I read a book in which a physicist stated that the popular concept of a body revolving around a nucleus is not the process. He stated that this concept is only given to give non-mathematicians as way to grasp a difficult concept. He said that it is really more of a vibration and cannot really be understood by a non-mathematician. Correct?

Mu understanding (baring in mind that classes were over a decade ago) that electrons are described by a probablity shell. ie the electrons of a certain energy are most likely to be within a certain shaped area around the nucleus of the atom. Some of these shells are spherical, some have lobes, I don't know what other forms.
There can be only a fixed maximum number of electrons per shell. If I remember correctly the lowest energy shell can only hold 2 electrons. The next higher shells hold 8. I don't know what happens when you're getting into the heavier atoms. The fuller the outer electron shell, the different the type of chemical reactions the atom can be involved in, ie Nobel Gases have full outer shells and are very inert, while Rare Earths (whose outer shell has 1 electron) and whatever the group just before Nobel Gases (whose outer shell have 1 less than maximum) form ions easily, and so forth.

Thanks for your reply. I think what you have described is the conventional thinking and not what I was alluding to.

The only vibration concept I'm aware of is string theory, which proposes that the smallest objects in the universe are 11-dimension folded strings which vibrate at various frequencies to form matter.

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.

Your topic is interesting.

The electron is indeed mysterious. While the primary concept in your post seems to be about the difficulty of describing the location of the electron, there are a lot of other issues about the electron that is puzzling. Both the Proton and electron carry electric charges of equal yet opposite magnitudes, yet the proton is 1838+ times more massive and is much smaller. Why?

Regarding the point that it is only by mathematics is it possible to describe the location of the electron.
I am a little uncomfortable about responding to a quote without the proper context, but as presented, I think the physicist that asserts that the description of the electron, “is really more of a vibration and cannot really be understood by a non-mathematician” is making a cop out. Schrödinger equations can be used to describe events on a Quantum level of observation and even physicists can only solve the simplest of situations using Schrödinger’s equations.

There are also other properties assigned to the electron, which are not really that mathematical but conceptual, such as spin. While there are various mathematical ways to describe spin, it is not impossible to generalize the concept in a way that makes sense. To me, if a physicist really knows how things interact, he or she should be able to describe reality in a way everyone can understand. If they can’t, they do not really know what is going on.

snowflake

I think your point was about the nature of the electron rather than its location.

The model established by Niels Bohr was like a planet with moons in orbit around it. We now understand the electron to be a vibration not a body. To visualize it, think of it as a dull fuzzy light to goes in and out of focus. Very nebulous.

We have no idea how any specific electron is moving, or where it is at any given time. All we can deal with are probabilities.

Bud

While it is popular to assign the fuzzy properties describing the location or appearance of an electron as a property of the electron, it is my belief that this does not accurately describe the behavior of the electron. The probabilistic location or property of the electron may not be inherent to the electron but the result of the electron conforming to space. For example, imagine a ball floating on an ocean of waves. The ball represents the electron, and the ocean of waves represents space. As the ball moves up and down with the waves of the ocean, it would not be accurate to state that the wavy motion of the ball is the result of the ball; it is the motion of the ocean that imparts the wavy property.

Again, this assumption of a probabilistic structure to space is not the currently accepted model; it is traditional to assign the probabilistic properties to the “particle”. My proposed model also challenges the “schizophrenic” properties of a photon of light. As you know, light is supposed to have the properties of a particle and of a wave. If it is space itself that has the wave properties, then the “particle” of light is merely conforming to the structure of a probabilistically expanding space. Young’s double slit experiment takes on a different interpretation based upon my model.

snowflake

What's that interpretation? Assuming your new model is correct, what experiment would you suggest scientists use to verify your predictions?

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.

String theory applies to particles much much smaller than electrons so it doesn't really come into the picture here.

I'm sort of reiterating what other people have said here.....

The shells are formed by calculating the average positions of electrons in the probability distribution. According to quantum mechanics, a particle will take every possible path from A to B, and the average path it takes can be reduced to a "wave form" using Schrödinger’s wave equation. Electrons do exhibit some wave-like properties such as diffraction and interferance.

Remember.... "If quantum theory makes sense, you do not understand it." - Richard Feynman

Kashi

__________________
Climate Change Australia

Regarding Fraser ’s question “Assuming your new model is correct, what experiment would you suggest scientists use to verify your predictions?”

At the quantum level of observation I do not initially think there is a way to easily show directly how my model affords a better explanation of reality than the schizophrenic model for light. On the larger scale of observation I think I have fairly good verification of the proposed model.

Young’s double slit experiment is the classic “proof” that light has wave properties. In this experiment photons (or electrons) are directed to a barrier with two slits appropriately space. If light were a particle, it is argued, there would only be one way for the light to pass through the slits, which is in a straight line. In actuality, if properly set up, the greatest intensity of light on the other side of the barrier is not the straight path through the slits, but at a location between the two slits. Waves passing through a slit or barrier exhibit this kind of displace adding of “waves and troughs” so it has been assumed that light has wave properties.

If instead spacetime expands or appears on the plank scale of observation, in a confined region, then matter or photons must move in response to the appearance of a quanta of “spacetime”. If a photon were passing through the confines of a slit, and a quanta of spacetime appears in the slit, then the photon will be deflected as it passes through the confines of the slit. Since the appearance of the quanta of spacetime is random, it will randomly deflect the photon as it passes through the slit. Without the confines of a sit, the addition of a quanta of space time will not cause the photon to be deflected and the photon will remain in its straight path. This is because the volume of space has no mass and if given the freedom to move, it will give way to the passing photon.

There is a game called “Plinko” on the TV show “The Price is Right”. A series of disks fall from one starting location that then hit a nail and is deflected left or right. As the disks fall, more nails are encountered, deflecting the disk left or right. If enough disks are dropped, a bell shaped distribution of the disks results. This curve is the result of the nails, interacting with the “plinko” disk. Even though the disks are “particle like” they can generate a bell shaped curve. If the disks were dropped from two locations, it is possible to generate a distribution in which the greatest number of disks pile up between the two drop locations, This is similar to the results found from Young’s experiment.

So there are two physical models that can explain the same observed phenomena. The problem is which model is right? The Ptolemaic system could still be used to predict the location of the planets using ever more complex adjustments, The point is, If one has two theoretical models describing reality, usually one picks the one that is the simplest and most logical.

It should be noted that the reinterpretation of Young’s experiment and the wave properties of light was not the result of thinking of another way to explain the wave properties of light. It is based upon a model that describes the expansion of the Universe. In my model the expansion of space does not stop at the boundary of galaxies but includes matter itself. If this expansion did include matter itself, then there should be evidence of this expansion. The evidence of this expansion is the observation of a probabilistic description of extremely small regions of space. This is at least an interesting model since it unites the largest observed relationship observed in the universe, the expansion of the universe, with the smallest observed relationships in the universe, quantum motions.

One of the large-scale predictions of this theory is that the effect of gravity should be a function of time. Gravity was more powerful in the past, and it’s effect diminishes with time. Not that this is going to convince anyone that I am not another nut with a grand theory (which is a terrible burden to bear) but Paul Dirac also believed that gravity varied with the passage of “Cosmic Time”. He did not derive a viable relationship, but I think I have.

Snowflake

Well ah, I realy will have to read that a couple more times.

one small point/query reguarding the slits. Doesn't light from a normal source (ie a torch) shoot out in all posible directions depending on reflectors and stuff. The point being you end up with a cone shaped "beam" of light which widens as it gets further away from the source.

So? so wouldnt that acount for the overlap between the slits rather than wobbling round quanta.

Not that I don't belive light has the properties of a wave and a partical, or was that an electron.

Evil

I think the problem with electrons is the the word "electron" it gives the impression of a little peice of atom. Praps we should say such and such has an electron charge of so and so.

Yes you are right, light does have a tendency to spread out. but you can minimize this effect. When I was in college I was able to see the "wave" pattern produced by light as it passed a pin by using a 100 watt light bulb surrounded by an allumimium lamp shade with only a pin hole of light (careful, things get hot since the entire bulb needs to be covered to reduce spurrious light). This pin hole of light was then passed through another hole in aluminum foil and by now directing this pin hole of light through a long distance by and bouncing the light back off a mirror in the room, I was able to see a wavy pattern around the shadow of the pin.

snowflake