It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The electron probability density for the first few hydrogen atom electron orbitals shown as cross-sections.
You seem to be representing a hydrogen atom and those don't have dipoles, but they do chemically bond to form H2 molecules, which don't really have an electric dipole.
So if I understand your drawing, this type of electric attraction happens between water molecules (H2O), but not between hydrogen molecules (H2).
So you don't recall your high school chemistry? They aren't chemical bounds, they are chemical bonds, in this case covalent bonds:
originally posted by: KrzYma
so... you are saying those two hydrogen atoms do not attract each other by electric force, but by chemical bounds ??
is "chemical bounds" some new force or maybe another virtual particle in your theory ??
Here's a diagram from that link showing the separate hydrogen atoms on the left and right, while the center diagrams represent the wave functions of how they share electrons:
The symmetric combination (called a bonding orbital) is lower in energy than the basis orbitals, and the antisymmetric combination (called an antibonding orbital) is higher. Because the H2 molecule has two electrons, they can both go in the bonding orbital, making the system lower in energy (and, hence, more stable) than two free hydrogen atoms. This is called a covalent bond.
We have pictures now to support the math:
I will not comment the wave function plot you've posted, it has nothing to do with the reality, only mathematical calculations..
There's a reason accepted science is accepted....it's usually because of supporting evidence.
Originally posted by VitalOverdose
reply to post by Nathwa
Well it proves that the maths we have been using to simulate atoms and the theories we have come up with about the way they work are correct. It means we are on the right track to understanding how the universe works.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48da3d162815.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/68cbe40a92ea.gif[/atsimg]
We are indeed clever little monkeys
You can discuss "cutting edge" science with no sources in the skunk works forum, that's what it's there for; extreme theories with no sources:
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Alas but the source is me. This is cutting edge science that I am talking about, so its pertinent here itself. But if this is something that ought not to be discussed, then its kind of a no go situation.
Since your claim is exactly opposite of experimentally confirmed mainstream science, which makes it extreme, and you have no corroboration, that's exactly the place to discuss it. This isn't the right place to discuss "scientific" claims without any sources, where I put "scientific" in quotes because if you don't have any sources better than "because I said so", it's probably not scientific.
ATS Skunk Works: This forum is dedicated to the all-important highly speculative topics that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts and span the spectrum of topics discussed on ATS. Readers and users should be aware that extreme theories without corroboration are embraced in this forum.
See? Even you imply that someone else's "say so" is questionable if that's all they've got, and it's not good enough for science. We can say the same thing about your "say so", or mine. Hopefully I can back up what I say with more than "because I said so", and if you want to post in this forum you should understand it's not skunk works, so the same would be expected of you.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
But In the case of podkletnov its only his say so
originally posted by: Nochzwei
You are a funny bloke. You are learning something new here, which you should embrace. This is how science works. But anyway each to his own. By your own admission, there have been tests in the lab showing confirming freq change with time dilation and now you are contradicting yourself and denying yourself.
As such let me choose when to resort to skunk works, which I may never do.
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I never said it had nothing to do with electric force,
this type of electric attraction happens between water molecules (H2O), but not between hydrogen molecules (H2)
Because the H2 molecule has two electrons, they can both go in the bonding orbital, making the system lower in energy (and, hence, more stable) than two free hydrogen atoms.
Hey I was talking about time dilation and according to Arb. freq increase of light source was measured in lab tests by moving the light source up. I do not know which lab though.
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: Nochzwei
You are a funny bloke. You are learning something new here, which you should embrace. This is how science works. But anyway each to his own. By your own admission, there have been tests in the lab showing confirming freq change with time dilation and now you are contradicting yourself and denying yourself.
As such let me choose when to resort to skunk works, which I may never do.
a reply to: Arbitrageur
You seriously need to look at this you seem very confused.
en.wikipedia.org...
Thought id add this as well we know frequency isnt effected by speed which is exactly what your arguing. Since time is measured by the time it would take a photon to reach one point to another. meaning speed would have to vary for your assumption to be right.
arxiv.org...
Saying it's not a dipole as your diagram illustrates doesn't infer lack of electric attraction, it simply means the electric attraction is the other type, which isn't a dipole:
originally posted by: KrzYma
this type of electric attraction happens between water molecules (H2O), but not between hydrogen molecules (H2)
Monatomic hydrogen H isn't a dipole, nor is diatomic hydrogen H2, but water molecules H2O have an Electric dipole moment.
A chemical bond is an attraction between atoms that allows the formation of chemical substances that contain two or more atoms. The bond is caused by the electrostatic force of attraction between opposite charges, either between electrons and nuclei, or as the result of a dipole attraction.
In nuclear power plants, we split the nuclear bonds in heavy atoms, and the resulting by-products have less mass. However in nuclear fusion, like fusing hydrogen into helium, the separate hydrogen has more mass than the resulting helium. So there's not one rule about whether two masses have more or less energy than one mass, you have to look at the specific atomic process to determine if there's a net mass gain or loss, but the element Iron is a clue, since we think nothing heavier is produced in routine star fusion, and that heavier elements come primarily from supernovae.
2 electrons is lower energy ? therefore 2 masses must be less mass, right ?
Look at the blue line in the center bottom diagram, which is a rough representation of the probability density of electron location in an H2 molecule.
does it mean the red and blue lines are responsible for attraction ????
As Eros said just because you call a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat. There is a mountain of evidence supporting the model.
just because someone invented negative kinetic energy doesn't mean it is right !
I call this a fringe science even if populated by MS
My point about no electric dipole in hydrogen applies to both monatomic hydrogen, which isn't bonded and which is what your diagram appears to inaccurately represent, and diatomic hydrogen which is when the 2 hydrogen atoms are bonded.
anyway...
Did I said the hydrogen atoms in a bond ???
I said at any distance "d"
My point was, should you choose to post extreme theories without corroboration, they would be welcome in skunk works. I don't care if you actually do that or not.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
As such let me choose when to resort to skunk works, which I may never do.
They did two experiments, one based on relative motion, which would be more relevant to your question about relative motion, and another changing the acceleration of the clock due to gravity by vertical movement. Changing the acceleration isn't quite the same as linear motion, so let's talk about linear motion.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Hey I was talking about time dilation and according to Arb. freq increase of light source was measured in lab tests by moving the light source up. I do not know which lab though.
When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock.
researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colo., registered differences in the passage of time between two high-precision optical atomic clocks when one was elevated by just a third of a meter or when one was set in motion at speeds of less than 10 meters per second.
What does this have to do with anything we're discussing? Besides I tried it and I didn't notice any difference, and why should I?
You can try a simple expt. Stand 3 m facing a light colored wall. Mark your eye level on the wall. Now take a flashlight and shine it on the wall. Now move the flashlight 1 m above and below your marked eye level. You will see that the reflection above your eye level is slightly brighter than the one below your eye level.
dragonridr asked you about distance, and I didn't see where you answered his question about distance, did you? The distance does determine whether or not the two hydrogen atoms can bond, but it doesn't affect whether they are dipoles or not since neither form is a dipole.
Look at the blue line in the center bottom diagram, which is a rough representation of the probability density of electron location in an H2 molecule.
Since my last post cited the reference that the electric attraction in chemical bonds is either dipole, or between electrons and nuclei, and I said it's not dipole, then it must be the latter, right?
originally posted by: KrzYma
you are nicely avoiding my question, just tell me what attracts the two hydrogen atoms before they go into a bond.
Did you read the caption? It says they are electron wave function representations:
are you sure ?? are those lines not the representation for charges ?? those left and right animations, and the middle the interaction ??
Of course there is a relationship between the electron wavefunction and apparent charge distribution, so I'm not sure if you're trying to make some distinction, what the point would be.
Electron wavefunctions for the 1s orbital of a lone hydrogen atom (left and right) and the corresponding bonding (bottom) and antibonding (top) molecular orbitals of the H2 molecule...
(This plot is a one-dimensional slice through the three-dimensional system.)
If two hydrogen atoms are far enough apart (> 10 Angstroms) the electron clouds are not influenced by the other atom.
If they approach each other the electrons are drawn toward the nucleus of the other atom.
An optimum distance is reached at which there is a merging or overlapping of the 1s orbitals. There is a concentration of electron probability density between the two nuclei. They will be bonded together by this sharing of electrons. A shorter distance between the nuclei would result in an increase in repulsive force between the two positive nuclei.
They are closely related, aren't they? I'd say the site I linked to answers both questions.
originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur
look, I'm not asking how a bond is made, I'm asking what attracts those two!
You mean if they are more than 10 Angstroms apart? They may not. If their kinetic energy is moving them apart, they won't approach each other.
question is, why do they approach each other if not because of the electric attraction??
That illustration is too crude but if you were to try to correct it, there is a greater negative charge density between the two positive charges so the negative charge wouldn't be on the left in the left atom. If you put it on the right so both negatives are in the middle it would be closer, since each is attracted to the other positive nucleus, but this is more accurate, since it's not over-simplified to that extent. It shows the negative charges are dominant between the positive charges, because the electrons are attracted to both positively charged nuclei, if they are close enough together.
originally posted by: KrzYma
we have 2 of them separated by any distance "d"
[(-)( + )] ---d--- [(-)( + )]
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Hey I was talking about time dilation and according to Arb. freq increase of light source was measured in lab tests by moving the light source up. I do not know which lab though.
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: Nochzwei
You are a funny bloke. You are learning something new here, which you should embrace. This is how science works. But anyway each to his own. By your own admission, there have been tests in the lab showing confirming freq change with time dilation and now you are contradicting yourself and denying yourself.
As such let me choose when to resort to skunk works, which I may never do.
a reply to: Arbitrageur
You seriously need to look at this you seem very confused.
en.wikipedia.org...
Thought id add this as well we know frequency isnt effected by speed which is exactly what your arguing. Since time is measured by the time it would take a photon to reach one point to another. meaning speed would have to vary for your assumption to be right.
arxiv.org...
You can try a simple expt. Stand 3 m facing a light colored wall. Mark your eye level on the wall. Now take a flashlight and shine it on the wall. Now move the flashlight 1 m above and below your marked eye level. You will see that the reflection above your eye level is slightly brighter than the one below your eye level.