## Squares

General FreeBASIC programming questions.
Richard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

### Re: Squares

Albert wrote:If a gold atom has 79 electrons , can it be charged more than 79 electron volts positive?
Gold has atomic number 79. That means it's nucleus has 79 protons, so it will take 79 electrons to neutralise it.

The chemistry of elements is decided by the number of protons.

It so happens that with gold, chemistry can borrow up to 5 of the 79 electrons, or chemistry can lend just one more electron to a gold atom. Beyond that it takes too much energy, so the chemical bonds would not make stable compounds.

An “electron volt”, eV, is the energy needed to lift a charge of one electron up a 1 volt step.

But the quantised steps in energy of an atom's orbitals are not steps of one volt. Each possible quantum energy step is different and characteristic of the element and orbital. The energy levels for gold measured relative to the neutral “ground state” are; [+1] = 9.22V, [+2] = 20.5V and [+3] = 30V.

Albert wrote:So if you wanted to charge it to 79 million volts positive , would you need 1,000,000 atoms as the mass?
That is not the way it works. If it takes one woman, 9 months to produce a baby, how long would it take 9 women?

An ingot of gold is made of neutral atoms that are very happy to share electrons with each other. That makes gold metal highly conductive and highly reflective.

If you charge that ingot to V=+79MV relative to ground, the charge, Q, or number of electrons, that need to be transferred from the ingot to ground will be determined by the capacitance, C, between the gold metal electrode and the ground. Q = C * V.

If you accelerate gold atoms across a gap of 79MV they will be so hot that they will be stripped of most of their electrons. They will form a plasma hotter than the solar corona.
But they will still be gold atoms.
albert
Posts: 4197
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

@Richard

So you could feasibly charge a single gold atom , to positive , more than its number of electrons?

I'm theorizing that voltage might be a system or method and not tied to actual particles.
That if a particle , is negative or positive , then its acting in someway , that we perceive to be voltage.
Richard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

### Re: Squares

Albert wrote:So you could feasibly charge a single gold atom , to positive , more than its number of electrons?
You cannot remove more than the electrons it has. But a gold atom is so small and has such a low capacitance that you would not need to remove many electrons to give it an extremely high voltage. In that extreme state of ionisation, the ion would be so chemically reactive it would stick to anything that came near. Once you have successfully pinched five electrons, when you try to get the sixth, you will find the gold atom following you, stuck to that sixth electron, like dragging a possessive dog around by the stick in it's mouth.

Electric fields in physics are like rolling rocks on hills and in valleys. The strength of the field is the slope, measured in volts per metre. The difference in height or voltage between two points in the field is the potential energy difference. There is no such thing as one voltage, there is only the voltage difference between two points. Every voltage must have a reference point.

Unlike hills and valleys it is not mass that is effected by electric fields but it is electrons or charge.
Voltage is not a particle. It is the height of a step, seen by an electron charge.
albert
Posts: 4197
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

@Richard

I'm sort of thinking that voltage , might be an action , and not inherent in the particle.

So.. A proton is positive , because it's acting in some way , that we perceive as positive voltage.
An Electron is negative , because it's acting in some way , that we perceive as negative voltage.

Maybe a binary particle system is positive , and a unary (particle and orbital) system is negative?
Just a 3D ball of ether wound up should be electrically and magnetically neutral , a neutrino.
But a neutrino should be able to spawn an orbital and become a system. Maybe the system wouldn't be neutral any longer if it did?
So voltage might be a system..Then electrons and protons have differing charge , because they are different types of systems.
But then how do you get different voltages? How does a 1 volt system differ from a 1000 volt system?

I'm sorta against the idea of photons being orbitals of electrons , or tied to electrons.
I think that the protons and neutrons spawn off photon tornadoes as part of their spin in the ether.
This idea allows a single proton or single neutron , to have an emission and absorption spectra, which they do..
Richard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

### Re: Squares

Voltage has an established meaning now. You destroy your ability to communicate when you change an existing term to mean something completely different. When you do, you are simply using your brain as a blender, to make a meaningless jargon soup.
dodicat
Posts: 4766
Joined: Jan 10, 2006 20:30
Location: Scotland

### Re: Squares

Yea Albert.
We will never understand the cosmos.
But Physics and Maths we invented, so we have to follow our own definitions within these.
Here are some units of the things you speak of.
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/courses/phy2049/sum13/Dimensional-2049-Ramond.pdf
They can be defined by Mass,Length and Time.(Because we have created them and derived them so)
albert
Posts: 4197
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

@Richard

I was thinking that if voltage was a system , what kind of system would it be??

I'm thinking that
maybe protons as they spin on a 3D axis , their main spin is clockwise.. and we call it positive
maybe electrons as they spin on a 3D axis , their main spin is counter-clockwise.. and we call it negative.
maybe neutrons as they spin on a 3D axis , their main spin is variable..somewhere in between..

The direction of spin might be a factor of the types of orbitals of the particle...

Higher proton voltages might be a faster spin? and that faster spin , throws out electrons , in the process? Like the final spin on a washing machine..
Richard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

### Re: Squares

@Albert.
The “Spin” in quantum mechanics, QM, is not a rotation. It is a conserved characteristic, like Y-chromosome male or X-chromosome female are for mammals. Pigeons produce two eggs and two young, one is male, the other female, called a “pigeon pair”. Likewise, some quantum effects produce two “bundles of quantum parameters”, called particles, one with quantum spin = +1 the other with quantum spin = -1. But neither is rotating at the atomic scale, 3D geometry does not exist at that level. QM is a mathematical construct that does not have an analogue in our macroscopic world. That is why QM is so hard to understand, the obvious analogy is very misleading. You must forget all you know about the macroscopic world before you approach QM. Then you must approach from the direction of symbolic mathematics.
Be it jargon soup or word salad, you are so far behind, you think you are first.
albert
Posts: 4197
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

@Richard

I was thinking about voltage being action (spin or ??).

As you apply a magnetic field the nucleus increases in spin , throwing out electrons , making it more and more positive.

But then an electron should be more and more negative as you increase its spin.
Maybe an electrons spin can't be sped up , by applying a magnetic field?

Once you remove the magnetic field , the nucleus continues spinning , but gradually slows down , depending on the atom or molecule , so the positive voltage gradually disappears.

So a battery or capacitor can only hold a voltage for a time , as the nucleus gradually slows and returns to its original state..
albert
Posts: 4197
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

@Richard

I forgot about electro-static voltage, rubbing two insulator atoms together , they can produce very high voltages.
How would rubbing the outside of two atoms together , increase the nucleus spin? I don't think it would but it might??

Back to the drawing board!!

Voltage must be some action other than spin. and tied to the outermost parts of the atom and not the innermost parts.
As rubbing atoms together produces voltage.

I'm thinking that IR photons are on the outside of the atom, and not tied to electrons, as a hydrogen atom without an electron has an emission spectra..
So with that , rubbing two atoms together would be rubbing IR photons together..
So two IR lasers pointed at each other , should create millions of volts of charge as the photons hit each other?
albert
Posts: 4197
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

@Dodicat

I've been doing ancestor searches..
I found out that Northern Irish and Highlanders are Scandinavian and Southern Irish and Scott's are German..
The British are mixes of Franc , Anglican , Saxon..
But it said that Scandinavians are Northern Germanic's. ???
And that the Germans , that became Scott's , wiped out the native Pict Indians that occupied the island of England before them..

I'm working on creating a computer program to show my atom theory..
I think that each proton and each neutron establishes bands of photon valences
and that the electrons occupy valences between the photon bands.
So you can't move an electron out of a valence without displacing photons.
So you can't displace a nucleon without displacing photons.
And IR occupies the outermost photon valence of each atom, so you can't pull a electron out of an atom without displacing 1 or more IR photons.
I'm stuck on figuring out how you get high voltages , when an atom only has a few electrons...
albert
Posts: 4197
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

With a hydrogen atom:

The proton creates photon bands around the proton, like a solar system..

Like the planets , all orbit the sun..
In the subatomic world , photons orbit the nucleus..
Photons are spawned off , like hurricanes spawn tornadoes.
And like a solar system , all the photons orbit the nucleus's equator in a flat band.
The nucleus spins in 3D space , so the flat atom appears to be spherical.. ( under an electron microscope )
When a stray electron moves in, it settles into an orbit , depending on the nucleus's rotation..
So you can't really hypothesize just what orbit it will settle into... This is called the electron cloud of probability,

So in higher atoms with more nucleons , all the protons and neutrons are all spinning in 3D space , with their photon bands following the spin..
As the different photon bands , interlace and disect each other during the spins , they create the absorbtion and emmission spectra.. ( not sure exactly how yet.)
Since the photon bands are spawned off by the nucleon , an atom can never run out of photons , as you pull photons out , they regenerate..

Somehow electrons can find a home amidst the photon bands ( not sure yet how they do this.)
So the nucleus generates photon bands, the innermost photon band is the highest frequency photon , and the frequencies get lower the further they are from the nucleus..
So photons are all different sizes or masses, and one color photon can't be turned into another color photon.
You can't turn an IR photon into a yellow photon and you can't turn an UV photon into an IR photon.

As the different nucleons rotate in 3D space , the photon bands interact with each other, maybe neutralizing some bands.
But they create a void around the nucleus , this void i'll call the "core void"..
As you put more and more protons and neutrons into the "core void" it fills up , and adding another proton or neutron will exceed the "core void" so that photons strike the neutron or protons , this causes an emission of photons ( I think its called Kercochov radiation. )

I'm not schooled in math or physics, but writing computer programs , has taught me , how to use deductive reasoning , to solve problems..
Richard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia

### Re: Squares

Albert wrote:Since the photon bands are spawned off by the nucleon , an atom can never run out of photons , as you pull photons out , they regenerate..
An unlimited supply of photons breaks the Law of Conservation of Energy. That invalidates your analysis and puts you back in the jargon soup domain.
albert
Posts: 4197
Joined: Sep 28, 2006 2:41
Location: California, USA

### Re: Squares

@Richard

How does it violate the "Laws of conservation of energy" ???

The ether spins and it becomes a particle , if you remove the particle then the ether still spinning spawns another particle..
Your "Laws of conservation of energy" don't apply...

What your saying is that: A hurricane can only spawn 1 tornado , and if you neutralize that 1 tornado , it can never spawn another tornado..
In truth it can spawn more than 1 tornado and if those tornadoes hit ground and become neutralized , the hurricane can still spawn other tornadoes.

As long as theres is ether in the photon band , the nucleus will spawn other photons in that band , if you remove one.

As the nucleon spins it affect the surrounding ether , the closest ether spins faster and the furthest ether spins the slowest..
Photons are in order in their bands.. UV to IR , innermost to outermost..
So an IR photon spins a lot slower than a UV photon.. And they should be different sizes.

I'm not sure if X-rays and gamma rays are a freq or a hadron particle.. If they're particles , then the closest photon to the nucleus is UV.
Wether an atom has a UV band or not depends on the "core void" as mentioned in my post above.

As the nucleons spin in 3D space , the photon bands follow the spin , this creates bonding angles as mentioned in chemistry..
The electrons sneak in between spinning photon band voids, and settle into an orbit..
It might be , that they may neutralize photons , and become the sole orbiter in that photon band?? affecting the absorbtion and emission spectra??
Richard
Posts: 2806
Joined: Jan 15, 2007 20:44
Location: Australia