oblate and 'dimpled in' at the poles.

If the proton's spin affects the geometry
of electron orbitals (if I understand you
correctly, making an analogy with your
black-hole model), why don't all the
orbitals exhibit 'axial' symmetry?

They do exhibit axial symmetry. In the helium atom, the two protons are
on the same polar axis 'shish-ke-bob' style, while the two electrons
occupy two equatorial planes. Thus the Pauli exclusion principle is not
violated. Likewise the two neutrons occupy the 'zero charge' zone in
their respective equatorial planes. The whole ensemble is axial and
symmetrical. The protons are bound 'N' pole to 'S' pole, while the
electrons are bound by their complimentary radial spins.
This axial model of atom building would extend on beyond
He, and would generate a 'Michelin Man' figure of greater and greater
'tiers'. Or is that 'tires'?g

oc

Bill Sheppard wrote:

Odysseus wrote,

How do you explain the fact that the s
orbitals, including the one representing
the ground state of a hydrogen atom, are spherically symmetrical?

They are spherical in the classical model. The CBB model modifies the
sphere to make it oblate and 'dimpled in' at the poles.

AFAICT this directly contradicts quantum theory, according to which
an orbital with l = 0 is not orientable. Considering that QT has been
experimentally verified (to extraordinary degrees of precision) it
seems the proponents of the CBB model have their work cut out for
them in this area, to explain why electrons in s orbitals don't
respond to magnetic fields, for example the way p orbitals do.

Speaking of which, why do p orbitals have lobes along an axis,
*avoiding* the 'equatorial region'? And why are all three of p_x,
p_y, and p_z exactly equivalent in energy?

If the proton's spin affects the geometry
of electron orbitals (if I understand you
correctly, making an analogy with your
black-hole model), why don't all the
orbitals exhibit 'axial' symmetry?

They do exhibit axial symmetry. In the helium atom, the two protons are
on the same polar axis 'shish-ke-bob' style, while the two electrons
occupy two equatorial planes. Thus the Pauli exclusion principle is not
violated. Likewise the two neutrons occupy the 'zero charge' zone in
their respective equatorial planes. The whole ensemble is axial and
symmetrical. The protons are bound 'N' pole to 'S' pole, while the
electrons are bound by their complimentary radial spins.

Again I believe experiments have shown this not to be the case.
Likewise for your proposed nuclear structu how do you explain the
fact that He-4 doesn't produce an NMR signal but He-3 does?

--
Odysseus

What if those colossal red giants are telling us that they are the
closest thing to a vacuum and can make this near vacuum red hot? How
much lower is the stars density when it expands out as far as Jupiter? I
read its heat would boil earth's oceans away. Maybe when this happens
man can go to Europa,as an escape zone,and all its ice melted giving
much needed water for a large civilization. Bert

In article ,
says...
What if those colossal red giants are telling us that they are the
closest thing to a vacuum and can make this near vacuum red hot? How
much lower is the stars density when it expands out as far as Jupiter? I
read its heat would boil earth's oceans away. Maybe when this happens
man can go to Europa,as an escape zone,and all its ice melted giving
much needed water for a large civilization. Bert


The density would largely depend on the stellar mass to start with
methinks. Given that the final size of our sun in the red giant phase is
variously quoted as being anywhere from 10 to 500 times the current
diameter I'd hazard a well educated guess and say that Europa would be
vaporised as well.

Given that boiling the oceans away is the least of the Earths worries, ie
long before the oceans boil away the atmosphere will have dissapeared.

Besides all this isn't going to happen for another 4-5 billion years and
we have far more pressing worries on this little globe we call home, ie:
lunatic american presidents and advisors, overpopulation, pollution and
other man made and natural issues to contend with.

Ian

Ian We know Jupiter is 465 million miles from the sun. When its a red
giant it would be bigger still for I have radiating heat melting the ice
of Europa. Our sun expanding out that far has to now have a very low
density. I'm guessing but I think this density would be closer to the
density of a near vacuum than not. There is a lot of cubic space the
sun takes up when its diameter is 465 million miles. Bert.

What if the GUT is very short simple thinking.? What if TOE can be
said with one word? The word being "density." Gravity
creates density,and density makes gravity stronger. Gravity
evolved everything including us out of density.(think about it) The big
bang was created from density(singularity) The core of blackholes is
matter crushed with such force that its density is infinite. The
singularity at the core in time(a trillion years) will create a mini
universe. Its gravity all the way down Bert

Bert,

My understanding of Red Giants is that a typical Hydrogen (H2 molecule)
density is around 0.1kg per cubic meter (approx 50 mols) at STP. which is
a long way from the typical 1 to 110 odd molecule/s per cubic meter for
interspacial vacuum that are quoted by various papers.

If I have time when I get home I'll do some number crunching on this and
come up with some more solid numbers.

Ian


In article ,
says...
Ian We know Jupiter is 465 million miles from the sun. When its a red
giant it would be bigger still for I have radiating heat melting the ice
of Europa. Our sun expanding out that far has to now have a very low
density. I'm guessing but I think this density would be closer to the
density of a near vacuum than not. There is a lot of cubic space the
sun takes up when its diameter is 465 million miles. Bert.

Ian It is interesting that a red giant stops expanding?? What if it
is an illusion? Just seeing the end of its visible photons. I read that
the earth's atmosphere gases hydrogen and helium can go to infinity.
Objects,gases,energies,and forces never really come to a stop,and an
expanding gas has to be held in a container,and the vacuum of space
cannot contain,it only can dilute. Bert

What if its dark matter's gravity that has thinned space density to the
vacuum we have at this spacetime? I read the vacuum of space is greater
than any vacuum we can make. You might also add space expansion to
dilute space energy,but that seems to be a paradox,for I see no
expansion in our 100 million LY area of space. The biggest object the
Adromeda galaxy helps prove this thought. (I'm not saying space is not
expanding ) We find BH when they capture a star,and make the bright
bulge when at the center of galaxies. However there could be more
blackholes than stars in the universe easy theory,because they can not
be detected. Like 93 times as many. Space can only get
colder and less dense. It will take a trillion trillion years to reach
absolute zero,and add 100 more trillion to have infinite negative
density. Bert PS We should keep in mind that a trillion of a
second before Guth's inflation kicked in, space had all the energy of
the universe in an area one millionth of a Planck length.

What if the theory of multi-universes is good thinking?Rodger Penrose
has all blackholes with a singularity at their core. Interesting we know
its core,and its event horizon,but can't figure out what is the rest of
a blackhole(its body) Maybe its gluons back to back.?
If someday we are able to detect a blackhole exploding its great energy
is what will give it away,and its great distance. In about 35 billion
years from now the Milky Way galactic core will explode,and completely
destroy the galaxy, It will destroy the old,and seed the area with new
neutrons. Bert