[humanbydefault]

I’ll try to use the familiar configuration of magnets to give you my side of the story about the puzzling size of atoms. But first I feel important to distinguish what the entire scientific community states on the subject and what HUMANBYDEFAULT (the author of this post) believes different, otherwise my words will sound like “static” on the TV screen at 2 A.M.
Physicists assume magnetism as the product of charges >>> negatively charged electrons>>> moving inside atomic orbits. I have denied the existence of charges no where inside the atom since MATTER (considering the atom as the smallest piece of it) is PURE MOMENTUM (!)
Charges are according to the way I see it the result of collapsing >>> OUTSIDE THE ATOMIC STRUCTURE<<< a pattern of (entangled) energy waves whose net density equals that of one electron-charge. Charge is position and therefore it can move and be observed as macro-world “particles” often are.
The tracking inside the CHAMBER left by electrons and other “sub-atomic particles” is the path left by the actual charge of a collapsed quantum. The same electron seen before refracted from the structure of crystals acting like pure waves is the path of the propagation of entangled waves component of the quantum (in this case one electron). I’m referring here to the same electron discovered by Thompson more than hundred years ago… Is that clear?
However what actually exist inside those orbits making the outer layers of atoms is far from being what Thompson measured with his vacuum tubes then. My theory interprets those energy levels entirely differently to what the so-called “modern physics” claim.
So… I can not admit the crazy idea supporting the causes for a magnetic field around a magnet as the result of spinning charges after being oriented and amplified. Since I don’t accept the existence of charges inside the atomic structure I see myself in a collision course with 99.99% of the human scientific community… probably the other 0.01% includes stamp collectors only.
Seriously now, I see those lines of force surrounding the core of the magnet as the amplification of individual spins previously oriented in the metal structure with a big difference >>> a new way of looking at REALITY.
SPIN >>> I can say what I conceive to be such concept but you know what? They don’t!
There is no place in the entire literature about Quantum Mechanics where you could find a plausible “mental representation” an “abstract image” telling you what spin actually is.
SPIN is a pattern of interference carrying the official name of STANDING WAVES. It is a ROTATIONAL physical configuration brought to life as the consequence of two (entangled) waves “passing across” each other in the vacuum. “MY ATOM” is made out of a complex superposition of those SPINS as more and more ‘”pieces” (hydrogen atoms) bond together inside the nucleus of heavier atoms.
SPIN has a geometrical property and that is a 360 degrees angle of rotation. As the “virtual” wave (the sum of the two moving through) completes its perfect elliptical or circular path the magnetic field alternate the net strength of its polarity as it moves from one spatial dimension into the next one (x, y, or z).
An orbit is not made by two electrons with some sort of pairing features like being one “up” and the other “down.” The neutrality of the orbits of the atom is due to the nature of the orbit itself just as the way it was mentioned above.

***************************
Q>> How could any particle physicist justify the atomic model (the building block of matter) without considering the actual presence of CHARGES spinning around in orbits?
Q>> After all these years confering Noble Prizes to dedicated researchers in the field... How could a NOBODY (speaking about myself) dare to deny everything said about the internal structure of the atom?
A>> Only a "lunatic seating on the grass" could do "such thing."

***************************

"WHY THE NON-LINEAR SHRINK IN ATOMIC SIZE"

If we saw the nucleus as a sort of compact and vibrating "collection" of protons (fused-quarks since the last decades) I wouldn't doubt for a minute how complex and "hard to swallow" may look the argument given to justify it. Let's see the details first (for the fun of it).
Let's assume that including more quarks in the nucleus increases the overall positive charge exerted on the electrons orbiting it... (God forgive me!). We know and it has been theoretically proposed that electronic orbits followed a configuration "resembling" standing waves>>> (De Broglie's thesis)<< So! If more POSITIVE CHARGE is now present inside the nucleus and AN EQUAL number of electrons are "attracted" toward it F O L L O W I N G the "Pauli Exclusion Principle" = standing wave configuration... How come the shrink?
I guess the only plausible way to fundament such puzzling event was by trying the "OTHER APPROACH" instead. Since Quantum Mechanics is the perfect "compromising" tool where we could always find an alternative excuse they began to speak about quarks having the same standing wave rearrangement seen with electrons. Of course knowing that "protons" were bigger in size and extremely attached to each other inside the nucleus (Fermions) the sole idea of imagining them spinning with entire freedom is pretty "delicate." It's like having a family of 25 members living confortably inside a one-room condo...!
Based on that premise you could attempt to justify the shrink which in fact is what causes it in the first place! My "problem" is that is not about CHARGES and it never was about charges at all>>> Neither in magnetism nor atomic size either.
"Shell Theory" proposed a long time ago the distribution of "nucleons" in quantized energy levels in a standing wave configuration. The structure proposed then was proved with evidence based on the spectrum of scatterred radiation obtained. Using the same method used before to calculate the hydrogen orbits in what's called the "Bohr's atom."
"Shell Theory fel short to its goal because it was still considering atoms made by spinning "particles" with inherent charge of their own attracted to each other based on those charges.
Why the presence of "non-linearity"?
The answer is much more simple: Because the configuration based on standing waves is symmetric only when we are talking about equal waves interfering with each other in the pattern. Once the intrinsic-energy of the waves vary the entire pattern will READJUST ITSELF or reset itself into a completely different orbital-extension. Since the harmonics spinning in the nucleus (seen by "them" as protons) are in fact occupying different levels >> distance=radius from the very core<< we could expect nothing more than a NON-LINEAR relationship between atoms of different atomic numbers.

Thanks for you comments too!

HUMANBYDEFAULT