If the observer were small enough to stand on the Nucleus of an Atom and if the Nucleus were the size of the Earth, what the observer would perceive would be the mass under the observers feet, the rest would appear to be space to the observer. The observer may be able to see orbiting electrons and light from other nearby atoms, however the observer could not conceive what the structure was that the atom was apart of.

This appears an amusing, but pointless analogy. Are you positing an entire EM spectrum, hitherto unknown, with its own Planck's constant, to enable our observer (composed no doubt of mini-quarks) to see what he is standing on?
Light from other atoms! A photon will not affect the nucleus. It will be absorbed as energy by an electron, which will then jump one or more energy levels.

I agree with Ophiolite; at the level of the nucleus, substance may only be the interaction of force fields, or the interaction of exchange particles all moving at the speed of light.

I agree with Ophiolite; at the level of the nucleus, substance may only be the interaction of force fields, or the interaction of exchange particles all moving at the speed of light.

The question suggests a view that the electron might be like the moon. A particle orbiting the earth, etc. The Bohr atom. That just isn't the case. At best what one would see (if anything) would just be a blur or a misty cloud overhead.

The question suggests a view that the electron might be like the moon. A particle orbiting the earth, etc. The Bohr atom. That just isn't the case. At best what one would see (if anything) would just be a blur or a misty cloud overhead.

I would hypothesize that as with most things in nature speed is related to size. The smaller the faster. Space time as we understand it is a different frame rate in this case relative to the observer the electron would slow in its orbit due to the observer being accelerated to a faster time frame rate at this level of existence. As the observer is accelerated the motion of lets say an atom of Uup 115 the orbital electrons would appear to slow due to this acceleration of the observer.

As for the forces of attraction within the Nucleus, they act as gravity on a micro level to prevent our observer from flying off into the void around the atom.

For now when I refer to the other atoms in the distance being observed as light I am referring to light in the inferred part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

To this observer what we perceive as mass is observed as space and not a solid entity.

Starman,

I think you have fun with these ideas. But they have no basis in science, whatsoever. They are a complete mishmash of almost childish misconceptions of atoms, light, space, force, speed, size, time....

For now when I refer to the other atoms in the distance being observed as light I am referring to light in the inferred part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
.
Do you mean inferred or infra-red. If the former, what part of the well recognised EM spectrum are you inferring (and superluminals remarks become even more apposite). If the latter, my earlier remarks about photons apply regardless of their frequency (and superluminals remarks become extordinarily apposite).

But they have no basis in science, whatsoever. They are a complete mishmash of almost childish misconceptions of atoms, light, space, force, speed, size, time....

It only seems so to you because you don't understand them.

Yorda,

You are correct of course. I am a fool. Yorda, I will go and study and become enlightened. Do not wait up for me...

The question suggests a view that the electron might be like the moon. A particle orbiting the earth, etc. The Bohr atom. That just isn't the case. At best what one would see (if anything) would just be a blur or a misty cloud overhead.

Might it look like a commit? Science can be complicated if that is what one wants to do, complicate things. Because I lack the math and chemistry to complicate things I try to use general observations to apostolate conclusions.

1. Nature has shown to be repetitive in the grand order of things.

2. The very small is related to the very large.

3. What we observe as space, is some kind of mass on a galactic level. If an observer is the size of the universe, the universe might appear as a solid object.

4. The multidimensional universe is the existence of mass of different sizes. Time is related to the size of mass the larger the body of mass the slower the passage of time the smaller the body of mass the faster the passage of time.

5.Time is affected by what we describe as gravity. This force has different wave properties at different mass levels. The strong force is an identical type force to gravity only much stronger. As we all know time slows as you travel from the source of attraction of gravity. Time increases as you travel closer to the source. The stronger the force, the faster the passage of time as related to a control frame of reference.

I will attempt to apostolate a conclusion:

Sometimes a bit of internet research is worth 1000 incoherent posts.

Starman,

I think you have fun with these ideas. But they have no basis in science, whatsoever. They are a complete mishmash of almost childish misconceptions of atoms, light, space, force, speed, size, time....

I do not think of fun, I think in terms of Relativity. There are far too many coincidences in nature, from micro to macro and a higher understanding will never be discovered by a close minded, tunnel vision, bias, critical person.

The mind of a child is not privy to many of these attributes; it is only later in life that we inherit these traits, when we think we know all the answers.

Albert Einstein
People do not grow old no matter how long we live. We never cease to stand like curious children before the great Mystery into which we were born.

Babble.

I do not think of fun, I think in terms of Relativity. There are far too many coincidences in nature, from micro to macro and a higher understanding will never be discovered by a close minded, tunnel versioned, bias, critical person.

The mind of a child is not privy to many of these attributes; it is only later in life that we inherit these trades when we think we know all the answers.

Albert Einstein
People do not grow old no matter how long we live. We never cease to stand like curious children before the great Mystery into which we were born.
Starman,You will be interested in knowing that that electrons, for instance are always measured as point particles. The wave nature of the electrons is an ad hoc temporary modification of electron motion to expain two - hole diffraction. You can get a wavy ethereal glob of mass through two holes easier than getting a single particle through two holes. The wave-partickle duality of the electron is just another slothfully constructed confession of ignorance. 'They' can't see that the electron is a complex structure with parts and sub-parts. The standard model does not recognized no considered the possibility that the e;ectron has the intirisic ability to generate its own spin state ,+,1./ Thuis isn;t doens as acoin flip, the spin state just idly keeps flippin to the iopposite state +-+-+-+-+-+- These states are what detemine the direction taken by an electron when transitioning thouigj stern-gerlch magnetic field/gradient volumes, but I would be prepared to expel predictons of simple spherical volume morphology for protons, neutrons and so on, and especially when boiund in atomic structures. For all the quarks and other strangeness predicted the probabilities are more likely that the arributes assigned to quarks for instance as a 'particle' is a definable system for process of storing internal energy such that the particle doesn't blow up and become a mini-big-banger.

Geistkiesel

I do not think of fun, I think in terms of Relativity.No you do not.

Sometimes a bit of internet research is worth 1000 incoherent posts.Amen.

Starman,You will be interested in knowing that that electrons, for instance are always measured as point particles. The wave nature of the electrons is an ad hoc temporary modification of electron motion to expain two - hole diffraction. You can get a wavy ethereal glob of mass through two holes easier than getting a single particle through two holes. The wave-partickle duality of the electron is just another slothfully constructed confession of ignorance. 'They' can't see that the electron is a complex structure with parts and sub-parts. The standard model does not recognized no considered the possibility that the e;ectron has the intirisic ability to generate its own spin state ,+,1./ Thuis isn;t doens as acoin flip, the spin state just idly keeps flippin to the iopposite state +-+-+-+-+-+- These states are what detemine the direction taken by an electron when transitioning thouigj stern-gerlch magnetic field/gradient volumes, but I would be prepared to expel predictons of simple spherical volume morphology for protons, neutrons and so on, and especially when boiund in atomic structures. For all the quarks and other strangeness predicted the probabilities are more likely that the arributes assigned to quarks for instance as a 'particle' is a definable system for process of storing internal energy such that the particle doesn't blow up and become a mini-big-banger.

Geistkiesel

This is indeed interesting, not to mention where do photons come from? Light has mass due to its ability to assert a force. The electron omits this mass so therefore a photon is one such sub-particle of the electron.

Energy also contains mass due to the fact that when it is compressed it takes the form of a solid object.

No you do not.

Is not Relativity, how things are related?

For instance I would say that you are Religious by the use of the word "Amen", and that you have emotional issues, by the name you have chosen to describe yourself.

You see everything is related.

This appears an amusing, but pointless analogy. Are you positing an entire EM spectrum, hitherto unknown, with its own Planck's constant, to enable our observer (composed no doubt of mini-quarks) to see what he is standing on?
Light from other atoms! A photon will not affect the nucleus. It will be absorbed as energy by an electron, which will then jump one or more energy levels.

Ok, the idea is to link quantum physics to general relativity theory. The system of the atom is to similar to that of a solar system, this should not be ignored. Also if a body of mass collides with an orbital in the solar system will it not change the orbit of the object? Light is mass and energy and the effects of such interactions are the same at the atomic level as the planetary level. If the sun in our solar system were to receive an impact by a body of the same mass as the sun would it not release a great deal of energy similar to splitting the atom?

The system of the atom is to similar to that of a solar system, this should not be ignored.

Ok, that is fine for the Bohr model of an atom. However, the Bohr model is merely a simplification. It is no longer acepted as the way an atom truly behaves. The electrons are not flying about in strictly defined orbits, but are in fact flying about everywhere. True, there are electrons that have specific energies and spins, but they do not stay within any particular orbit around the nucleus. This nullifies the entire solar system analogy. It cannot be ignored that at such small scales, matter behaves (more noticeably) in the ways described by quantum theory. If you want to get technical all matter obeys those rules it is simply much less apparent in the macroscopic world.

Ok, that is fine for the Bohr model of an atom. However, the Bohr model is merely a simplification. It is no longer acepted as the way an atom truly behaves. The electrons are not flying about in strictly defined orbits, but are in fact flying about everywhere. True, there are electrons that have specific energies and spins, but they do not stay within any particular orbit around the nucleus. This nullifies the entire solar system analogy. It cannot be ignored that at such small scales, matter behaves (more noticeably) in the ways described by quantum theory. If you want to get technical all matter obeys those rules it is simply much less apparent in the macroscopic world.

Ok would you agree that the nucleus of an atom is spherical in shape?

Why do so many place so much on the irregular orbit of the electron?

Our solar system is stable with orbitals (planets) in nearly circular orbits.

Solar Systems with elliptical orbital have many changes that effect the path of other orbital when they come too close to one another.

This could explain the irregular orbit of the electrons.

The focal point of this thread is; what we perceive as space could be part of a solid structure of mass, it is relative to the observer.

If the observer is too small or large in size, what the observer can conceive is limited.

Ok would you agree that the nucleus of an atom is spherical in shape?
To some extent.
Why do so many place so much on the irregular orbit of the electron?
Because it is one of its most important characteristics and helps to emphasise how unfortunate and inappropriate the choice of the word orbit.
Our solar system is stable with orbitals (planets) in nearly circular orbits.

Broadly true, and apparently quite a rare condition.
Solar Systems with elliptical orbital have many changes that effect the path of other orbital when they come too close to one another.
This could explain the irregular orbit of the electrons.
.No it couldn't. You are confusing analogy with similarity.
The focal point of this thread is; what we perceive as space could be part of a solid structure of mass, it is relative to the observer.
If the observer is too small or large in size, what the observer can conceive is limited.We fully understand your argument. It was one that intrigued me when I was eleven. Later I became educated. I commend this experience to you.

To some extent.
We fully understand your argument. It was one that intrigued me when I was eleven. Later I became educated. I commend this experience to you.

By becoming educated, did you abandon your childhood hypothesis?

You seem to know allot about the electron.

Have you ever seen one?

Where do the electrons come from in the generation of electricity?

Do they come from the atmosphere?

Do they come from the mass within the Generator?

I do know that they are gathered by the use of electromagnetic fields, and the disruption of those fields.

In the generation of electricity, some atoms are giving up one or more of their electrons, what are the atoms and how are they effected by loosing their electrons?

Beings you are leading to the idea that an electron is more like a cloud than mass. This reminds me of the crab nebula it looks like a cloud on the outside however it has mass on the inside.

Would this demonstrate, where there are clouds, there is mass?

I agree with Upquark. The Bohr model of the atom is only taught in schools because it is a simplification. If you think the atom is a mini solar system you're about a century too late.

This appears an amusing, but pointless analogy. Are you positing an entire EM spectrum, hitherto unknown, with its own Planck's constant, to enable our observer (composed no doubt of mini-quarks) to see what he is standing on?
Light from other atoms! A photon will not affect the nucleus. It will be absorbed as energy by an electron, which will then jump one or more energy levels.
Opiolite, Would not the wave length of light be enormously longer than the iris of a person standing on the surface of some part of an atom, like a proton, or even an electron? Would not the wave length of infra-red even be too large to "see?ced you did mention A new ENM spectrum.
G.