The purpose of this contribution was to evaluate a recently published atom model for Helium, characterized by a double rotation of the electrons which exhibit perpendicular rotation axes. Thereby, each rotation is induced by the spin of one electron [1]. Hereto, a tangible mechanical model was used which facilitated to derive the mathematical formulae as the basics for two-dimensional projections, and—not least—for a digital animation yielding freeze images from different perspectives. The resulting shape of the electron shell turned out to be not spherical. In particular, the total velocity of the electrons is variable since the relative running direction may change—in contrast to the initial assumption—, even leading to an intermittent standstill, and implying a variable kinetic energy. Thus it can be concluded that this model describes a rotating rotor but not the Helium atom, and that it must be abandoned.
The purpose of this contribution was to evaluate a recently published atom model for Helium, characterized by a double rotation of the electrons which exhibit perpendicular rotation axes. Thereby, each rotation is induced by the spin of one electron [1]. Hereto, a tangible mechanical model was used which facilitated to derive the mathematical formulae as the basics for two-dimensional projections, and—not least—for a digital animation yielding freeze images from different perspectives. The resulting shape of the electron shell turned out to be not spherical. In particular, the total velocity of the electrons is variable since the relative running direction may change—in contrast to the initial assumption—, even leading to an intermittent standstill, and implying a variable kinetic energy. Thus it can be concluded that this model describes a rotating rotor but not the Helium atom, and that it must be abandoned.
Proceeding from the double-cone model of Helium, based on Bohr’s theorem and recently published in [13], a spherical modification could be made by introducing a second electron rotation which exhibits a rotation axis perpendicular to the first one. Thereby, each rotation is induced by the spin of one electron. Thus the trajectory of each electron represents the superposition of two separate orbits, while each electron is always positioned opposite to the other one. Both electron velocities are equal and constant, due to their mutual coupling. The 3D electron orbits could be 2D-graphed by separately projecting them on the x/z-plane of a Cartesian coordinate system, and by plotting the evaluated x-, y- and z-values versus the rotation angle. Due to the decreased electron velocity, the resulting radius is twice the size of the one in the double-cone model. Even if distinct evidence is not feasible, e.g. by means of X-ray crystallographic data, this modified model appears to be the more plausible one, due to its higher cloud coverage, and since it comes closer to Kimball’s charge cloud model.
The present approach is an advancement of the author’s former attempts to develop an atom model of Helium with well-defined electron trajectories. Thus it calls in question the traditional quantum mechanics which assume—in contrast and as a consequence of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle—electronic probabilities of presence. Its basic idea consists of the assumption that the motions of the two electrons are influenced by their spins exhibiting the value h/2π, but in two different ways: on the one hand, one spin induces a rotation; and on the other hand, the other spin induces a harmonic oscillation. A second important relation is given by the fact that the retroactive force of the oscillation process is due to the centrifugal force when the process runs along the surface of a sphere, whereas in usual oscillation processes—such as the one of a spring pendulum—it is due to a permanent shift between potential and kinetic energy. Therefore, in the present case, the potential energy remains constant since the distance between the nucleus and the—diametrically positioned—electrons remains constant. Considering these two conditions and the usual physical relations such as Coulomb attraction, centrifugal force, and the conservation laws of the angular momentum and of the energy, it was possible to compute the respective key values. Thereby, the deflection of the oscillation angle ψ = 45˚ is remarkable. Finally, the process is described using a Cartesian coordinate system with z as the rotation axis, a variable oscillation distance d and variable rotation velocities rrot. Thereby, the projections onto the x-axis and on the y-axis are not identically equal, leading to an elliptic projection shape. Thus this system is anisotropic, in contrast to the isotropic array of the conventional quantum mechanics according to Schrödinger, where the 1s-orbital is spherically symmetrical. This anisotropy explains the existence of interatomic Van der Waals forces, which enable the condensation of Helium, even though the condensation temperature is very low. But in particular, it exhibits well-defined electron waves, thus finally delivering the explanation of the hypothesis of Louis de Broglie, which has been established 100 years ago.
The original intention of the author’s preoccupation with the quantum-mechanical behaviour of simple atoms and molecules such as Hydrogen and Helium was, on the one hand, the elegant simplicity of Niels Bohr’s atom model for Hydrogen, describing the metastable states of the excited electrons by planar concentric electron orbits, and, on the other hand, the hardly intelligible wave mechanical approach of Heisenberg, Schrödinger and others, describing mainly atoms with multiple electrons by three-dimensional orbitals which were characterized by probabilities of presence. Thereby the question arose whether it would be possible to find alternative atom models with well-defined electron trajectories. Therein, Louis de Broglie’s thesis of the wavy nature of electron motion implicating standing waves would have to be implemented. Nevertheless, as reviewed in the introduction, the orthodox three-dimensional concept influenced the own thinking in such a way that three-dimensional constellations for the electronic excited states were conceived. The break-through was achieved for the electronic ground state in the form of the spin-orbit coupling where the spin acts as a perpetuum mobile, inducing the orbital angular momentum h/2π. Furthermore, the insight was gained that a circularly rotating electron intrinsically corresponds to a harmonic oscillator, thus fulfilling the condition of a standing wave. Based on this concept, a double planar model was established for the H2-molecule which could be empirically verified by X-ray data from literature. However, for the two electrons containing Helium a 2D-array seemed impossible since the Pauli-principle seemed to be violated. After a long stepwise succession of 3D-attempts which turned out to be impossible—not least since eccentric forces are not possible in such a system—the here presented 2D-version for Helium was found, composed by two imaginary orthogonal electron orbits. It will enable in a subsequent publication the quantum mechanical interpretation of the thermal-radiative behaviour of Helium which was reported in the author’s publication nine years ago.
In a previous, primary treatise of the author the mathematical description of electron trajectories in the excited states of the H-atom could be demonstrated, starting from Bohr’s original model but modifying it three dimensionally. In a subsequent treatise, Bohr’s theorem of an unalterable angular momentum h/2π, determining the ground state of the H-atom, was revealed as an inducement by the—unalterable—electron spin. Starting from this presumption, a model of the H2-molecule could be created which exhibits well-defined electron trajectories, and which enabled computing the bond length precisely. In the present treatise, Bohr’s theorem is adapted to the atom models of helium and of neon. But while this was feasible exactly in the case of helium, the neon atom turned out to be too complex for a mathematical modelling. Nevertheless, a rough ball-and-stick model can be presented, assuming electron rings instead of electron clouds, which in the outer shell are orientated as a tetrahedron. It entails the principal statement that the neon atom does not represent a static construction with constant electron distances and velocities, but a pulsating dynamic one with permanently changing internal distances. Thus, the helium atom marks the limit for precisely describing an atom, whereby at and under this limit such a precise description is feasible, being also demonstrated in the author’s previous work. This contradicts the conventional quantum mechanical theory which claims that such a—locally and temporally—precise description of any atom or molecule structure is generally not possible, also not for the H2-molecule, and not even for the H-atom.
Aim is to correct the value of the radius of the helium atom.Methodology. A semi-classical approach is used, which is quite sufficient for the purpose of the work.Results. The need to eliminate double standards when determining the angular momentum of quantum systems leads to the fact that the quantum of angular momentum ћ is assigned not to each electron of the helium atom, but to their quantum set. The consequence of this is the correction of the value of the radius of the helium atom, which turned out to be almost four times smaller than the tabulated value. A corrected formula for the radius of the helium atom has been found: r1,2 = [1 + (1 + 7α2)]a0/14 = 7,56∙10–12 (м).Research implications lie in the fact that the size of the helium atom is of significant importance, in particular for membrane technologies.
Introduction Helium is the natural connection between the hydrogen-like atoms (one electron outside a spherical core, such as the alkali-metal atoms of Chap. 10) and all the others in the periodic table. For these one-electron atoms the field-free description of the electron motion in terms of three quantum numbers n , ℓ , and m suffices. The other electrons are considered to form the “core” and its effect on the energy levels is reduced to the quantum defects δ ℓ , as discussed in Chap. 10. The case of helium is very different since the two ground-state electrons are in the same electronic state and differ only in the orientation of their spins. Thus spin is of paramount importance for the description of all but the hydrogenic atoms. Since helium has only two spins to deal with, their roles can be written explicitly. Because the two electrons are identical, quantum mechanics requires that the wavefunction undergoes nothing more than an unobservable phase shift when they are exchanged. This consequence is called the Pauli symmetrization principle, and is sometimes referred to as “the source of our individuality”. Moreover, it has a profound influence on the wavefunction and thus on the allowed energy states. It will be shown that this symmetry requirement dictates that two electrons cannot be in states with identical quantum numbers, and this topic will be discussed in detail in this chapter. Symmetry The profound difference between the hydrogen and helium wavefunctions arises because the two electrons are indistinguishable, and this results in a fundamental change of the energy-level structure. The concept of “spin”, introduced as a shortcut for the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron in Chap. 7, now becomes a dominating feature of the description. Before discussing the helium energy levels, the effects of this symmetry with respect to exchange of identical particles is presented. The exchange operator In quantum mechanics, identical particles are inherently indistinguishable, so the exchange of the two electrons cannot change any observable and there should be no measurable effect on the overall wavefunction. However, there can be an overall phase change whose nature can easily be found by defining an operator P 12 that exchanges the electrons and applying it to the wavefunction. The exchange applies to all coordinates of the electron including its spin coordinate, but for simplicity only the spatial coordinate will be indicated here.