Debunking Ken Seto in progress....

[Only registered users see links. ]

Study the above illustrations of Ken Seto atomic model of the
hydrogen atom. Isn't it the electrons are so far away from the
nucleus, how can the above makes sense? Seto always mentions how
no one can debunk him. That's because he doesn't offer enough
details. The above illustration and some quotes below came from
Seto book itself. I borrowed it from a friend to debunk it. I
pity crackpots when they wasted too many years self-deluded which
could have spent elsewhere. I hope Bjoern or other physics wizards
can point out more flaws of the Seto atomic model as detailed
in this message and the accompanying illustrations (you must
click the above url to get an idea of it all). Should Seto
successfully defend them all and gives a convincing experiment
that can survive the scrutiny of scientists everywhere. He wins a
Nobel.

Quoting Ken Seto in his book: (Impt, see the illustrations above to
understand what he is saying)

Model Mechanics

The Structure of Atoms

The Model Mechanical description of the structure of an atom is
much more realistic. The nucleus of an atom is formed by the
stacked and electromagnetic interactions of the S-Particles of
the up-quarks and down-quarks. The electrons are orbiting
S-Particles around these stacked up-quarks and down quarks. The
relevant question for this description is- how does an electron
manage to maintain an orbit around the nucleus without spiraling
into the nucleus? To answer this question, let us examine the
simplest of all the atoms, the hydrogen atom. The nucleus of a
hydrogen atom is a proton that is shown schematically in Fig.
2.12. Now let us introduce an electron to the proton--now it
becomes a hydrogen atom Fig.2.14. Within the nucleus, the
down-quark is in an orbiting motion around the up-quarks. The
direction of the orbit is such that it is the same as that of the
S-particles (clockwise direction) of the stacked up-quarks.
Similarly, the direction of the orbit of the electron is the same
as that of th e down-quark . Now let us examine the forces that
these particles are exerting on each other. The stacked upquarks
exert an attractive force on the down-quark and the electron, and
the down-quark exerts a repulsive force on the electron. At
ground state, the attractive and the repulsive forces acting on
the electron are in equilibrium and thus, it is allowed to orbit
at this energy state. There is only room for one more electron at
the ground state orbit. The reason is that the electrons exert a
repulsive force on each other and therefore, they must maintain a
proper distance from each other: The ground state orbit is the
diameter of the hydrogen atom. This orbiting scheme, by the way,
does not violate Pauli's exclusion principle that two electrons
cannot have the same quanturn state. The S-Particles of these
electrons are orbiting in the opposite direction. In quantum
mechanical terms, they have the opposite spins.

It is noteworthy that inside the ground state orbit the electron
will feel a repulsive force, while outside the ground state orbit
the electron will feel an attractive force. These unique
properties enable the electron to absorb and emit energy in
discrete packets. The following diagram will help us to visualize
how energy and radiation are being absorbed and emitted by a
hydrogen atom.

The above diagram explains why an atom produces sharp spectrum.
The step by step process is as follows. Previously, I have
illustrated that at the ground state orbit there is no net force
exerted on the electron by the quarks in the nucleus. However,
when an electron is exposed to a quantum of energy, it will
absorb that specific energy immediately. This will elevate it
into a higher orbit. At this higher orbit, the electron will feel
a net attractive force from the nucleus. This net attractive
force will cause the electron to lose energy gradually as it
spirals inward toward the ground state orbit. As the electron
orbits behind the nucleus, it is cut off from the energy source
completely. This causes it to lose all of its absorbed energy and
drop back to the ground state orbit immediately. The energy
emitted by this process will appear to us as discrete and lumpy,
and that is exactly what was found.

The gradual loss of energy by the electron gives rise to its
unusual shifted orbit and this shifted orbit is known as the fine
structure of the hydrogen atom. With quantum mechanics, this
shifted orbit is interpreted as the maelstrom of activities of
the virtual particles that buzz around the electron. Clearly, the
above Model Mechanical explanation is much more preferred. The
shifted orbit of the electron was discovered experimentally by
Willis Lamb in 1947 and it is called the Lamb's shift (or the
fine st ructure of the hydrogen atom). Willis Lamb was awarded
the Nobel Prize for this finding.

It was shown previously that the nucleus of an atom is formed by
the stacked interactions of protons and neutrons. Therefore,
looking at a nucleus sideways, it will appear to be cylindrical,
instead of the normal concept that it is spherical. The electrons
of an atom would orbit around the protons in the nucleus. The
ground state orbit of a proton is able to accommodate two
electrons. The reason is that the repulsive force between the
electrons is preventing any more electrons to come into this
orbit. Since the ground state orbit of a hydrogen atom has only
one electron, therefore it is actively seeking another electron
to complete this orbit. This is what gives the hydrogen atom the
chemical reactivity. Also, this is what gives the hydrogen atom
the ability to share an electron with another atom. This sharing
of an electron is known as hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding is
unquestionably the most important chemical process of life
because it gives rise to all the complex molecules of life. The r
ules governin g the orbits of the electrons in a heavy atom are
much more complex than that for hydrogen because the repulsive
forces among all the electrons must also be considered. It is
beyond the scope of this book to deal with this subject in
detail. However, the structures of helium, lithium, beryllium and
boron are shown as follows.

is that you again Qion-What is Qi-Landle-Caltechdude-Cinquirer etc etc
??? sure sounds like you, though i could be wrong... if it is you, when
will you quit getting people to read through all this crank science
junk you so dearly love huh?

........... ...A miserable, in the meantime, you have come here to try to
show, that you do understand something, your kind as I have -below- just
said to you, they are an infinite amount turning their shit all
along!!!!!!!!!!!!!............. ...

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Think Again!



........... ...Yes, indeed!

........... ...However, whenever anybody, send you as an hungry dog to
say to him -to me- anything, which he does not have any courage to say it to
him himself. First of all, do ask yourself, why and add to yourself an other
why. That it would be for you if it could be the holy question, which it
would help you to arrange as to manage what is missing along your empty
existence.

........... ...Therefore, as all the stupids, they do their best, as also
do also your best. Whether to try, at least to change the behaviours and the
manners of yours, including the ways of a saying -their manners- the things.
Because, your kind, they do nothing special, they do just exist to produce a
shit in the nature all along.

........... ...However, which also, they has had been as used as so
repeated, without any ending of a repetition along their general mental
masturbation, which is the speciality of the weak minds and the stupids. And
simply, this is what is all about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................
....

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Think About That!


<[Only registered users see links. ]> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1108441277.306374.119950@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...




<[Only registered users see links. ]> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1108444155.752183.115630@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...

what is all this crap you've written in english? mind translating them
for me?

........... ...A miserable, in the meantime, you have come here to try to
show, that you do understand something, your kind as I have -below- just
said to you, they are an infinite amount turning their shit all
along!!!!!!!!!!!!!............. ...

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Think Again!



........... ...Yes, indeed!

........... ...However, whenever anybody, send you as an hungry dog to
say to him -to me- anything, which he does not have any courage to say it to
him himself. First of all, do ask yourself, why and add to yourself an other
why. That it would be for you if it could be the holy question, which it
would help you to arrange as to manage what is missing along your empty
existence.

........... ...Therefore, as all the stupids, they do their best, as also
do also your best. Whether to try, at least to change the behaviours and the
manners of yours, including the ways of a saying -their manners- the things.
Because, your kind, they do nothing special, they do just exist to produce a
shit in the nature all along.

........... ...However, which also, they has had been as used as so
repeated, without any ending of a repetition along their general mental
masturbation, which is the speciality of the weak minds and the stupids. And
simply, this is what is all about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................
....

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Think About That!


<[Only registered users see links. ]> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1108441277.306374.119950@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...




<[Only registered users see links. ]> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1108444155.752183.115630@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...




<[Only registered users see links. ]> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1108445506.917316.207530@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...

A.S. wrote:

Well, he says that the illustration is "schematic" - so you can't
take him to task for using wrong distances in it.



With even a rudimentary knowledge of physics, you should be able to
find lots of flaws already on your own.



Well, in Seto's opinion, he will be succesful. In the opinion of
everyone other, he won't.

Notice that I killfiled Seto, so I won't be able to see his answers
directly.



Good joke.



As already asked elsewhere: "clockwise" as seen from which end of the
E-string?



Notice that Seto explains nowhere why such forces should exist, and
how they are transmitted through the empty space between the particles.

He only gives a vague analogy to magnetic forces somewhere.



Wrong. If the two forces where in equilibrium, no net force would
be acting on the electron, and hence there could not be a circular
orbit. Apparently, Seto has never realized that a centripetal force
is required for circular orbits. Like many cranks, he already fails
in simple classical mechanics.



So what? Nothing quantitative here. So how does he know that this
"proper distance" which is required is so large that only one more
electron fits into the ground state "orbit"?



Bonus point for Seto if he can actually calculate this diameter using
his model.



Well, in Seto's model, something like "quantum states" does not even
exist - so why does he feel the need to address the Pauli principle?



Notice that no evidence is presented anywhere that spin has anything
to do with the direction of the orbitting of the S-particles. E.g.
the Stern-Gerlach experiment is nowhere explained (AFAIK).



Complete utter hogwash.

If the electron is on an orbit, there is an attractive force on it.
Otherwise, there couldn't be an orbit! Again, Seto fails to understand
centripetal forces.

BTW, above he said that in the ground state orbit, there is both an
attractive and a repulsive force, which are in equilibrium with each
other. He seems to contradict that here.


Also, what does he suggest here exactly? That there is one single
orbital radius for which there is a repulsive force, and for all other
radii, there is an attractive force? Shouldn't there be a continuous
transition from one case to the other?




And I have explained why that is hogwash, and shows that Seto does not
even understand classical mechanics.



No matter how big that quantum is?



Notice that Seto has not explained why a higher orbit corresponds
to higher energy.



But electrons do not lose energy gradually. Excited atoms give off
energy only in discrete packages (photons), not continuously.



"behind"??? As seen from where?

And what energy source?



Why? How?

Complete hogwash!



Just above he said that the electron loses energy *gradually*.....




And here again!



Ouch!!!!!!!!!!!!

He has not the *faintest* clue what he is talking about!



He confuses the Lamb shift with the fine structure here...



ROTFL BITC!

Notice that he has not presented one single number! Whereas standard
QM can calculate the hydrogen spectrum to an accuracy of at least 6
significant digits!



No, the Lamb shift is *not* the same thing as the fine structure.

And notice that Seto has not presented even the tiniest piece of
evidence that his model can actually explain the Lamb shift. He simply
asserted that it is due to "a shifted orbit", and apparently thinks that
this assertion is an explanation.



Asserted, not shown.


Seto shares this misconception with Porat and many other cranks: that
asserting something means that this has been actually shown to be true...




Seto is free to explain the measured quadropole moments of nuclei.



No calculation which would show that the repulsive force has a magnitude
which would allow exactly two electrons, not less and not more. Simply
asserted.



How does he get from "there is room for an additional electron" to
"the atom is actively seeking for an additional electron"? A completely
unwarranted, huge jump in logic.



According to his logic, in a hydrogen molecule, with two hydrogen atoms,
there should be room for four electrons. Why has this never been observed?


(BTW, a hydrogen atom with two electrons, H^-, is indeed possible.
Apparently Seto is unware of that, since he did not mention this.
Again a bonus point to him if he can calculate the binding energy
of that state correctly.)



How does he get from "there is room for two electrons in the hydrogen
ground state" to "a hydrogen atom can share an electron with another
atom"? Again, a completely unwarranted, huge jump in logic.



Vaguely right.



Utter nonsense again. The most important chemical binding for life
is the binding between carbon atoms.



Again, he got something right here. Congratulations.



And yet again, he does not provide even one single number for comparison
with observations.


Bye,
Bjoern

Saying one is "debunking" Seto is like saying you're "negotiating"
with a cockroach as you step on it.

-E

"A.S." <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<1108428969.895792.151670@f14g2000cwb.googleg roups.com>...
[snip]


Orbitals have been measured. Take a look at

"Direct observation of d-orbital holes and Cu-Cu bonding in Cu2O",
J. M. Zuo, M. Kim, M. O'Keeffe & J. C. H. Spence
Nature, volume 401, pp 49-52, September 1999.

The first paragraph is free at

[Only registered users see links. ]

main experimental image at
http://cbed.mse.uiuc.edu/images/cu2o.gif

where he overlays the data with a box to show where the crystal is.

Model that without QM!

See also

"Tomographic imaging of molecular orbitals"
J. ITATANI, J. LEVESQUE, D. ZEIDLER, HIROMICHI NIIKURA H. PÉPIN, J. C.
KIEFFER3, P. B. CORKUM & D. M. VILLENEUVE
Nature volume 432, pp 867 - 871, 16 December 2004

where the authors image the molecular N2 bonding orbital. The abstract
is at

[Only registered users see links. ]

In other words, experiments have been made and not only do orbitals
exist in both atomic and molecular cases, they look just as QM says
they do.

best,

BR

p.s. apologies if this post appears twice

hi there Qion-What is Qi-Landle-Caltechdude-Cinquier etc etc...

why do you persist on taking on a new nick? so you can fool Bjoern and
Dr. Photon, into explaining the samey stuff thinking that you are a
newbie?
and you are very bad at masquerading, you can almost always be
identified...
do i sense a aura of dishonesty in your nick-changing antics???

explain it A.S-Qion-What is Qi-Landle-Caltechdude-Cinquier etc etc, and
maybe you can give us a list of all your nicks so we always recognize
you.

bubye. Bryant.

A.S. wrote:

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

Bryant, I don't think that A.S. is identical to Qion-What is
Qi-Landle-Cinquirer. The posting style is rather different.

Also, I'm not sure if Caltechdude is identical to Qion etc.


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern