In the picture: The dark center is only the PROTON NUCLEUS. But its outer layer consists of NEUTRON PROTONS! Mentally replace the multitude of dandelion “parachutes” with elliptical “petals” of electrons orbiting outer protons of neutrons, and you will get the described model of the nucleus.
The core is “God’s dandelion”.
Once again, I apologize to readers without a “pseudo-exact scientific education,” which, however, I do not have too, but I will try to present everything clearly, without sacrificing, nevertheless, the rigor and accuracy of definitions and concepts.
The idea came to my mind already in the process of getting into bed yesterday. I had a period of insomnia last night, which turned out to be very fruitful, and this morning everything in my head “fell into place.”
I’ll start with a trivial question:
Why is a proton 1836 times more massive than an electron?
Answer: The proton is positively charged, and the electron is negatively charged.
WRONG!
The antiproton and the positron (antielectron) are in the same mass ratio! And the antiproton has a NEGATIVE charge!
Answer: Their electric chages are different quantitatively.
WRONG!
The charges are the same in absolute terms!
Answer: Their volume varies. In a proton, its charge is concentrated in a volume 1836 times smaller than in an electron.
CORRECT! It is the concentration of the charge that changes its inert mass.
This means that an electron is about 12.245 times LARGER than a proton in linear size! (If you raise this number to a cubic power, you get something like 1836).
Question: What is a neutron? Is it really a NEUTRAL particle?
Answer: No, it is a composite particle made up of loosely bound protons and electrons. The pair is unstable and decays outside the core after about 12 minutes on average. (Half-life).
A neutron is NOT a NEUTRAL particle, but a particle in which the positive charge of a proton is COMPENSATED by an equal negative charge of an electron.
Due to the fact that FREE neutrons decay differently, and statistically in time (decay occurs into a proton, electron and antineutrino), it can be assumed that neutrons are “arranged” differently and the main role for the time of their decay is played by the mutual orientation of the spin of the neutron electron and its orbital angular momentum in an unsteady orbit. If their magnetic moments coincide, the decay time is the one time period. If they are directed against each other, it’s different. The magnetic spin moment of the proton itself can be neglected, since it is a thousand times smaller than the electronic one. Experiments on the reflection of neutrons from magnetized iron mirror gave two peaks of neutron scattering, which, apparently, indicates the mentioned ratio of the magnetic moments of neutron electrons.
Question: What are the sizes of the atomic nucleus?
Answer: According to Rutherford’s experiments and his “planetary model of the atom,” the nucleus is located in the center of the atom and it is massive (almost the entire mass of the atom is in its core), it is positively charged and 10,000 times smaller than the atom in linear dimensions.
Rutherford came to this correct (accepted to this day) idea based on experiments with “shooting a target” with fast Alpha particles, helium nuclei consisting of two protons and two neutrons. It turned out that these particles deflect very slightly when passing through the atoms of the target, but there was one oddity: Some individual particles were deflected very strongly and even thrown back!!!
This “strangeness” led Rutherford to the idea that there is a massive positive nucleus in the center of the atom and it deflects Alpha particles strongly and even throws them back during a “collision”. But the number of SUCH strongly deflected or, even more so, discarded particles was negligible compared to the total number of “bombarding” Alpha particles. Rutherford made the right conclusion: The core, massive and positive, is very small in linear size and therefore the probability of a strong approach to it for flying Alpha particles is extremely low. That’s why there are so few such strongly deflected particles! Calculations gave the size of the nucleus: One ten thousandth of the size of an atom!
This model of the atom, due to the changes made by Bohr (Bohr’s Postulates), fundamentally exists to this day.
Now we start looking for dandelions!
Question: If the nucleus, according to modern concepts, consists of protons and neutrons, and neutrons are composite particles, then HOW can tens and hundreds of electrons of “neutron origin” fit in such a small nucleus? After all, they are much larger than both protons and nuclei.
Answer: There are no electrons in the NUCLEUS!
Question: Do they exist in neutrons? Once a neutron is ejected from the nucleus, it decays into an electron and a proton.
And yet, how do they, if they are not in the nucleus, reduce its active positive charge?
There are 92 protons in the nucleus of uranium 238 (this determines the charge of the nucleus) and another 146 neutrons, that is, a proton-electron pair. If there were no electrons in the nucleus, its charge would also be 238. However, this positive charge is balanced by the negative charge of the neutron electrons by 146 units of charge!
And another question: Where does the so-called Beta radiation of nuclei, that is, fast electrons ejected FROM the NUCLEUS, come from? Again, how do they fit in a small core?
Answer: They are NOT contained in the NUCLEUS, but arise at the moment of radiation.
Then we return to the charge of the nucleus again. If they, the electrons, “arise” only at the moment of radiation, either Alpha particles or Beta particles, and they were not initially present in the NUCLEUS, then why is the charge of the uranium nucleus 92, and not 238?
Possible answer: There really are no electrons in the nucleus, because they are too big and cannot fit there, but there are two “Electric Entities” in it: Positive and Negative Electrical activity. What is it, I don’t know, liquid, gas, something else? That’s why I called it “Essence”, that is, something THAT EXISTS OBJECTIVELY,
Question: If the “Negative Entity” that “fills” the electron is 1836 times more “discharged” and therefore the electron is the same number of times LARGER in volume than the proton, then HOW does THIS DISCHARGED ENTITY fit “WITHOUT ITS COMPRESSION” in a small nucleus?
So, we came to the “DANDELION”!!!
So, the new core model. The proton nucleus of uranium (I took it as an example, no more) It consists of 238 protons, of which 146 protons of the outer layer are connected to real and “large” electrons located OUTSIDE the nucleus, in the form of surrounding “petals”, but these “petals” are firmly connected to the protons of the nucleus.
A “DANDELION” with very strongly connected “parachute petals” to its center!
So the true size of the proton-neutron nucleus is MUCH LARGER THAN Rutherford’s!
but!
An electron cloud of neutrons CANNOT seriously deflect incoming Alpha particles, because the charge of the cloud is very “discharged” and therefore Rutherford’s idea was correct, although it needs to be corrected here.
So, it follows from dandelion’s idea that, in fact, there are, as it were, two types of electron shells in an atom, one is neutron, in relative proximity to the nucleus, and the other, generally accepted– is stationary Bohr orbits.
Why does this “dandelion” seem plausible and promising to me?
Because it does not contradict known experimental facts and at the same time explains many effects, the explanations of which, to put it mildly, are very artificial, “far-fetched”, or even left without interpretation.
Examples:
Such a model of the nucleus immediately “automatically” provides an explanation for the various intra-nuclear energy levels, because it is clear that the outer “neutron” protons and the inner ones differ energetically. And there can be many such different levels, and they are, of course, specific to the nuclei of different elements.
X-ray radiation “consists” of two types: Braking and characteristic radiation. Braking is generated by the sharp deflection of fast-moving electrons by the field of the nucleus. The characteristic is caused in massive atoms by quantum transitions of electrons located in orbits close to the nucleus.
What is the efficiency of an X-ray tube?
An incandescent light bulb has an efficiency of 3%, that is, only three percent of all electrical energy is converted into light radiation. The remaining 97% is spent on heating the hair.
The efficiency of X–ray tubes is even lower – ONE PERCENT.
That is, only one percent of the kinetic energy of the electrons in the tube, accelerated to many tens of kiloelectronvolts, is “converted” into X-ray energy. Why?
Answer: The nuclei are small and it is UNLIKELY for a fast-flying electron to get into their field for a strong deflection! (As it was with Rutherford’s Alpha particles).
but!
One percent IS TOO MUCH for a nucleus ten thousand times smaller than an atom. And here the radiation is one hundredth! And it should have been about one ten thousandth!
Dandelion’s answer: It is the shell of the nucleus of neutron electrons far away from it that increases the size of the “DEFLECTING capture” area of fast electrons a hundred times! So there is a ONE PERCENT efficiency, not 0.01 percent, as it should have been if only the nuclear field had deflected them.
Another example:
Internal electron conversion.
According to generally accepted concepts, the nucleus suddenly shifts hundreds or thousands of its size from the center of the atom to the nearest orbit and kicks the electron, causing it to fly out of the atom. The idea is ridiculous and completely unrealistic. But if we assume a shell of neutron electrons of the nucleus, hundreds of times larger in size than the nucleus, then it is its push that can cause the electron to be ejected.
Similarly, K-capture is the reverse of the previous process.
The gamma radiation of the nucleus can also be associated with a nuclear shell of neutron electrons.
Beta decay as well.
The short-lived nature of neutrons outside the nucleus is the same.
To summarize:
It seems to me that the “nuclear dandelion” model is quite real and fits consistently into modern ideas about atomic nuclei.
And another “moral” – from a simple and ordinary fact about the different masses of a proton and an electron, we came up with the idea of a “nuclear dandelion”. Funny, isn’t it?
Faciant meliora potentes.
16 IV 2024
