New Atomic Model

 Min Tae Kim, kimnogravity@gmail.com 

https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/New_Atomic_Model/13271669

Affiliations: The KMT Institute for Theory of Everything, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.

     Instead of the old atomic models, in which electrons are orbiting the nucleus, a new atomic model is proposed, in which the electron and proton are not separated in the atom but exist in the form of protium, called the plecton. A neutron combined with a plecton plays a role to be the elementary building block of the atom. In the new atomic model, the plecton and neutron in the atom are in dynamic equilibrium and exchange their forms and energy constantly. The building block piles up spherically and makes a collection of ⁴He units to be stable elements. The maximum plecton number (or the number of plecton-neutron pairs) in the outmost shell of an inert atom increases with the square of the reduced atomic radius. This new atomic model gives a perfect match with the current periodic table of elements and also the specific quantum number of each constituent plecton (formerly electron) in the atom.

     As is well known, ordinary matter consists of atoms. Atoms are not elementary particles that make up ordinary matter, but they determine most of the physical properties of solids. The atom is known to consist of sub-atomic particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons. In particle physics, the electron is an elementary particle that cannot be divided into smaller ones, and the proton and neutron are composed of elementary particles called quarks. Quarks can only be observed indirectly in very specific environments (1). However, as far as the physical properties of solids are concerned, there appears to be no room for quarks to do something. In solid-state physics, the physical properties are determined by how their constituent atoms combine or interact with other atoms, which is dependent on the specific atomic structure. Therefore, in order to understand the fundamental mechanism of any physical properties of solids such as superconductivity, it is essential to know how the electron, proton, and neutron are arranged in the atom. Unfortunately, however, the current atomic models do not give a clear image of the atomic structure in this regard. It only concerns the electron configuration in the atom. In this article, limitations and contradictions of the current atomic models are discussed, and a new atomic model is proposed and its feasibility is addressed. 

Atomic models and their loopholes 

Thomson’s atomic model  

     The etymology of "atom" is known to be "atomos", an ancient Greek adjective meaning "undivided" (2). In the twentieth century, numerous physics experiments showed that the “undivided” atom actually consists of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Electrons were discovered by J.J. Thompson in 1897 in the cathode ray experiments using a device such as shown in Figure 1 (3). When an electric field was applied between the two left electrodes of the sealed glass vessel in the figure maintained in a vacuum, a beam was generated at the cathode and hit the glass surface opposite the glass vessel. The beam was deflected by another electric field applied to the electrodes in the center of the glass vessel. The beam was of a very light stream of negative particles, and the mass-to-charge ratio indicated that the mass was about 1,800th of the hydrogen atom. Thus, it was assumed that there are smaller building blocks than the atom (4). In those days when the existence of nucleons, protons, and neutrons was still unknown, Thompson considered these negative particles to be negative raisins embedded in a positive charge pudding and proposed the so-called plum pudding model (5).

Figure 1. Device for the cathode ray experiments: A beam from the cathode at one end of the glass vessel passes through the slit and then bends between the two middle electrode plates (by J.J. Thomson).

Discovery of atomic nuclei and new atomic models  

     Thompson's atomic model was disproved by E. Rutherford, who together with H. Geiger and E. Marsden in 1909, performed an experiment called the Geiger-Marsden experiment in which alpha particles were shot on a thin metal plate to measure their deflection on a fluorescent screen (6). In the Thomson model, positive charges spread like a pudding in the substance, and because of their low density and the very low electron mass compared to that of alpha particle, all the alpha particles were expected to pass through the metal film without deflection. However, some alpha particles deflected at large angles very rarely. Rutherford deduced that the positive charges of the atom were confined to a very small volume, which had led to the deflection of alpha particles strong enough. Most of the atomic mass and positive charges were found to be concentrated in a very narrow zone of the atom.

     Rutherford proposed a new atomic model in which the electron orbits like a satellite around the central nucleus (7). However, unlike the planets orbiting the Sun, the electron is a charged particle, its orbital motion should emit electromagnetic waves, and when energy is lost, it will be attracted to the nucleus and crashes into it instantly (8). In 1913 N. Bohr proposed an atomic model, the Bohr model, in which the electron orbits the nucleus with a fixed angular momentum and energy. The distance to the nucleus is proportional to the energy. In this model, the electron does not lose energy continuously and is not absorbed by the nucleus. Only it loses energy via momentary “quantum jumps” when an electromagnetic wave having the frequency equal to the difference in the energy is absorbed or emitted (8). This model can explain the simple spectrum of hydrogen but does not apply to the atoms with many electrons. Owing to the development of spectrometry, additional absorption lines were found in hydrogen that was not explained by the Bohr model. Although the Bohr model was refined by adding an elliptical orbit, no other atoms have yet been well described (9).

     In 1924 Schrödinger thought that electrons would be better explained as waves than particles. The Schrödinger equation, published in 1926, describes the electron in terms of wave function, rather than as a discrete particle (10). This equation well explained the atomic spectroscopic phenomena. The wave equation does not describe the electron itself, but its possible states, and can be used to calculate the probability of finding an electron at a specific location around the nucleus (11). 

     Describing the electron in terms of wave function makes it impossible to mathematically derive the electron's position and momentum at the same time. This is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle published in 1927 (12). This obsoleted the Bohr model. The electron that makes up the atom is represented by the probability of being found at a particular location. This probability depends on the energy level and is called the atomic orbital. 

Controversies around the current atomic models  

     All the previous atomic models have one common premise that nucleons and electrons exist separately in the atom. We raise here two fundamental questions: Do the electrons really exist in the atom and, if they do, are they separated from the protons? The first question appears to be absurd, but we have never verified the existence of the electrons “in” the atom. Although Thompson’s experiment showed the generation of electrons from the cathode, it did not confirm the existence of “the electrons” in the material or in the atom. He just saw “the free electrons” in the vacuum or in free space emitted from the cathode. Electrons could be generated at the cathode surface through the interaction with the vacuum. There is no way to verify whether the electrons are generated at the cathode surface or they are from the atoms in the material. 

     Let us consider the second question in association with the Geiger-Marsden experiment. Although some alpha particles were deflected at large angles in the experiment, this deflection tells us nothing about the atomic structure. The things which had led to the deflection of alpha particles did not confirm that the “so-called” nucleus is composed of only protons and neutrons. There is no evidence that the nucleons are separated from the electrons in the atom. This idea was from Thomson’s atomic model, the plum pudding model, in which electrons are spread all over the material as discrete particles. As with the Schrödinger atomic model, the location of the electron cannot be specified. If the electron is a charged particle orbiting the positively charged nucleus, it is hard to understand the reason why it only loses energy via momentary “quantum jumps”. Based on this thinking, we propose a new atomic model, the grape bunch atomic model, in which one electron and one proton are paired like a grape grain in the atom. 

New atomic model 

Hydrogen and deuterium

     Hydrogen occupies 75% of ordinary matter in the universe in the form of a single atom, most of which are protium (¹H) free of neutron (13). The previous atomic models of hydrogen depict an electron to orbit a proton. A typical example is the Bohr model, in which the proton is at the center, and the electron orbits it like the solar planets around the Sun. Quantum mechanical calculations of the electron probability density around the proton in hydrogen shows no angular momentum (14). These results can be described by a blurry image for the hydrogen atom with the proton in the center shown in Figure 2. In this model, however, we cannot identify the very nature of the electron of “free” space. As is shown in Figure 2, the diameter of the hydrogen atom is far larger than that of the proton, while that of the electron is classically 1/1000 of the proton, though it is quantum-mechanically estimated much less than that (15) or estimated even to be zero (16). For a classical electron with a diameter of 1 cm, the size of the playground for the electron in the hydrogen atom could be around 1000 km in diameter. Why should so small an electron play in a tremendously large volume of the hydrogen atom? For our atomic model, we assume that the nature of the atomic electron would be different from that of the electron we see in free space and we regard the hydrogen atom as an energy lump like a grape grain with the proton embedded in the center like grape seed. The nature of the electron in the atom is further discussed in the later section.

Figure 2. Hydrogen atom model (image from wikipedia.org).

     Individual hydrogen atoms become energetically more stable when they form molecules. When one of the atoms of a hydrogen molecule in an environment like in the solar core releases energy and turns into a neutron by merging its proton-electron pair, e.g. via the proton-proton chain reaction occurring mainly in the Sun or smaller stars (17), the hydrogen molecular will becomes a deuterium atom (²H or D).  According to the current atomic models, the newly born neutron should penetrate into the protium atom to meet the proton in the center. It is known that the neutrons in the atom play a role to bind the protons through the strong force and to stabilize the nucleus (18). But in the deuterium atom, there is just one proton, and thus such a neutron’s role is unnecessary. In the deuterium atom of our atomic model, the proton is not together with the neutron but is together with the electron (its exact form cannot be defined, as mentioned). Namely, a deuterium atom is imagined to have the composition of a protium atom (we will call it a plecton. It is protium belonging to the atom with a plural number of protons and neutrons) and a neutron, and further imagined that there is a dynamic equilibrium between the plecton and the neutron in the deuterium atom, as

                p⁺ + e^-  = n⁰               (1).

When the plecton ( ) becomes a neutron (n⁰), the existing neutron becomes a new plecton constantly. In the deuterium atom, the electron (e^-) is assumed to freely absorbed to the proton (p⁺) to be a neutron and ejected from the neutron in dynamic equilibrium as described in Eq. (1). In terms of particle physics, the proton and the neutron are bound by exchanging virtual electrons in the deuterium atom.

Helium – the two deuterium structure  

     Deuterium is a stable element because the process of Eq. (1) can occur within a deuterium atom in the regime of our atomic model. When the plecton turns into a neutron, while the other neutron turns into a plecton, the deuterium atom continues to exist. But deuterium is very rare compared to protium (19). Its extinction rate in the star is higher than its rate of formation (20). From the fact that helium accounts for 24% of ordinary matter in the Sun (21), it can be assumed that deuterium atoms generated in the stellar or solar core soon become the more stable element, helium (³He or ⁴He). Most of the helium in the universe is ⁴He, composed of two plecton-neutron pairs, and thus has higher symmetry than ²H. 

     Classically, the helium atom is imagined to have two electrons orbiting the nucleus made of two protons and two neutrons. Quantum mechanically, as with the hydrogen atom, the electrons do not rotate around the nucleus and the movement is replaced by the electron probability density around the nucleus and there will be no net angular momentum. In high-energy electron scattering experiments, the charge of helium decreases exponentially away from the charge center (22). It is suggested that this symmetry reflects that the proton pair and the neutron pair in the helium atom follow the same law of quantum mechanics as the electron pair does. That is, all the nucleons occupy 1s orbitals, have no angular momentum, and cancel each other's spins. This argument could give the reason why helium is a very stable element in nature (23). In the regime of our atomic model, the nucleons and electrons are moving together, and the electrons are not separable from the protons. If the reaction of Eq. (1) takes place alternately within one ⁴He atom, there will be little energy exchange with the surroundings. This explains why our helium atom is so stable. Therefore, it is natural to think of the ⁴He structure to be the basic framework for all the elements heavier than hydrogen. In our atomic model, plectons are stacked to form multiples of the ⁴He unit in a spherical form. Based on this picture of the atom, we address the specific atomic structure in the next section.

Grape bunch atomic model    

     Various elements we know can be categorized into a periodic table, the periodic table of elements. Why are there more than 100 kinds of elements? According to the current physics theory, the reason why the elements are so classified as in the periodic table is due to the electron configuration around the atomic nuclei (24). In conventional atomic models, the protons and neutrons are gathered in the atomic core, called the nucleus, and the electrons are arranged at the outer regions according to the four indices representing the electron energy levels, n (the principal quantum number), l (the angular momentum quantum number), m_l (the magnetic quantum number), and m_s (the spin quantum number). Two electrons in the atom cannot have the same value of the four quantum indices due to the Pauli exclusion principle. This atomic model would be highly plausible for light elements, such as hydrogen or helium. However, such a configuration is hard to practically imagine for heavy elements, for example, uranium (U), because U should have 92 electrons around its 238 nucleons. Our atomic model assumes that the electron and proton are always paired in the atom. One proton has one electron like a protium atom. As mentioned, we call this electron-proton pair in the atom a “plecton”. When the atom absorbs energy, it is stored in the form of the potential energy of the atomic plectons.

     A heavy element in the periodic table can be divided into multiples of ²H and ⁴H in our atomic model. As mentioned, the deuterium unit in the heavy atom exists as a dynamic plecton-neutron pair as shown in Eq. (1). We will call it a PeN (Proton-electron-Neutron), the primary building block of the atom. Let us assume that the PeN has a spherical form, which will be stacked to form various spherical atoms.

     When multiples of the building block pile up on a flat surface, the number of PeNs is not varying from layer to layer, as conceptually shown in Figure 3(top). However, if they are stacked on a sphere, the number of PeNs will not be constant on going from one layer to the next layer, because the available surface area for the PeNs to be stacked will increase with the radius of the atomic sphere, as sketched two-dimensionally in Figure 3(bottom). As shown in this figure, the maximum number of PeNs in a shell increase in a stepwise manner as a function of the radius. We notice in the case shown in Figure 3(bottom) that the number of PeNs has doubled in the third shell, while no extra PeNs are added in the second shell. We may interpret the arrangement of elements in the periodic table in this way, which will be discussed below.     

Figure 3. Two-dimensional array of plectons on a flat surface (top) and on a sphere (bottom).

     In order to build a spherical atom, the number of PeNs should increase in proportion to the surface area, which is proportional to the square of the radius. Introducing a dimensionless radius r, the subatomic arrangement of PeNs can be summarized as shown in Table 1. At r=1, the number of PeNs (or the number of protons) is 2, namely r²×2= 1²×2= 2, which yields helium (⁴He or ₂He). At r=2, we have r²×2= 2²×2= 8 for neon (₁₀Ne, the atomic number is 2+8= 10). Currently, oganesson (Og) in the r=4 group is known to be the heaviest (25), and elements in the r ≧ 5 group have not been found or synthesized yet. We notice in this table, however, that there are always two shells with the same r ≧ 2 value. For example, Argon (₁₈Ar) is an inert element in the period 3. If we apply r=3 for this element, we have r³×2= 3²×2= 18, yielding the atomic number 2+8+18= 28 for Ar, not 18. Instead, ₁₈Ar has the subatomic configuration as [Ne]+ ₈PeN (a substructure consisted of 8 PeNs), as shown in Table 1. Namely, the same number of PeNs is added on top of [Ne] to yield ₁₈Ar. This rule is also valid for xenon (₅₄Xe, [Ar]+ ₁₈PeN+₁₈PeN) in the period 5 and ₁₁₈Og ([Xe]+ ₃₂PeN+₃₂PeN) in the period 7. Atoms are so configured to have a double PeN-shell structure at a given r, as exemplarily shown in Figure 3(b) for an imaginary two-dimensional atom. What shall be the reason for that?

Table 1. Atomic arrangement according to the spherical atomic structure (r = radius)

     Helium is a very stable element, not only ⁴He but ³He. It should be much more stable than deuterium judging from the abundance of helium over deuterium in the universe and in the Sun (21). As mentioned in the previous section, the ⁴He structure shall be the basic framework for heavy elements in our atomic model. Hence, an additional shell (the secondary shell) will complete the whole ⁴He structure by resting the same number of PeNs on top of the primary shell at a given r. For example, ₁₀Ne has only the primary ₈PeN shell at r=2, and the secondary, the same shell of additional 8 PeNs, makes ₁₈Ar. ₃₆Kr ([Ar]+ ₁₈PeN) should have additional 18 PeNs to complete the ⁴He structure and to make ₅₄Xe at r=3 (the primary ₁₈PeN shell + the secondary ₁₈PeN shell). That is, a double-layered PeN shell is required at a given r to have the complete spherical ⁴He structure. The first two layers of an imaginary two-dimensional atom in Figure 3(b) shows this kind of concept. Figure 4 also shows a two-dimensional schematic for a completed atomic shell consisting only of ⁴He units.

Figure 4. An imaginary two-dimensional outmost shell in an atom consisting only of helium blocks

 Now we interpret the electron quantum number of the atom in the regime of our atomic model. As can be seen from the 2-dimensional atomic structure in Figure 3(bottom), the third shell is composed of two kinds of PeNs, one stacked directly on top of the inner shell (blue ones) and one in between (red ones) in the same shell. These two different kinds of PeN will have different potential energy in the atom, yielding the different quantum numbers. The shell number corresponds to the principal quantum number n, and one kind of PeN at the same shell can be denoted by the azimuthal quantum number l. This argument is presented more specifically in Figure 5 for a two-dimensional imaginary atom. Here the central ₂PeN unit is the ⁴He unit with the principal quantum number 1. The nth shell from the central unit gives then the principal quantum number n+1. The azimuthal quantum number is dependent on the (relative) angle (with the origin at the atomic center), as the word “azimuthal” refers to “angular”. We can clearly understand from Figure 5 that the (conventional) angular momentum is quantized. As mentioned, the energy of a PeN should be different depending on the specific location on each shell of the atom. The number of available locations of the same kind at each shell will then give the magnetic quantum numbers. As one specific location can hold two PeNs (known as the spin quantum number), the configurations for a given principal quantum number are conventionally denoted by s², p⁶, d¹⁰, f¹⁴. This notation can also be applied to the PeN configuration in our atomic model. The reason for the two allowed PeNs at each magnetic quantum number is understood from the way of construction of the atom by stacking of PeNs to form ₂PeN units, namely ⁴He-units. Therefore, the total number of PeNs follows the rule shown in Table 1. There is no separated electron configuration. There is only the configuration of PeNs in the regime of our atomic model.

Figure 5.  An imaginary two-dimensional heavy atom

Discussions  

     Hydrogen is the main component of stars. In other words, a star is agglomerated hydrogen atoms. In stars like the Sun, the amount of heavy elements other than helium are insignificant (the amount of helium is 24.85% by mass and of other minor elements in 1.96% in the Sun) (21). On the contrary, Earth has a very large amount of heavy elements such as iron compared to that of hydrogen or helium. Earth's constituents should have been produced via nuclear fusion in the stellar cores for a long time (26, 27). Here we think of how the heavy atoms are synthesized in the stellar core in the regime of our atomic model. As all the heavy atoms (heavier than the helium atom) have a ⁴He unit in the center, it will be the seed for their birth. Deuterium atoms, namely PeNs (the primary building blocks in our atomic model), will then stack on the seed to make atomic shells made ⁴He units, and thus to yield stable atoms like inert atoms. If things other than deuterium, tritium or one of the helium isotope ³He, stack on top of a growing atom, the atom will be one of the isotopes of the same element. Heavier elements will have more such less stable things, resulting in the more neutron excess, as shown in Figure 6, in which the atomic number is given as a function of the atomic weight.   

Figure 6. Atomic number vs. atomic weight. Dotted line indicates (the atomic number)×2.

     When these energetically unstable isotopes are exposed to free space via supernova explosion (or Earth's internal substances are exposed to the atmosphere), and thus the surrounding stress is removed, it is inevitable that they decompose into lighter ones by emitting radioactive energy. This process is called nuclear fission, the reverse reaction of nuclear fusion. One of such radioactive processes, negative beta decay produces electrons e^- (and neutrinos n_e), such as (28)

Although we notice here that electrons are “produced” from the atom via beta decay, as electrons are generated from Thomson’s cathode ray experiments, we cannot confirm the separate and discrete electrons “in” the atom in any way. Quantum mechanically the electron does not orbit the proton even in the hydrogen atom (14). What will be then the nature of the electron in the atom? If the electron is a wave, it can be imagined to be a circularly standing electromagnetic wave, as was proposed by Kim (29). In this case, we naturally understand the origin of the electron spin, the intrinsic angular momentum, and that it is a point particle (16). When it meets a proton in free space, it will surround the proton to be a hydrogen atom also in the form of an electromagnetic wave. If the vacuum is a highly massive one as predicted in the regime of quantum mechanics (30, 31), the hydrogen atom shown in Figure 2 would be then a strain field developed in the “solid” vacuum due to the point-symmetric vibration of the circularly standing electromagnetic wave. The electron probability distribution in the hydrogen atom is interpreted as a strain field developed in the solid vacuum surrounding the proton (32, 33). So the electron in the atom could be very different from what we observe in free space.

     The atom is then regarded as a thing composed of this kind of stress field, and the electronic energy level of the atom is a representation of the stress field associated with the structure of the solid vacuum. As more energy is accumulated in there, the total volume of the strain field will further increase and simultaneously the surrounding solid vacuum will be distorted as much as the volume expansion. In order to increase its volume, it must interact with the specific structure of the solid vacuum. This expansion does not occur homogeneously (or continuously) but in an anisotropic manner. This process can be inferred from the hydrogen electron orbital cross-sections (hydrogen wave function) and the absorption spectra for the hydrogen atom. The stress field will be similar to those formed around impurities, vacancies, and dislocations in metallic crystal lattices (29). Figure 7 shows such a similarity of the stress field around an edge dislocation and an electron energy level of the hydrogen atom. 

Figure 7. Stress field around an edge dislocation (source: tf.uni-kiel.de) and an electron energy level of the hydrogen atom (source: atomic orbital@wikipedia.org).

     Here we raise a question regarding the formation of the atomic nucleus: Does a neutron produced by nuclear fusion immediately combines with the proton in protium to be a constituent of the nucleus of deuterium? According to Reaction (2), electrons are produced by beta decay. This could mean that the electron does not exist as a discrete particle but as a stress field around the proton, as we have just discussed. When this field meets a less energetic field (the neutron), the field will be influenced, and the bonding will be generated via exchanging the field as is represented by Eq. (1). In terms of particle physics, the proton and the neutron are bound by exchanging virtual electrons in the deuterium atom. The virtual electron will be the stress field around the proton in our atomic model. The exchange of stress field will be symmetric with two combined PeNs, leading to the formation of a highly stable ⁴He atom. This is the reason why all the elements in the periodic table are multiples of the ⁴He unit or in the way to be such things.

     Based on our atomic model, chemical bonds are also interpreted consistently in terms of the formation of (pseudo) ⁴He in the bond. While inert elements such as ₁₈Ar and ₃₆Kr are purely made of ⁴He units in the form of a sphere (strictly speaking it will be a highly point-symmetric structure), other atoms are more or less away from the completed shell structure made of ⁴He units, so they are energetically unstable. An interatomic chemical bond is made by forming a pseudo ⁴He unit in the bond (or a PeN-PeN bond, in short, a ₂PeN bond), and thus becomes more stable. The bond strength is dependent on the nature of the interatomic ₂PeN bond, namely the ₂PeN distance, the bond angle, the interaction with other neighboring bonds, etc. The ₂PeN units in covalent bonds are very localized, so the bond strength is very high, while those in metallic bonds are not fixed and thus very sensitive to external electromagnetic fields. The electromagnetic properties of solids can be understood how these pseudo ⁴He units or ₂PeN units respond to external electromagnetic fields. As is detailed in “New Quantum Physics and Superconductivity” (29), electricity flows as the potential energy stored in these flexible ₂PeN bonds propagates along the external electric field in a waveform in the regime of our atomic model.

     Lastly, we mention the covalent bonds in hydrogen compounds such as H₂O, HF, etc. These compounds also contain hydrogen bonds in the liquid or solid state, one of the weak chemical and secondary bonds. The regular covalent bond in which protium (¹H, not deuterium ²H or D) is involved does not have a pseudo ⁴He unit in the bond but a pseudo ³He unit, an isotope of helium. ³He is a stable element, but it is less stable than ⁴He. Regarding to the symmetry of the bond, the angle of the covalent bond in D₂O should be wider than for H₂O. It is indeed 106^o for D₂O while it is 104.5^o for H₂O (34). Besides, the characteristics of regular hydrogen bonds with ¹H will be different from those with ²H, in order to compensate for the energy gap arising from the difference in the symmetry. Hence, the resultant physical properties of hydrogen compounds are also dependent on whether protium or deuterium is involved in the bond. This difference can be consistently interpreted in terms of the stress field around the pseudo-³He and ⁴He unit in the regime of our atomic model.

Acknowledgments: 

This work was not officially funded by any organization. This manuscript is a work of pure personal long-term interest of the author. 

References:   

1. M. Breidenbach, et al., Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron–Proton Scattering. Physical Review Letters 23 (1969) 935–939. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.935. 

2. S. Berryman, "Ancient Atomism", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). 

3. J.J. Thomson. Cathode rays, Philosophical Magazine 44 (1897) 293-316. 

4. E.T. Whittaker, A history of the theories of aether and electricity. vol. 1 The Classical Theories (1951), Nelson, London. 

5. J.J. Thomson, On the Structure of the Atom: an Investigation of the Stability and Periods of Oscillation of a number of Corpuscles arranged at equal intervals around the Circumference of a Circle; with Application of the Results to the Theory of Atomic Structure. Philosophical Magazine 7 (1904) 237-265. DOI: 10.1080/14786440409463107 

6. H. Geiger, The Scattering of the α-Particles by Matter, Proceedings of the Royal Society. A 83 (1910) 492-504. 

7. E. Rutherford, The Scattering of α and β Particles by Matter and the Structure of the Atom, Philosophical Magazine. 21 (1911) 669-688. 

8. N. Bohr, On the constitution of atoms and molecules, Philosophical Magazine. 26 (1913) 476-502. 

9. M. Eckert, How Sommerfeld extended Bohr’s model of the atom (1913–1916), Eur. Phys. J. H 39 (2014) 141–156.  DOI: 10.1140/epjh/e2013-40052-4. 

10. E. Schrödinger, Quantisation as an Eigenvalue Problem, Annalen der Physik. 81 (1926) 109-139. 

11. Biographies of Great Man, Max Born: Founder of Lattice Dynamics. Jan. 1, 2010. liferkurry.blogspot.com. 

12. W. Heisenberg, Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik", Zeitschrift für Physik 43 (1927) 172-198. 

13. Star Date: Hydrogen and Helium, https://stardate.org/astro-guide/hydrogen-and-helium. Retrieved 1 September 2020. 

14. D.P. Stern (13 February 2005). "Wave Mechanics". NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Retrieved 1 September 2020. https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Q7.htm 

15. J. Beringer (Particle Data Group), et al., Review of Particle Physics: (electron properties). Physical Review D. 86 (2012) 010001. 

16. L.J. Curtis, Atomic Structure and Lifetimes: A Conceptual Approach. Cambridge University Press. (2003) p. 74. ISBN 0-521-53635-9 

17. E. G. Adelberger, A. B. Balantekin, D. Bemmerer, C. A. Bertulani, J.-W. Chen, H. Costantini, M. Couder, R. Cyburt, B. Davids, S. J. Freedman, M.Gai, A. Garcia, D. Gazit, L. Gialanella, U. Greife, M. Hass, K. Heeger, W. C. Haxton, G. Imbriani, T. Itahashi, A. Junghans, K. Kubodera, K. Langanke, D. Leitner, M. Leitner, L. E. Marcucci, T. Motobayashi, A. Mukhamedzhanov, Kenneth M. Nollett, F. M. Nunes, T.-S. Park, P. D. Parker, P. Prati, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, R. G. Hamish Robertson, R. Schiavilla, E. C. Simpson, K. A. Snover, C. Spitaleri, F. Strieder, K. Suemmerer, H.-P. Trautvetter, R. E. Tribble, S. Typel, E. Uberseder, P. Vetter, M. Wiescher, L. Winslow, Solar Fusion Cross Sections. II. The p-p Chain and CNO Cycles", Rev. Mod. Phys. 83 (2011) 195-245. 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.195. 

18. P. Bowersox, Sir James Chadwick’s Discovery of Neutrons. ANS Nuclear Cafe. Retrieved on 1. September 2020. 

19. R. Hagemann, G. Nief, E. Roth, Absolute isotopic scale for deuterium analysis of natural waters. Absolute D/H ratio for SMOW 1. Tellus. 22 (1970) 712-715. DOI:10.1111/j.2153-3490.1970.tb00540.x. 

20. It is mentioned in "Deuterium" of wikipedia.org, but there is no reference so there is no clear evidence. 

21. J. Eddy, A New Sun: The Solar Results From Skylab. NASA SP-402 (1979) p. 37. 

22. S. N. Ketkar, M. Fink, R. A. Bonham, High-energy electron scattering from helium, Phys. Rev. A 27 (1983) 806-809. DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.27.806. 

23. This argument is from helium@wikipedia.org. But no reference can be found in there. 

24. E.R. Scerri, The Evolution of the Periodic System, Scientific American 279 (1998) 78–83. DOI:10.1038/scientificamerican0998-78. 

25. C.S. Nash, Atomic and Molecular Properties of Elements 112, 114, and 118, Journal of Physical Chemistry A. 109 (2005) 3493-3500. 

26. Treasures of the Earth, The Origin of Heavy Elements, PBS LearningMedia. Retrived 07 July 2020. 

27. C. Crockett, A crash of stars reveals the origins of heavy elements, Archived 25 Jan 2018. knowablemagazine.org 

28. J.-L. Basdevant, J. Rich, M. Spiro, Fundamentals in Nuclear Physics: From Nuclear Structure to Cosmology. Springer (2005). ISBN 978-0387016726. 

29. M.T. Kim, New Quantum Physics and Superconductivity, ISBN 9798652813765. 

30. P.W. Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics. Boston: Academic Press. 1994. ISBN 0124980805. 

31. L. de la Pena, A.M. Cetto, The Quantum Dice: An Introduction to Stochastic Electrodynamics, Springer 1996. ISBN 978-94-015-8723-5. 

32. M.T. Kim, Origin of Gravity and New Cosmos, ISBN 9781713042020. 

33. M.T. Kim, (2019): The Origin of Gravity in the Solid Vacuum. figshare. Journal contribution. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.8044760.v1 

34. D-O-D Bond Angle: K. Ichikawa, Y. Kameda, T. Yamaguchi, H. Wakita and M. Misawa, Neutron-diffraction investigation of the intramolecular structure of a water molecule in the liquid-phase at high-temperatures, Mol. Phys. 73 (1991) 79-86.