I hate the universe. Before getting into the more specific reasons, let me say that i weighed in at 171.8, the first time under 172 this morning. Then took a shower, shaved (losing more weight) and came back at 173. WTF?
my coffee has turned this ugly brown color, muddy. it is not working so well. I am taking massive amounts of vitamin e, my "che" is increasing and you are nowhere to help with it. I am frustratd, but you want to see what is really frustrating, read on.
SPD orbitals are so not AuT, but it is only recently that I have gotten there. I got to chemistry in a big way in the last 60 days when I figured out the origin of the periodic table of the elements.
I could say if I get 1000 subscribers maybe I'll post the video here, but I'm not sure that is my target. I have another book to publish, just have too much to do to get started on that.
https://scitechdaily.com/nsf-announces-mit-led-institute-for-artificial-intelligence-and-fundamental-interactions/
This is paying 100 million dollars to do what AuT has already done which is a pretty regular thing. FTU. Eventually, I suppose someone in the institute will read one of my papers or patents and then claim to have figured it out thereby justifying the expense.
Speaking of abuse, today's lesson will be lookng at the "traditional physics version of things" from Quora and saying bad things about it:
A simplified model says that they have 3 quarks, but a more realistic model shows that that's the net result after adding up all the mess of crap that is popping into and out of existence at any given time inside them :up, down, anti-up, anti-down, gluons attaching to the quarks, gluons attaching to other gluons, etc.
Up to this point physics is confused, but at least on the right track. Then they get completely lost, talking about undulating and have waves and using the vague concept of quarks instead of the more specific ct state and transitional ct state model, but other than getting everything wrong, they do have a certain version of compression and decompression which would get them a 5 out of 100 on a test.
Now when we get to larger scales, like nuclei, or otherwise thought of as collections of nucleons, we see funny things happening. The nucleons like to bunch up in groups of 4 with two protons and two neutrons. These are basically helium nuclei, and nuclear physicists call them alpha particles (because historically they were the first particle ever discovered in radioactive materials, along with the second which are beta particles or electrons, and the third which are gamma particles or photons).
Ok, here is where the video, if you had a link to it would add a little light but even the old versions of aut focused on the nucleus as something fairly different, a backbone of neutrons sharing absorption and spew and pulling in two protons which in turn pull intwo electrons. The whole idea of photons and or rays (gamma particles) is not so far off since at least they are calling them particles, although they have zero idea of pretime change as energy. They also having pairing which is critical to stability and is, again, something shown even at the neutron number 77 level which to the uneducated looks like an odd number. I bet you would like to see the math on that one!
You know how electrons form orbital shells around atoms, well nucleons can do it too. The alpha particles can actually group together in orbitals just like electrons, and can form halos orbiting around the central nucleus. If the protons and the neutrons are close to the magic numbers, and their shells are filled, they tend to be more stable, and don't want to decay. So the nuclei with shells on and around these magic numbers will form lots of halos similar to what we see electrons doing for atoms.
This paragraph is not so terrible either, it almost, but does not, get to the fractal nature of things.
If the nuclei have excess energy, like if a nucleus was just impacted with a neutron or a high energy photon, they can also take on nonspherical shapes, undulating with excess energy as waves move throughout the body and along the surface of the nucleus.
Oh help, the old science lost in a total misunderstanding of energy and matter, movement and time.
Moving further out into the atomic scale, we see beautiful patterns in electron orbital that follow the various patterns of the spherical bessel functions. We see interesting overlaps when orbitals hybridize, such as in the case with carbon, taking on a tetrahedral shape with it's four SP-3 electron orbitals. We can actually look at methane molecules and see this tetrahedral shape. But atoms tend to gravitate toward spherical shapes as you start to overlap all of the orbital patterns on top of each other. And the larger the atom gets, the more orbitals you stack, the more those begin to fill out a generally spherical shape.
the 21 and higher are argon-1 and higher; these d orbitals are the result of the expansion of the neutron core outward.
Now we have gotten to a place where the new model of the neutron core becomes critical to understanding what is really going on. Unfortunately, we are not giving any of thata detail out, suffice it to say if you seek the smoking gun article, you will find it.
To answer your question, how do we know they're spherical? They're not, at least technically most of the time. There is structure to them, and there are oscillations to consider that travel through the center and along the surface if you want to really think about how one would actually look and behave. But like the water droplets, they tend to have a generally spherical shape. In the case of water, it's because of surface tension and van der Waals forces. With atoms, it's the Electromagnetic force. With nuclei and nucleons, it's the strong and weak forces. They tend to fall into spherical shapes because the sphere is the shape that minimizes the potential energy in the system.
There is about 10% truth to this. Yes, not spherical, but not orbital in this sense, remember fractals? Yeah, think about it, you will get it eventually.
In regards to your question, its kind of similar to how most of the time, we don't need to consider special relativity when checking the time. We are moving so much slower than the speed of light that the difference in your time versus my time is basically zero. Most of the time the excess energy that causes the deformations in the surface isn't really worth considering unless you're doing really really precise calculations and these imperfections become relevant. For most things though, it's easier to just start with a simpler system, and get a good enough answer to continue on to other things.
Relativity is a time based phenomena and time merely reflects pre time dimensional changes giving a form of stop frame animation to the universe (and see as space) so lets just say that this paragraph is just a confused example of the misdirection of relativity and be done with that?
I am going to publish this and then go back and clean it up. You're welcome.
