The Electron and Proton In the Infinite Universe
The Atom's History
To understand the electron and proton in the infinite universe, it is necessary to carefully consider the history behind each particle.
It is through this history that today's model of the atom is depicted as a nucleus having protons and neutrons where the nucleus is surrounded by electrons, each having their associated charge.
The History of the Electron
The word "electron" is derived from the Greek word for amber. In 1600, William Gilbert coined the word electricus, which developed into the words "electric" and "electricity".
In 1733, C. F. du Fay proposed a two-fluid theory where electricity comes in two varieties that cancel each other. When glass is rubbed with silk, according to du Fay the glass was charged with vitreous electricity while the silk was charged with resinous electricity. Similarly, when amber was rubbed with fur, the amber was charged with resinous electricity and the fur was charged with vitreous electricity.
In 1839, Michael Faraday showed that static electricity, current electricity, and bioelectricity were all a result of the behavior of a single kind of electricity appearing in opposite polarities. It is arbitrary which polarity is called positive and which is called negative.
James Clerk Maxwell, in A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, showed that when a piece of glass and a piece of resin are rubbed together and left in contact they exhibit no electrical properties, while when they are separated they attract each other.
By rubbing a second piece of glass with a second piece of resin, it can further be shown that the two pieces of glass repel each other, the two pieces of resin repel each other, and each piece of glass attracts each piece of resin.
Any body that, then, repels the glass and attracts the resin is said to be vitreously electrified. Alternatively, if it attracts the glass and repels the resin it is said to be resinously electrified. All electrified bodies are one of these forms.
An established convention in the scientific community defines vitreous electrification as positive and resinous electrification as negative. The exactly opposite properties of the two kinds of electrification are the basis for the opposite signs, but the application of "positive" to one and "negative" to the other must be considered a matter of arbitrary convention.
With this all in mind, it is important to note the following:
- The identification of electrons as negative is arbitrary.
- The main reason we have grown to look at electrons as having charge is because they tend to flow in this manner.
We will come back to this after a short discussion of the proton.
The History of the Proton
In 1815, William Prout proposed that all atoms are composed of hydrogen atoms, based on interpretation of early values of atomic weights.
Ernest Rutherford discovered the atomic nucleus in 1911. In 1917, he went on to conclude that the hydrogen nucleus is present in other nuclei, a result described as the discovery of protons. Through radiating nitrogen gas with alpha particles--consisting of a helium nucleus without its electrons--he recognized signatures of typical hydrogen nuclei as a product. He found that when alpha particles were introduced into nitrogen gas, it produced oxygen-17 and hydrogen nuclei.
Due to this result, Rutherford concluded that hydrogen was the building block of all elements, describing the hydrogen nucleus as being present in all other nuclei as an elementary particle. This led to the hydrogen nucleus being assigned the name of "proton".
Of critical importance to note is that the free proton having no electrons is able to be stable under certain conditions. In particular, free protons exist in plasmas in which temperatures are too high to allow them to combine with electrons. This shows an important clue in the understanding of how these systems function.
The Infinite Universe Model
The universe is infinite. It comprises infinitely large and infinitely small particles, all divisible into smaller particles in the same way as the Earth is divisible into smaller particles. The force of gravity manipulates these systems into the universe as we see it. This is the entirety of the model. At its most fundamental level, it is that simple.
This is demonstrably the case because this model shows how gravity causes electromagnetism. In short, as the universe is infinite, there are always smaller particles. Any given particle will pull sufficiently smaller particles into Figure-8 orbitals physically through the center of gravity of the body. These Figure-8 orbitals of the surrounding smaller particles produces the large-scale observation of an electromagnetic field. Thereby, gravity causes electromagnetism.
Electrons in the Infinite Universe Model
From the study of the history of electrons, it is important to note that we began to label these particles as having a charge. The Infinite Universe model does not include such complexities, but rather it results in observations that can be interpreted as charge.
In particular, electrons are particles. In the static electricity example above of rubbing glass and silk together, these particles are physically transferred from one system to another as a result of local gravity, which is really what friction is. Additionally, electromagnetic fields of the atoms as they get proximal can serve to extract electrons from one system to another, which is again the result of gravity.
As this mass of electrons accumulates into one system, the system is no longer in equilibrium with its surroundings. It is this lack of equilibrium that results in the observation of attraction and repulsion between systems. In the case of attraction, when there is a greater number of electrons in a given volume than equilibrium with its surroundings would have, then this is alike to a high-pressure system. When there is a deficiency in the number of electrons in a system relative to its surroundings, then this is alike to a low-pressure system.
A high-pressure system is attracted toward a low-pressure system because they are not in equilibrium. Everything tends towards equilibrium; like leaving hot food out it will reach room temperature over time. The high-pressure produced by excess electrons causes the system to push outward on its surroundings whereas the low-pressure system has low pressure and so when high-pressure comes near it, it allows the particles of the high-pressure system, being pressed outward, to flow into the low-pressure system and fill its volume, which brings equilibrium between the systems over time.
As a result of this, the local gravity of the flow of these particles between systems causes them to become connected to one another. This, then, leads to the large-scale observation of attractive forces.
When two high-pressure systems--charged with excess electrons--are near each other, they both are pushing outward on their surroundings relatively. As a result, they press against one another and physically push apart towards lower pressure areas. This functions alike to two balloons being filled near each other. As they fill and begin to press against one another, they are deflected apart from one another because this is where equilibrium lies.
All things are relative, though, and if a high-pressure system is much higher than another high-pressure system, the second system still acts as a low-pressure system into which particles will flow from the first system.
This is fundamentally what is occurring; it is not that electrons have what we call a charge. This is a misinterpretation of how they function. Rather, it is that systems tend towards equilibrium with their surroundings. When they are not in balance, it results in a flow of mass from one system to another which leads to balance.
Similarly, when two low-pressure systems are moved close to one another, they will be pulled apart by their surroundings, as their equilibrium state is towards the relatively high-pressure surroundings. Again, this will produce the observance of repulsion between the two low-pressure systems.
Protons in the Infinite Universe Model
As discussed above, Ernest Rutherford concluded that all atoms contain discrete constituents called protons that are essentially hydrogen nuclei. His experiment, though, produced this result by using alpha particles--helium nuclei--and causing them to interact with nitrogen atoms to produce hydrogen nuclei and oxygen-17. In other words, the nitrogen gained mass to become oxygen-17 while the alpha particles lost mass, thereby becoming hydrogen nuclei.
In the infinite universe, all systems function the same. We do not see any conglomerations of stars stuck together into larger systems. In other words, atoms are not conglomerations of protons and neutrons as we interpret them to be.
The periodic table of elements is a result of systems tending towards equilibrium. At specific masses, a system becomes highly stable and so masses tend towards the specific values of the periodic table. This causes the wide array of masses in the range of atoms to tend towards equilibrium states that we then observe as having discrete masses.
In other words, there is no such thing as an atom comprising multiple protons. A hydrogen atom has what we term a "proton" as its nucleus, but this is as far as it goes. Beyond this, other atoms tend towards equilibrium states that are generally in line with the proton mass, but what is most missed in this model is that they form one single mass in the same way as a planet or star is one single mass. They are not conglomerations of relatively large masses in the way that we depict them. This is a misinterpretation of how atoms function; they are no different than the Earth in how it is made of many much smaller particles that form one single particle. They are not made of very few particles that form one system.
As a result of the mass of the nucleus, each atom as a whole, then--given normal temperature and pressure conditions--is in equilibrium with a certain amount of mass in its local environment. More than this mass and they become high pressure and less than this mass they become low pressure systems, as they are not in equilibrium with their environment in this case. This leads to each atom having a specific number of electrons in which it requires to reach balance.
This is especially evidenced by the free proton which, at high temperatures, does not combine with electrons. Temperature is a measure of mass per volume. So, as temperature increases, it is a result of the build-up of mass in the volume. This leads to increased pressure. As pressure increases, the equilibrium state no longer requires an electron to be at equilibrium because the mass present due to temperature is sufficient. In this state, a free proton is stable without electrons as a result.
This demonstrates that it is not inherent that atoms are stable with specific numbers of electrons, but rather that at typical temperatures and pressures atoms are at equilibrium with specific numbers of electrons. This is because the mass per volume is generally at equilibrium in the conditions that we see as the periodic table of elements, having the number of electrons that we see in order to produce an equilibrium state.
Conclusion
Electrons are particles sufficiently small that they move around with relative ease due to pressure imbalances in their environment and its surroundings. Due to their large mass, this motion produces what we have come to know as electricity.
While masses on the scale of a hydrogen nucleus exist, and individual particles known as protons thereby exist, the nucleus of atoms does not comprise many protons. This is a misinterpretation of how particles in the infinite universe function that comes as a result of equilibrium states in mass that has been recognized and developed into the periodic table of elements.
For More Information
If you are interested in learning more about the Infinite Universe and its simple explanations of many other critical observations, check out my other articles here on Steemit or my website CascadingUniverse.Org!
Especially important topics include:
How Gravity Produces Electromagnetism
The Big Bang's Big Assumption: How Gravitational Redshift Produces Redshift Per Distance
The Universe Has Infinite Dimensions
The Ether Explained
The Observer Assumption
Photons Do Have a Mass
Temperature is a Measure of Mass Per Volume
Black Holes are Optical illusions
To me, the problem comes from the fact that particles cannot be infinitely small. Or you need to give up quantum mechanics.
If you do so, then please propose an alternative theory in which all observations explained by quantum mechanics are explained in an as good way.
Definitely need to give up on quantum mechanics--it leads to interpretations of reality that are simply not observed in our surroundings. We don't see strings because strings are not part of reality, for example. The thing with small particles is their relative rate of function increases. The smaller they are, the faster they function relative to other particles.
If we could slow down and zoom in on the small, though, it would be no different in function and appearance than the large. This is the critical flaw of quantum mechanics. It assumes that the small is fundamentally different than what we see, drastically complicating reality through an approximation. The most important thing to recognize when thinking about these things is the observer's role in determining how they see objects in the cosmos. I write about this in this article: The Observer Assumption.
In terms of these small systems analyzed in quantum mechanics, they function so rapidly and are so small that they appear to be different than the large but this is an illusion. In the large, we generally look at one object or a group of generally known objects that are essentially frozen in time. In the small, we generally look at a very large group of unknown objects that function so rapidly that they go through entire cycles every instant of every moment of eternity for an observer composed specifically of mass as much larger compared to it as atoms.
As far as your request for explaining observations critical to quantum mechanics, which particular ones do you feel are most in need of an alternative explanation? I have talked about, for example, the double-slit experiment and what is happening according to the infinite universe model, in my short book that I would recommend checking out, The Simple Reality. Everything is the result of gravity in this structure. I simplify the double-slit experiment by giving reasoning for why various observations around it are not the result of some magical thing but rather is just a simply explainable result of gravity in the infinite universe, pointing out mistakes such as "the observer effect" where we do much more than simply observe by radiating energy into the slits and influencing the particles.
So you basically ignore almost a century of data. And by data, I don't only consider the double-slit experiment of decades ago, but everything that ranges from there to the collider experiments of today. As a consequence, I cannot buy your theory as reasonable. What does it say with respect to jet physics for instance? Nothing to my knowledge (but I may have read too fast).
Quantum mechanics works with respect to data. It provides explanations for the observations based on very few key principles, it has been tested, and it makes predictions for future experiments and is thus falsifiable. Until today, it has not been falsified (at least to my knowledge). Therefore, you cannot just ignore it and say it is wrong because you don't like it or because it sounds magical to you. This is not what science is about.
What you should do instead is to propose an alternative theory. But if you want the scientific community to agree with it, you must do as good as what quantum mechanics does. A commonly admitted theory will only be replaced by a better theory if data points into that direction. This is the scientific method.
By the way, quantum mechanics is not magical as you tend to say (or it is the proof you don't fully understand it). It starts from a few very well-stated postulates from which every single result from any experiment involving the microscopic world can be predicted. Propose an alternative that does the same, and show it does the same, and you will be considered.
Ok. You literally don't know the extent of my work, yet tell me what my theory needs. Rofl. Approximations may fit a lot of data but they don't fit it all, nor do they expose the reality of the situation but rather paint false images. If large-scale systems aren't functioning like quantum mechanics, then quantum mechanics is wrong. It is that simple. There are literally infinite observations that can be made that show no semblance of anything quantum mechanics says happening on the large-scale. When literally everything we look at and actually can physically see with our own eyes disproves the theory, then the theory is wrong.
We are not talking about fits, but about predictions and verifications.
Now, each theory has also its domain of applications. This is also true for quantum mechanics. It does not apply to large scale systems. Therefore, it will not work if you try.... I totally don't see your point here. We are talking about the microscopic world that your theory also embeds.
Now, think what you want, but data tells us that quantum mechanics is correct (so far). And your theory does not reproduce the data set I mentioned above.
I also want to state here that due to the Quantization of energy, Quantum mechanics can NEVER be an "Approximation", what are you going to try and 'approximate' discrete energy levels? This literally, by definition is not a thing. With spin, magnetic, total momentum states all being discrete 'energy levels', there can be NO approximation with quantum mechanics, which is in part the beauty of it in itself.
Quantum Mechanics was developed based on statistical mechanics and has evolved significantly over the past hundred years, and considering that both Le Mouth and I are practicing physicists and we have performed dozens of atomic and particle experiments and observed first hand energy quantization through many experiments such as the Franck-Hertz Experiment and Saturated Absorption of Rubidium and state transition.
This probably won't convince you because, to put this bluntly, you're a Pseudo-Scientist, as much as you might not think so, you're in the same boat with the Climate Change deniers, The Moon landing naysayers, and Flat Earth believers.
Woah, ego much? I don't care what your background is, you are wrong. Call me what you will, and I will call you what you are: wrong. Quantum mechanics is an approximation in that it attempts to describe the actual way that the small scale functions but only can describe statistical probabilities with accuracy, not what the particles are actually like on a fundamental level. There's a reason it cannot be extrapolated to the large-scale systems of the universe: because it is WRONG.
I'm sorry that my opinions indirectly attack your life's work, but that's just how it goes. I didn't tell you to jump to conclusions and believe something that is wrong just because someone taught you it was right and you took their word for it and went on to research it without recognizing the house of cards that it was. Then you come into this thread and attempt to team up with another physicist to belittle me, bringing arguments that have zero awareness of anything I actually have to say or anything about me, only defending your own views. Are you 5? Have you even in your life considered the possibility that all that you believe is wrong? You call me a pseudo-scientist, but probably sit there thinking the universe began in a Big Bang. How geocentrically ridiculous of you.
Aw did I offend you after you attacked my work? Hugs.