(Conditions necessary for the existence of a stable atom)
The article presents a hypothesis that makes it possible to build the basis for a model of a two-element atom that does not emit energy at rest.
Note: To make it easier to understand this article, it is advisable to read before that part 1 of the book [1] or article [2] posted earlier on the world network.
1. Causality and mysticism lie on opposite sides of the border of knowledge
On the basis of his experiments with alpha particles in 1911, Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937) came to the conclusion [3] that the constituent elements of the atom - electrons and the nucleus, have a very small volume in total compared to the volume of the atom as a whole.
We already have an example of this in nature - this is a planetary system with a star in the center. Here, a huge volume of the system is created due to the movement of the (light) planets around the (heavy) central star at huge distances from it. Due to the circular motion of the planets, the force of gravity of the star is balanced by the centrifugal force. Therefore, the planets are in a state of dynamic equilibrium and do not fall on the star.
Negatively charged (light) electrons also experience the force of attraction from the side of the (heavy) positively charged nucleus. The obvious analogy of the possible construction of the atom seemed to be hampered by only one thing: Maxwell's laws and Hertz's experiments, from which it followed that electrons oscillating about a certain center should radiate energy. In this case, it turns out, as in cosmology, that the closer the electron is to the nucleus, the faster it must rotate, the greater the “vibration frequency”. And since the atom itself has very small dimensions, the required speed of the electron is comparable to the speed of light and the frequency of oscillations, respectively, is very high. And the higher the vibration frequency, the more the radiation energy - the faster the electron falls onto the nucleus.
Promotional video:
To save the “stunningly beautiful idea of a planetary atom,” Rutherford had to assume that with a decrease in the radius of rotation (in the microcosm), the radiation of energy not only decreases, but stops altogether.
- Why? For what reason?
Of course, Rutherford did not know the answer to this question. "It turns out that way." "This is how it should be."
Here, not only is the reason for the termination of radiation not indicated, but there is also no answer to the question about the size of the transition region when the electron stops emitting, and about the material that causes this transition region. That is, there is no answer not to one question, but at least to several. There is no answer to these questions even now, after 100 years.
Rutherford was able to convincingly explain why the atom should be “empty”, ie, why there should be a (relatively large) distance between the nucleus and the electron. But the structure of the atom, how it turns out that the electron, which is attracted to the nucleus, still does not reach it, but remains at a certain distance from it - he could not explain this (so that we would believe him).
It is here (in this matter) that the border of our knowledge lies.
When we can answer the question “why” - we know, but when we say “it turns out this way”, “it should be so” - we do not know the correct answer, fantasizing begins, mysticism, which is equivalent to the answer “God arranged it”.
2. Without fantasizing, without assumptions, there is no movement forward
Of course, Rutherford cannot be accused of anything. He put forward a hypothesis, and everyone is allowed to do that. But we should always remember about practice, our hypotheses should not contradict many obvious facts. Newton was more careful in this situation. Not knowing how to explain the presence of attraction between celestial bodies, he allegedly replied: "I do not invent hypotheses." This phrase meant nothing more than “leave me alone”, or “leave me alone,” since everyone knows that Newton was very much invented hypotheses. The ancient Greeks, too, did not hesitate to invent hypotheses. In search of the truth, they made various assumptions, and argued, for example, that on their basis we arrive at an absurdity. Hence, they said, the opposite was true. The method is called “proof by contradiction”.
By contradiction, Rutherford could immediately prove that his assumption was wrong. But is this method always applicable? Or is it always desirable to use it?
The resolution of the contradictions facing Rutherford, or, in other words, the structure of the atom, could also be sought on the basis of the following logical statement: if the electron never collides with the nucleus, then there is a force that prevents this [4].
This statement is not far from the following, more specific:
The force of attraction between the electron and the nucleus of the atom in the immediate vicinity between them (in the microworld) must pass into the force of repulsion. The repulsive force must grow as they approach each other so quickly that contact between the electron and the nucleus is impossible under natural conditions.
This assumes that in the microworld one of the experimentally established laws of nature is violated, namely, Coulomb's law.
How can you afford to encroach on a law established experimentally? Of course not. But Coulomb's law is established in the range of sizes that are very far from the experimentally determined sizes of the atom.
What about logic? Indeed, according to the logic of things, electric forces should increase very quickly as the distance between charges decreases!
Yes, but we could assert this only if we had a theoretical diagram explaining the emergence of electrical forces, and the indicated conclusion would follow unswervingly from it. But here, too, this conclusion should not have made it possible to change the circuit due to a decrease in the distance. Unfortunately, official physics does not have such a scheme. Coulomb's law does not explain anything, it only established an experimental fact, a regularity that is true in our ordinary world. He says nothing about the justice of this law in the microcosm, in the world of atoms. Therefore, this assumption is quite admissible.
This assumption is supported, first of all, by the fact that in this case all substances built on the basis of such a model of the atom will be able to withstand any compressive pressures, which is observed in practice. But Rutherford's assumption is incredible at the most common pressures.
Figure: 1. Here is shown a model of the atom, more or less consistent with Rutherford's hypothesis. This model was not drawn by a physicist, but by an artist who cared only about beauty and symmetry. The dimensions of this model are extremely small in real life
Imagine a thimble containing billions of billions of small solar systems (such as in Fig. 1), with very different orientations in space. And not slow ones, with planetary revolutions in one year, but with trillions of revolutions in one second! Just such approximately "solar systems" should be atoms according to Rutherford's assumption. Can one imagine that in this case there will be no continuous collapse of the "planets", and often with the fall on the surface of the "sun"? For the case of a one-electron atom, this is the death of an atom. And what will happen at pressures hundreds and thousands of times higher than usual pressures - it's scary to even think about it.
But under any pressure, nothing like this happens? In accordance with the assumption made in article [4], nothing should happen. But for any, even the smallest impacts on the electron, its oscillations should begin around the equilibrium position, which, accordingly, should be accompanied by the radiation of energy. But this is also observed in practice. During chemical reactions, when the state of aggregation changes, when the grain spills out after hibernation, energy is always emitted.
Already from these few comparisons it is clear that the new assumption is much better than the one made by Rutherford.
Since at a sufficiently small distance the electron will be repelled from the proton (from the hydrogen nucleus), then at rest the electron can be motionless relative to the nucleus. This means that it will not emit energy. This solved a problem that neither Rutherford nor Bohr could solve.
Now the matter remains "small". It is necessary to explain how this model of the atom will be able to radiate energy as it is radiated by the mathematical model of the Bohr atom [5]. It would seem that this is impossible. But it turns out that what one atom cannot do, many atoms can work together. And you don't have to assume that atoms are smart enough to work together. Of course not. It turns out that in a hot gas environment they are placed in such conditions that they simply cannot do otherwise. They begin to cluster into large clusters, in which numerous atoms participate. To understand this, one must use the information that the mathematical model of the Bohr atom works only at high gas temperatures, when there are many ions in it. In this case, a hydrogen ion is simultaneously a hydrogen nucleus or a proton. And a proton is a charged particle.
What property of a charged object is best known to us? The property of attracting neutral bodies. For example, an electrified, that is, a charged comb attracts pieces of paper. Will this not mean that a hydrogen ion or a proton, being a charged particle located among neutral hydrogen atoms, will attract them to itself? Of course it will be. But since, according to the assumption made near all the particles are repelled from each other, the first attracted atoms will stop at some distance from the ion and form a spherical layer of atoms around it (Fig. 2 [4]).
![Figure: 2 from article [4]. The collection of atoms around the ion (savi). Shown is a section through the center of this formation. A free proton (hydrogen ion) is shown symbolically in the center as a small circle marked with a (+) sign. Neutral atoms form spherical layers around it. They are shown in the form of somewhat larger circles. The position of electrons in each atom is marked with a (-) sign, and the position of bound protons with a (+) sign. The second, third and further layers of neutral atoms are shown only partially](https://i.greatplainsparanormal.com/images/019/image-55588-2-j.webp "Figure: 2 from article [4]. The collection of atoms around the ion (savi). Shown is a section through the center of this formation. A free proton (hydrogen ion) is shown symbolically in the center as a small circle marked with a (+) sign. Neutral atoms form spherical layers around it. They are shown in the form of somewhat larger circles. The position of electrons in each atom is marked with a (-) sign, and the position of bound protons with a (+) sign. The second, third and further layers of neutral atoms are shown only partially")
Figure: 2 from article [4]. The collection of atoms around the ion (savi). Shown is a section through the center of this formation. A free proton (hydrogen ion) is shown symbolically in the center as a small circle marked with a (+) sign. Neutral atoms form spherical layers around it. They are shown in the form of somewhat larger circles. The position of electrons in each atom is marked with a (-) sign, and the position of bound protons with a (+) sign. The second, third and further layers of neutral atoms are shown only partially.
This cannot stop the attraction of other neutral atoms to the ion. A second, third, etc. is formed around the first spherical layer.
If we now pay attention to the electrons of the spherical layers of neutral atoms around the ion, then we can understand that due to the stepwise changing distance of the layers to the ion in the center, the electrons of the first spherical layer will be most strongly attracted to the ion. The electrons of the second layer will be attracted less strongly, the electrons of the third layer will be even less strongly attracted, etc.
The reader can guess that a picture arises here, similar to that which takes place in the mathematical model of the Bohr atom. In order to detach an electron from the atoms of the first layer, the smallest energy or momentum is needed. A slightly larger amount of energy or momentum will be needed to detach an electron from the atoms of the second layer, even larger for the third, etc. Here, the layers of atoms to some extent replace the "allowed" orbits in the mathematical model of the Bohr atom. The torn off electron will go to the ion in the center. With a sufficiently large approach to it, the repulsive force will exceed the force of attraction and the electron will be thrown back. Damped oscillations will begin, as a result of which the electron will spend its kinetic energy and take the equilibrium position.
The only difference here is that the "allowed" orbits are fiction, and layers of neutral atoms around the ion can really exist. Even close to an electrified hairbrush, you can already see several layers of rather small scraps of paper.
Another difference is that the radius of the "allowed" orbits changes in proportion to the square of the invented "quantum number" n, but here, as calculations show [4], the radius changes in proportion to the first power of n, and here n is not an invented number, but a very real number of the next spherical layer. Therefore, the radii of the "allowed" orbits grow very quickly and for large n they reach absolutely fantastic sizes. Under the same conditions, the dimensions of the corresponding spherical layer will still be much less than 1 micrometer.
Bohr in his article [5] indicates that the lines of the hydrogen spectrum in the laboratory can be obtained only at low gas pressure. This means that his mathematical model of the atom is constantly attacked by gas particles. The larger n, the larger the radius of the "allowed" orbit, the greater the chances that the movement of the electron along this orbit will be hindered by some "uncomplicated" gas particle …
This is, of course, a joke. Bohr's model of the atom exists only in the brains of those who believe in his mathematical fantasies. Therefore, nothing real can influence it. Of course, these words, slightly altered, can be applied to a real model. The larger n, the larger the radius of the spherical layers around the ion, the lower the binding energy with the ion, the easier their formation can be prevented by "uncomplicated" gas particles. Naturally, the more rarefied the gas, the greater the chance of a certain number of spherical layers around ions.
3. Bad example is contagious
Appetite is known to come with eating. Having constructed a scheme by which the model of a static atom can cope with the emission of energy pulses, I would also like to explain why particles that are attracted far from each other, at small distances, can be repelled.
New facts must always be explained with a reason. Let it be wrong, but it is necessary to explain. Without this, a person cannot. A hypothesis must be presented explaining the reason for the discovered new phenomenon.
People have long noticed the movement of stars across the sky and the movement of planets relative to the stars. To somehow explain the fact that neither the stars nor the planets fall on the Earth, on which, as you know, everything falls, they were placed on crystal spheres. The spheres were needed because it was very difficult for people to imagine movement without support. When Copernicus proved that the Earth, like all planets, revolves around the Sun, the crystal spheres for the planets could have been abandoned, since they never spoke of such a sphere in relation to the Earth. But it was very difficult to refuse this idea, which was clear to everyone. Poets talked for a very long time about the sound of cosmic spheres after the theory of universal attraction appeared, which made it possible to understand why the unsupported motion of celestial bodies is possible.
We still do not know much, and therefore we have to forgive the researchers if they still do not always point us to the cause of the phenomenon. Newton did not explain the reason for gravitation, and he had to come to terms with this.
Rutherford also did not explain why the electron does not emit energy when it moves around the nucleus. Newton does not explain the reasons, but should he explain? One exception, the second - and now there is a tradition. It also occurred to the author of these lines that when creating a model of the atom, it is possible not to explain the reason why, at very small distances, all charges are repelled from each other. Coincides with practice, what else is needed?
At the time of the creation of the model of the static atom (2001), a diagram of the emergence of electrical forces had not yet been created. Therefore, there was simply no question of explaining the assumption that all particles of atoms should repel close to each other.
When a diagram of the emergence of electrical forces was created, the task immediately arose to explain the possibility of the existence of a static atom. In other words, it was necessary to explain why the bodies, which are attracted from a distance, begin to repel at close range. The task as such was already not difficult at this stage, but the need to accept another hypothesis was embarrassing.
4. The fewer hypotheses, the better
Empedocles (about 492-432 BC) spoke of the fact that it is desirable not to pile up hypotheses. Everyone is suspicious of new hypotheses. Any hypothesis, even a little, changes our understanding of the world. When the author began to reflect on the need to put forward another hypothesis, it suddenly occurred to him that, in fact, they had not expressed any hypotheses before …
Of course, there were hypotheses, many hypotheses, but all of them were expressed in the process of writing articles. When it came to writing the book [1] (more precisely, its German prototype, 2007), all these hypotheses were no longer needed. This is why the book began to be written, since everything was greatly simplified.
So, in order.
The presentation of the new in the book [1] began with Chapter 3. It was said that elementary electric charges are not real, but apparent sources and sinks. But this was not an assumption, but a conclusion, a conclusion.
Further in the book it is said that electric currents cannot be liquid. This conclusion was made long ago and not by the author himself. It was necessary to remember this in order to say that the electric flow consists of particles. Even a liquid is composed of particles. What did this say? In a liquid, there is the speed of the general direction of the liquid particles and the speed of the particles relative to each other. If the particles are not bound to each other, then it is not a liquid. But not gas either. That is, it was said that the movement of the email particles. flow occurs without colliding with each other. If this was an assumption, it was quite insignificant. It just had to be said. Of course, this cannot be. This essentially said that the free path of the particles is very long.
Further we are talking about the existence of a generating stream and its properties. But these are conclusions, not assumptions. The fact that electric forces do not arise by themselves, but are caused by the existence of electric currents, can hardly be called an assumption. This is also a conclusion or even just an obvious statement.
Further it turns out that in order for the occurrence of electric forces to be possible, it is necessary that the particles of the electric field pass through an electron or a proton, and at the same time their inversion occurs. Some of the opponents of the author said that this is downright fantasy.
Fiction? What exactly? The fact that the particles are email. fields can enter the body of electric charge and leave it, invented not by the author, but by the founders of electrostatics (Fig. 3). According to them, the electric flow leaves the positive charge and enters the negative one.
Figure: 3. Electric flow from a positive charge supposedly eternally flows out, and always flows into a negative one
From this it follows that there are accumulators of electric flow inside the body of charge. And not just drives, but drives that never fill up. Since this contradicts logic, the author had to find out what actually takes place. The conclusion made by the author is much simpler (less "fantastic") - the particles of the electric flow simply pass through the body of the charge, without accumulating the charge in the body. There remains an inversion, some change in the state of the email particle. flow experienced during this passage. Again, there is nothing fantastic in this. We know of various changes in the state of light as it passes through matter. For example, when light passes through a triangular prism, a white light beam is decomposed into many colored ones. If the properties of light can change when passing through a substance, then why cannot we assumethat the properties of e-mail particles can change. fields in a similar situation? This is clearly not a fantasy. Moreover, the presence of inversion is not an assumption, but a conclusion, since without its presence e-mail. the field would be unobservable and there would be no interaction between charges.
There is no fantasy in the book, no "wild" assumptions, only reasoning and logical conclusions. Just to this idea of the properties of email particles. flow we are not yet accustomed to. Everything new is always taken with hostility.
5. One single additional guess is needed
After that, another conclusion may follow. Since the atom clearly does not radiate energy at rest, it must be a static system. An electron and an atomic nucleus in the state of rest of the atom must be motionless relative to each other. In this case, there must be a quite definite distance between them, which ensures a sufficient “emptiness” of the atom. In this position, force interaction should be completely absent between the electron and the nucleus. This means that the force of gravity of the Coulomb must be balanced by some repulsive force. At a smaller distance between a proton and an electron, the electron will repel, at a larger distance, it will be attracted.
How can such a change in the acting forces be accomplished?
and)
b)
![Figure: 4 from the book [1]. a - shows a scheme of repulsion between plates with the same charge, b - a scheme of attraction between plates with opposite charges](https://i.greatplainsparanormal.com/images/019/image-55588-5-j.webp "Figure: 4 from the book [1]. a - shows a scheme of repulsion between plates with the same charge, b - a scheme of attraction between plates with opposite charges")
Figure: 4 from the book [1]. a - shows a scheme of repulsion between plates with the same charge, b - a scheme of attraction between plates with opposite charges
In fig. 4 shows a diagram of the interaction of electric charges with particles of an electric field according to the book [1]. The rays show the movement of particles of the electric field. As it was described in [1], they transform, when passing through the indicated plates, from rays with one arrow to rays with two arrows, and vice versa (inversion). As can be seen in the figures, rays with one arrow are reflected from P-plates (proton), and rays with two arrows are reflected from E-plates (electron). The proton and the electron are shown conventionally in the form of plates, as this greatly simplifies the situation, but does not change the essence.
Figure 4 assumes that the plates are far enough from each other and the inversion has time to occur before the collision of the electric field particles with the opposite plate. Repulsion (Fig. 4 a) occurs due to the fact that beams with a double arrow enter the space between the P-plates, invert and can come out only after a large number of reflections. Therefore, between the plates, as it were, an increased pressure is formed and they are repelled from each other.
In fig. 4b the picture is different. Particles that enter this space through one of the plates are inverted and leave this space through the other plate. A vacuum is formed between the plates of different signs. As a result, these plates are pushed (attracted) due to the pressure of the particles reflected from the plates outside.
And just these plates on the right, we need to make repulsive as the distance between them decreases. This can be done as a result of the following assumption. Inversion is a process. Every process takes time. We can assume that when passing through the plate, only the beginning of this process is laid. And it manages to complete only at a distance comparable to the size of an atom, for example, at a distance
Smin = kr, (1)
where r is the radius of the atom, and k is some number that still needs to be calculated. So, after the particle of the electric field has flown the distance kr, it is completely inverted and having met the (opposite) plate, it will either pass through it or be reflected, depending on which plate it met. And now we assume that if the inversion process is not completed, then the particle of the electric field will necessarily be reflected, no matter what plate it encounters.
In this case, between the plates in Fig. 4b, with a sufficiently small distance between them, a situation similar to the picture in Fig. 4 a, but even more reinforced. In this case, each particle that falls into the space between the two plates will be able to leave there only after a large number of reflections. A kind of pressure will appear between the plates, and it will be twice as much as in the picture in Fig. 4 a. With a further halving of the distance, the particle pressure will also double. If the distance is again halved, the pressure will double again, and so on … It is quite clear that in such a situation the plates will not be able to come into contact with each other. At some distance between them, the convergence of the plates will stop,after which damped oscillations will begin (during oscillations, the electron emits energy) and a certain equilibrium distance will be established between the two plates.
Of course, the author does not insist that this article is an absolute truth. It's only about the possibility. But this possibility is not mathematical, but physical. Therefore, if in Bohr's model of the atom everything happens without a reason, then here all events have their cause, as it should be in physics.
Could all this be?
Perhaps all of the above is nothing more than an irrepressible fantasy. For example, it turns out that when determining the frequency of oscillations of an electron near the equilibrium position, the frequencies will be completely unacceptable. After all, we must get vibrations with a light frequency!
So, near the equilibrium point, the forces are balanced, that is, equal to zero. Suppose that the distance of an electron to a proton in this position will be equal to the radius of the atom. In fig. 5 shows a graph of the force acting on an electron in the field of an ion (model) of a stable atom. First, the electron moves from infinity into the Coulomb field. On the graph, this is the 1 / x² curve (AB curve). We see it only from the value x = 3.5 (point A). Up to point B the constantly increasing force of attraction of the nucleus acts on the electron. At point B, repulsive forces begin to act. Therefore, the total force begins to decrease (segment of the BC curve) and at point C becomes equal to zero. Point C (x = 1) corresponds to the radius of a stable atom (for example, it can be the radius of the Bohr atom model for hydrogen. The radius of the atom corresponding to the equilibrium position is assumed to be 1 on the graph). Since up to point C, a positive force of attraction acted on the electron (sections of the curve AB and BC), then up to this point the speed of the electron constantly increased and at point C reached a maximum. Therefore, the electron skips point C at high speed, but then begins to decelerate (section CE). Fig. 5 it is assumed that the (yellow) area under the ABC curve is the acceleration work, is equal to the (blue) area above the CE curve is the deceleration work, and therefore at point E the electron speed becomes equal to zero.is equal to the (blue) area above the CE curve - the work of braking, and therefore at the point E the electron speed becomes equal to zero.is equal to the (blue) area above the CE curve - the work of braking, and therefore at the point E the electron speed becomes equal to zero.
Figure: 5. Graph of the force acting on an electron in the field of an ion (atom nucleus)
Starting from this point, the electron accelerates again and at point C again reaches its maximum speed and again is thrown to infinity (CBA curve).
This is in the absence of radiation losses. In the absence of such losses, the picture would be repeated over and over again - continuous oscillations of the electron would occur.
But in reality there are losses. An oscillating electron, as they say, emits electromagnetic oscillations or light.
And this is where the fun begins.
If we assume that the first kickback of an electron is equal to about 20 atomic radii, then this will be quite strong damping, the second kickback will then be equal to about no more than 5-6 radii. What kind of vibrations are these and what kind of emission of light is this when there are only two deflections (rejections) in the same direction?
If we assume the first kickback equal to at least 100 atom radii, then, as a rough calculation shows, the frequency (of the first harmonic) of oscillations will be much lower than the light one. If, with a similar magnitude of the first rejection, at least 3-4 oscillations are allowed after the first rejection of the electron back, then the speed of the electron (the speed of vibrational motion) will clearly not be enough to be in the limit of the necessary visible frequencies. And light emissions are observed. Where do they come from ?!
Here the assumption that the emission of light occurs not at all due to the oscillations of the electron themselves, which turn out to be too slow, but because of the oscillations of the particles of the electric field, or, in other words, because of the oscillations of the ether, can help.
The fact that light is a consequence of the fluctuations of the ether was a long-standing assumption of many researchers, but it did not find confirmation due to the fact that the ether itself was not found. In the case under consideration, both the acceleration of the electron and its subsequent deceleration near the nucleus of the atom are considered to occur due to the interaction of the electron with the particles of the electric field, which are precisely the particles of the ether in accordance with [1]. These particles, due to the vibrational motion of the electron, also perform vibrational motion. But due to the fact that their speed is higher, their oscillatory motion has a higher frequency. At the first ejection of an electron by more than 100 radii of an atom (hydrogen), the vibration frequency of the ether particles becomes close to the accepted vibration frequency of visible light.
If we assume that energy losses during electron oscillations can occur both in electromagnetic radiation and in light, then in this case we can make ends meet. But at the same time, it must be assumed that electromagnetic radiation and light are clearly not identical, and, moreover, are caused by different reasons, albeit related to each other. Then the light can be considered a consequence of the fluctuations of the ether particles.
Whether this is true or not is a matter for future research.
Is constant k a new world constant?
If in the place of the author there was Max Planck, who, judging by his article [6], was distinguished by extreme modesty, he would certainly have called the constant k by formula (1) a new world constant, would have calculated it with an accuracy of 71 decimal places, so that its future admirers could say that when the last significant digit of this constant changes by only one unit in one direction or another, our world, our universe, could not arise at all.
The source [7] contains the following phrase about Planck's assumption according to his article [6]:
"It is still not clear what meaning Planck himself put into the concept of" quanta ", but, apparently, for a long time he refused to recognize the" reality "of his assumption, considering them just a convenient mathematical construction."
Here his "modesty" rises straight to heaven. Is it possible to believe this praise of modesty, provided that Planck, in the very article [6], in which he received his constant, immediately called it a "world constant"? That is, he gave it such a fundamental meaning that it should seem that without knowing this constant, further development of physics is generally impossible?
Of course, his admirers did not know that Planck made a “slight inaccuracy” in his article [8]. If this article to some extent corresponds to reality, then it inflicts an additional, and possibly even fatal blow to Planck's “world constant”. From the presented model of the atom, it can be seen that although the emission of a gas based on such atoms will occur in portions, these portions will clearly not be monochromatic, as Planck assumed, and only for this reason his constant loses its validity.
The currently developed "quantum physics" [5] is built on complete confidence in the results of [6] and therefore also loses its credibility, although, of course, it was never quantum physics, but only "quantum" mathematics. “Quantum physics” has very little in common with physics and reality.
The constant k can be determined from Fig. 5 as equal to approximately 1.45, and the author is absolutely not sure that the second digit after the decimal point corresponds to reality. It makes no sense to define it with greater precision at this stage. But the author asks readers to believe that it is no less "world" and no less "fundamental" than Planck's constant was at one time.
The reader can understand that this article is capable of tarnishing somewhat the reputation of the "quantum-particle" invented by Einstein at the time. After all, Einstein's "particle" is at least also monochromatic? Moreover, according to this model of the atom, a portion of radiation is clearly not a "particle". These are not only several harmonics (several sinusoidal oscillations), but the energy of each of them is not radiated in any direction, but, apparently, is radiated in all directions. This, of course, is a portion that has a certain definite size, but it is by no means something whole, and even less so unidirectional when it spreads in space.
The author assures the reader that the purpose of this article was not at all to inflict blows that were accidentally inflicted on the mathematical creations of people who called themselves physicists, but only an attempt to more accurately understand what a stable atom should be and how hot gas can emit "portions" of energy.
Mentioned sources
1. Johann Kern. The answer to the eternal secrets of nature, St. Petersburg, Polytechnic University Publishing House, 2010
2. Johann Kern. On the possible way of the origin of the forces of nature and their connection with each other, “Heimat”, No. 09 (36), September 2001
nt.ru/tp/ng/vs.htm Date of publication: April 13, 2003
bourabai.kz/kern/relation.htm (13 April 2003)
3. A. Hermann, Lexikon Geschichte der Physik, Aulis Verlag Deubner & Co. KG, Köln 1987
4. J. Kern, Cause-and-effect interpretation of the emission spectrum of gases, newspaper “Heimat”, No. 11 (38), 2001, www.physics.nad.ru/cgi-bin/forum.pl?forum=new&mes=10859
bourabai.ru/kern/atommodel.htm May 31, 2003 14:16
5. N. Bor. ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF ATOMS AND MOLECULES.
Russian translation from the collection: N. Bohr “Selected Scientific Works” Edited by I. A. Tamm M. Science, 1970, p. 84.
6. M. Planck. "Über das Gesetz der Energieverteilung im Normalspektrum". Annalen der Physik. 4 (3): 553. In Russian. Planck M. On the theory of radiation energy distribution of the normal spectrum. Selected scientific works. Russian per. from the collection, ed. A. P. Vinogradova, p. 251
7. World of Knowledge
8. How Planck divided infinity into handy parts
The above article was written according to the article: "Conditions necessary for the existence of a stable atom", dated October 5, 2012 bourabai.ru/kern/atom.htm and in its development.
Author: Johann Kern