Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    In 1911, Rutherford observed that radiated alpha particles rebound after striking a very thin gold foil (Fig. 1). He theorized
    that the atom is comprised of a tiny, dense, positively charged nucleus surrounded by negative electrons that neutralize
    atomic charge and suggested that the atom is mostly empty space. Rutherford was in effect converging on a planetary
    model of the atom consisting of negative charges orbiting a positive core.
A Bohring atom!
You see, my prodigal son, the
H-atom is wasteful and reckless
like you and like our beloved Earth.
Our planet not only orbits the Sun,
but also jumps back and forth from
one orbital level to the next.
the prodigal quantum jump.

    However, conservative British research circles of the times regarded Rutherford’s model with suspicion. Thomson, by
    then a respected senior fellow, had proposed a ‘plum-pudding’ model of the atom consisting of a cloud of mass-less
    positive charge sprinkled with dynamic negative charges (Fig. 2). [1] As always between the establishment and
    revolutionaries, Thomson brought his authority to bear and won the day. He criticized Rutherford’s atom primarily on
    grounds of instability, arguing that the orbiting electron would lose energy and spiral inwards and fall into the nucleus.
    Contemporary mechanics synthesize Thomson’s lesson for us:

    “ if Newtonian mechanics governed the workings of an atom, electrons would rapidly
      travel towards and collide with the nucleus.” [2]

Fig. 1   Rutherford's proton

Most alpha particles run right through the foil, but some are kicked back as if they
struck a brick wall. Rutherford theorized that this could only happen if the
rebounding particles came in contact with an impenetrable region (the nucleus) of
the atom. He surmised that the atom was mostly empty space, and was later able
to estimate the diameter of the nucleus, which he dubbed the ‘proton.’ 52 Such
interpretations led the way to the planetary model of the hydrogen atom.

    Bohr tipped the scales in Rutherford’s direction in 1913 when he proposed that the electron radiates and absorbs energy
    in fixed quanta as it jumps back and forth between ‘orbitals’ (Fig. 3). This mathematical model purportedly addressed
    Thomson’s stability concerns and explained Balmer spectral lines.

Fig. 2   Thomson’s plum pudding and Rutherford’s nuclear models of the atom
Thomson rejected Rutherford’s nuclear atom arguing that the orbiting negative
electron should lose energy and spiral into the nucleus.

    The result is that, today, QM has three models for the hydrogen atom, and the mathematicians use all three simultaneously.
    They point to Bohr’s planetary system (Earth and orbiting Moon), but tell you that this model is only used to teach beginners.

    " The Bohr model is a primitive model of the hydrogen atom...  and thus may be
      considered to be an obsolete scientific theory... the Bohr model is still commonly
      taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics, before moving on to the
      more accurate but more complex valence shell atom." [3] [4]

    The mechanic boasts that they learn the high-level, cloud version of the atom in college:

    " Electron cloud is a term used for introducing the concept of wavefunction in
      low-level pedagogical introductions to atomic physics, molecular physics,
      chemistry or quantum chemistry. This idea corresponds to delocated electrons
      moving or standing like clouds around the atomic or molecular nuclei. This is
      indeed a better image than the very common image provided by the Bohr model
      which commonly leads to a visualisation of electrons driving around the nuclei
      along orbits like the planets around the sun." [5]

    " According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, a particular
      electron is both ‘nowhere at all’ and ‘everywhere all at once’ until an act of
      measurement causes it to be detected." [6]

    " Protons and neutrons make up a dense, massive atomic nucleus, and are
      collectively called nucleons. The electrons form the much larger electron cloud
      surrounding the nucleus." [7]

    In addition to the planetary and cloud models, the mechanics sometimes bring up DeBroglie’s integral wave model (Fig. 4),
    but only to show you that an electron can somehow be visualized as spread around the nucleus. Then they throw this
    ribbon in the trash can for the rest of the presentation. The only model that the mechanics have formally rejected and use
    exclusively for their History classes is Thomson’s plum-pudding atom.

Fig. 3   Bohr’s quantum jump
Bohr theorized that when the electron falls to a lower orbit, it emits energy, and
when it rises to a higher one, it gains energy. Bohr’s theory addressed Thomson’
s concerns about stability and transformed Rutherford’s nuclear atom into a
model that physicists could easily relate to. What is curious about Bohr’s
explanation is that it is diametrical to the results of the Harvard Tower Experiment
(HTE). The authors of the HTE paper argued that light  leaving  the  Earth  loses  
energy to the gravitational field and gains it when approaching. Bohr’s atom does
it in reverse. Light departing an atom reduces the ‘energy’ of the atom’s ‘field’.
.

    However, these three models (wave, planetary, and cloud) are structurally so different that you wonder what an atom really
    looks like (Fig. 5)? What are the mechanics talking about?

Fig. 4   DeBroglie’s Electron Waves
The electron doesn’t fall towards the nucleus as Thomson predicted because it
also behaves like a wave. This electron has an integral number of waves and can
occupy only a certain region around the nucleus. This model also simultaneously
accounts for Bohr’s quantum jump and Thomson’s stability concerns.

    The scientific method absolutely demands that a proponent decide in advance whether the single, S-orbital electron of
    hydrogen is a cloud, a shell, a ring, or a bead and then to use this hypothesis consistently throughout the dissertation.
    The mechanics can’t do it this way. If they present a particle, they can’t explain why this discrete entity is smeared around
    the atom or how this discrete entity keeps two atoms bound in a molecule. Therefore, they do the whole process in reverse.
    They talk to you about their fantastic theories and about how the scientific community is smashing protons and electrons
    to discover yet more particles and not once have they ever attempted to tell you what these particles look like. What QM is
    missing is a valid hypothesis. A particle is a valid hypothesis, but then the mathematician must clarify how the shape of a
    muon differs from an electron and explain why a muon lives 2 microseconds whereas an electron lives forever. To say
    that a muon and an electron are just particles that have different weights doesn’t tell us anything. Is a muon bigger than
    an electron in size? Will a mechanic put his life on the line for his answer?

    It turns out that the mathematicians give lip service to DeBroglie’s wave and to Born’s cloud. These models are simply
    used to make sense of DeBroglie and Schroedinger wave equations. The mechanics have no practical use for these models
    any more than they have use for Thomson’s plum-pudding model. That’s all you’ll ever hear about them.

    Despite wholesale denials and disclaimers the architecture used in Quantum Mechanics is still Bohr’s debunked planetary
    model. The American Heritage Dictionary (AHD) defines an ion as an atom that has gained or lost one or more discrete
    electron beads. [8]  Ridley (pp. 18-19) defines electric current as the flow of discrete electron particles. [9] Davies (Ch. 4)
    portrays scattering as the exchange of supernatural virtual photons between two discrete electron marbles. [10] And
    Ebbing depicts covalent bonding as the inter-atomic sharing of discrete electron golf balls. [11] Indeed, discrete electrons
    underlie Lewis’s shell theory.Schrödinger lent credibility to de Broglie´s Saturnian hypothesis, but the matter-wave
    equation relies on discrete quantities for electron mass and charge, implying that a finite, discrete object underlies it
    nevertheless. And Born’s (pp. 634-663) electron cloud is really a cloud of probability, the region around the nucleus
    where a discrete electron bead is likely to be found (See Boslough).

    The mechanics would prefer to forget that this is the official doctrine of the Church of Quantum, yet they peddle the
    cloud as a physical balloon made of electron beads:

    “ The electron cloud is far larger than the size of the individual electron(s) which
      comprise(s) it.” [12]

    Therefore, the hydrogen atom in use today continues to be the Ptolemaic anachronism conjured by the Fathers of Quantum.
    The integral wave, the shell, and the cloud are not architectural models of a physical electron, but regions occupied by
    electron beads.

    The experts who flaunt their knowledge at the Wikipedia illustrate the cloud model of the helium atom, indicating that this
    is the model of their choice. [13] What they show is a bunch of dots extending radially from a center and this tends to
    mislead people, who erroneously infer that particle mathematicians know what an atom looks like. The experts tell us
    that these clouds represent regions where an electron bead is to be found:

    “ In the true modern model of the atom, the positions of the electrons around the
      atom’s nucleus are described through probabilities – that is, an electron can
      theoretically be found at any arbitrary position around the nucleus…This
      pattern is referred to as its atomic orbital” [14]

    “ The spatial components of these one-electron functions are called atomic
      orbitals…an atomic orbital is the region in which an electron may be found
      around a single atom… Fundamentally, an atomic orbital is a one-electron
      wavefunction… [15]

    “ According to the Principles of Quantum Mechanics electrons are distributed
      around the nucleus in ‘probability regions’. These probability regions are
      called ‘atomic orbitals’. According to Quantum Mechanics, these orbitals are
      mathematically defined… Each electron has a probability region which defines
      the probability of finding that electron in a certain three dimensional space
      around the nucleus.” [16]

    The problem comes when these clouds later interact with ‘regions’ of other atoms to form molecules:

    “ The nucleus of an atom is surrounded by a cloud of electrons, and it is
      primarily the interaction of these clouds that govern the chemical behavior
      of atoms…[17]

    “ What happens when a covalent bond is formed between two fluorine atoms
      is that an orbital from one atom overlaps in space with one from another atom.” [18]

    “ electrons fill atomic orbitals in atoms…When two atomic orbitals overlap, they
      interact in two extreme ways to form two molecular orbitals” [19]

    So let’s do a sanity check on the mechanics’ claims. An atomic orbital is a region. Two or more of these regions overlap and
    form a molecule. This is like saying that the aggregate of Pluto’s orbits over millions    of years form an orbital. The mechanics
    are saying that this abstract orbital physically interferes with Neptune’s orbital. The mathematicians have to be kidding if they
    think this cloud model clarifies how two atoms physically interact! The sages of Mathematics are saying that a mathematical
    function physically interacts with another function. They have the number 5 interacting with the number 6. That’s exactly what
    the idiots of QM are saying. According to QM, the orbital is not a physical entity like a balloon or a basket or a cage. An orbital
    is a region of space where an irrelevant electron bead was two hours ago. I say irrelevant because atomic bonding theory has
    absolutely no use for an electron bead. The mechanics explain atomic bonding with orbitals. In QM, a mathematical probability
    function comes to life as a 3-D object and interacts with another function. Molecular orbital theory is founded on the interaction
    of abstract concepts.

    Actually, the mathematicians who invented this nonsense did not really have in mind a physical cloud or shell. The ‘cloud’
    model of the electron is a surrealistic physical interpretation that Born and others gave to Schrödinger’s wave equation.
    QM’s famous ‘cloud’ is really a bunch of itineraries that surround a nucleus. Think of Mighty Mouse’s contrail with which
    he lassos and ties up some mean cats. The QM cloud is likewise made of vapor trails, of locations that a bead occupied in
    the past. The ridiculous cloud of Quantum Mechanics is not a photograph, but a movie of a bead that orbited a bowling ball
    two hours ago (Fig 3.30). In other words, the wave equation does not show what the surface of an electron looks like. It
    shows the trajectories of an electron bead. The morons of QM call this ‘thing’ a cloud (Born) or a shell (Lewis) or an orbital.
    Then they postulate that these ‘orbits’ interact with each other to form molecules. Again, if ever the idiots of Mathematics
    take a magnified snap shot of an H-atom, it had better not look like what the people at the Wikipedia illustrated because
    this would instantly falsify Quantum Mechanics.

    The punch line is that the mechanics propose that atoms rotate. [20] [21] This means that the mathematician first has to
    wait until the electron bead travels and makes an orbital. Later, when a mechanic spins an atom, he is implicitly spinning
    its orbital. Like relativists playing with their toy tesseracts, the mechanics end up moving motion itself?

Fig. 5   ‘The’ Quantum H atom
The mechanics use three different physical models of the H-atom to explain their
theories and equations. De Bro-glie’s model is an inte-gral wave stretched around
a ball. Bohr’s planetary system con-sists of a single bead going  around in circles
for no reason that anyone can  explain. And  Born’s  proposal is really a region
where you are most likely to find an electron bead (i.e., a probability). The
mechanics openly admit that they have abandoned attempting to visualize what
they are talking about, yet they also claim that they have photographed atoms
and that their mathematical theory is a complete, accurate, and perfect. In science,
it works in reverse. First you must point to the physical object and name it. Then
you can explain anything you want with it. The mathematicians are effectively
amending their assumptions retroactively. Therefore, it is self-aggrandizing to
claim that Quantum is accurate and complete until the idiots of Mathematics
resolve these fundamental discrepancies. If an electron is not a discrete particle,
these models together with all of Quantum Mechanics instantly wind up in the
ash heap of history.
.


    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008