The SAM Theory
The Nucleus is Structured
Niels Bohr: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
There has to be an organization to the nucleus of the atom! There are simply too many hints and leads that cannot be ignored that show this to be true. When we search for an answer to how the nucleus is organized, we can find no real answers at all. Only that the nucleus is made up of neutrons and protons and is held together by the mysterious Strong force. How these protons and nucleons fit together is officially still a mystery.
Quantum Mechanics offers few answers, except that we will never know the physical structure of the nucleus. Our understanding of the nucleus is limited to its mathematical properties. Quantum Mechanics is focused on what protons, neutrons and electrons are made of. The mathematics of QM has been shown to be very precise, but QM does not answer some of the very basic questions about the atom and the elements.
The Structured Atom Model (SAM) fills in this gap. SAM's focus is to explain how the nucleus is organized and how the resulting structure is reflected in the Periodic Table.
Current theory posits that the electrons orbiting the nucleus determine the nature of an element - this is because current theory has no concept of a structure to the nucleus. SAM will show that it is the shape of the nucleus that determines the orbitals of electrons and the properties of the elements.
SAM will allow us to answer questions we've never been able to address adequately, such as:
- Why are the noble gases inert?
- Why does valence follow a pattern of -- 0, 1, 2, 3, 4/-4, -3, -2, -1, 0
- Why do metals conduct electricity?
- Why are there no atoms with 5 or 8 nucleons?
- How do atoms grow and divide in nuclear fusion and fission processes?
- Why are some elements rare?
- Why are the larger atoms unstable?
- Why is H2O a bi-polar molecule?
- Does elemental transmutation occur here on Earth in geological and biological processes?
These are just a few of the more significant questions. There are many more that SAM can answer.
This is not an abstract mathematical theory, only understood by scientists with advanced mathematics degrees and years of study. It's a physical model you can build with inexpensive spherical magnets. I have taught young children parts of the theory and showed them how to build an atom such as Neon. They can hold it in their hand, study it, and marvel at its beauty - I know I do. When I met Edo in the summer of 2016, my chemistry was pretty weak. Now I can visualize atoms in my mind and I know what element it is simply by looking at them. I now understand much of the periodic table. SAM has made Chemistry fun again!
I wrote an article explaining how I understand your theory so far. I gave links back to this site and tried my best to give an even handed review and explanation. I'm sure I got some stuff wrong. But I thought it might help you get some views and present the idea to open minded people. Here's the link to my content on Steemit (unfortunately the only construction toys I have on hand are not like your magnets).
I like what you are doing there, the depictions follow what we are trying to convey!
There is quite a bit of work to be done, and many pages that deal with this are in the making. As to the magnets, they can be used without the space-holders even, meaning one can recreate the element with spherical (di-polar) magnets only. Trying to depict where the electrons are is not so easy with mechanical tools and i love your attempt there!, Software is probably the solution there. In the future we hope to implement the ability to show where the electrons are in the "Atomizer viewer".
For crystal lattice structures, such as silicon there is a fixed position and orientation of electron orbitals. Do SAM nuclei have fixed orientations somehow aligned with these orbitals?
This a another great question and a most important correlation if proven true.
Please take these comments 'with a grain of salt' since this is a very new way of looking at atoms and does not match the conventional point of view.
The nucleus (on average) grows with 2 nucleons per element. Each step up (e.g. from N14 to O16) requires another proton (and outer electron) and is usually accompanied by another neutron as well making up the 2 nucleons. Each of these steps basically creates another Deuteron. meaning every time we step up one element we also see another pair (Deuteron) created in the nucleus.
Having pointed this out and knowing the structure we can see that indeed there is a directional component belonging to the Deuteron pairs in the nucleus.
This means that the nucleus 'dictates' the outer atom properties as well and this would be IMHO THE reason that we have this direction in chemical bondings.
As far as I can make out at this point in time; Yes the fixed orientation of the nucleus is causally related to outer electrons, meaning a direction and its number (total e-) is following the organization and number (protons) of the nucleus.
Obviously this is also directly related to the topic of "quantum numbers" or rather how the orbital models (s,p,d,) are created. Perhaps SAM will help us improve on this as well..
The noble gasses represent the end of a periodicity row. This is the point that the nucleus has achieved a perfect dense packing which is represented in turn by the Helium Tetrahedron (special unique nuclet) and the Icosahedron of Carbon which is the prevalent shape that we can recognize in the nucleus of the elements. Neon has this icosahedron in its center and each and every triangular face of that icosahedron has one (1) electron connected to it, no more no less. These noble gasses stable on their own and in equilibrium resulting in the "no chemical reactivity". This shape is like a collective perfect arrangement of the protons and electrons and shows no more specific direction, nor does it need more or less charge. There simply is no room for a noble gas to be connected to the nucleus by another electron of another atom.
If one takes a look at Sodium or Kalium, we can see that they have one more Deuteron pair on top of the base we call Neon. So there is One (s orbital) electron available still for chemical reactions.
Are you trying to graft SAM into quantum mechanics?
I think quantum mechanics is fundamentally wrong.
Nuclear electron theory should have the role of correcting quantum mechanics.
SAM is not based on ANY other model but instead on observations and what we can determine fact.
I do not agree that I "should correct QM" at all.
First, This is not my responsibility and
2nd, QM is so fundamentally flawed that it is in my opinion no use even using it anymore. IF this was a valid model, we would have much more insight in nature already, instead we keep running into mysterious and not-understood phenomena. Nothing is understood in essence due to this. An example would be nuclear fission, A fact that it happens, and yet, no-one ever made a logical explanation for this or can explain for example why a Uranium splits into UN-even parts. So we think, we know it all, while in reality we know nothing!
SAM is an attempt to understand the elements which are the building blocks of our reality and universe. All energy is due to interaction of atoms with its environment and elements have very different and often unexpected properties. By at least understanding the elements, we may be able to replace QM with something better, something that needs to be created still, something based on reality and not on fantastic models and non-sense concepts such as time travel, Big bang, Black holes and strong force, which are all simply inventions to make the model work!!!
You don't understand why Einstein said "God doesn't roll dice". In order to describe one electron, a wave function was introduced from thermodynamics. Einstein insisted that one electron should not be treated statistically.
Quantum mechanics was fundamentally wrong when they introduced wave functions.
Please refrain from telling me what I do or do not understand. Let me be the judge of that pls.
God may not role dice, but he was playing with marbles!
Again, SAM is not connected to QM in any way, so please allow us to develop this understanding ourselves and not compare this as such.
We do compare scientific data, facts, observations, findings in papers etc etc, But we do not compare ourselves to another model, which is utterly futile since we have a very very different paradigm and starting point.
So to anticipate some next comments:
SAM DOES NOT DO:
- time travel,
- black holes,
- strong force,
- 200 + fundamental particles,
- neutron stars and black holes,
- And there are more
I will give you some oriental advice that many masters have told their students and is always applicable:
Forget all that you have learned and start again.