Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AntonioLao ..."The fact is the Standard Model is not the last chapter of modern physics. But the main objective of physics is really to find the quantum of mass and charge. These quanta remain to be formulated..." |
I agree with you in that the Standard Model was not the "last chapter" and I'll go further than that by adding that such "model" is nothing more that a detailed collection of classified SCATTERINGS after a series of "particle collisions"... That's all it is.
My point when I brought to your attention Mr. Larson's book was to present you with some facts that are LEGITIMATE and bear a great deal of ACTUALITY even today. The author's life and work are indeed very interesting but I'm afraid you might be loosing the point.
Allow me to explain my point:
1>>> There is an entire chapter in the book where the author presents a number of reasons as to why we could have been MISLED by the assumption of the atomic "components." The fact that we see some quanta of different types "coming out" from the atom [as decay or scattered from it] does not necessarily means that they were an integral and elementary parts of the structure.
2>>> He also mention the advantages and disadvantages of those proposed atomic models in the past and present, namely the "billiard ball-model" and the Copenhagen's Bohr atom" just to mention a couple of them.
The fact that we have began to understand the orbits of the simplest atom in the universe (H) and also being able to do some "impressive calculations" does not necessarily means that the atom does not have INHERENT or INTRINSIC physical PROPERTIES... I guess we all here do not agree with him on this... I do!
3>>> He refers to the subject of CHARGES too. As you remember from my last articles I also have given my opinions as to WHY there are not CHARGES at all inside the atomic structure.
One point I want to make clear is that the author of the book does not come up with answers to his critics, do not be mistaken about it. He was GOOD in giving us a great number of OBJECTIVE OBJECTIONS against the
POPULAR CURRENT BELIEF that MATTER could only be explained by pure abstract mathematics. I however agree on the fact that mathematics
WILL BE PART
of the TOE but not the way that it has been proposed so far.
Understanding the
PHYSICAL ATOMIC PICTURE of that entity we identified as one atom should be the first step in the quest for a definitive MODEL.
YOU (antonio) probably know it as well as others in this FORUM that I have come up with some ideas as to how explaining most of all of the author's objective objections. I'm not saying that you all have agree with me (God forgive!) NO NO NO! I know that many of you are already being CONVINCED that MATHEMATICS is the only available "channel" to "speak with MATTER."
It's also in the book! Great minds like Paul Dirac (the one mentioned by you) Bohr and the rest of the group I reffered to as the "Copenhagenists" have already closed any other possible APPROACH to understand the atom in any other way (!) I respect their arguments but
I DON'T SHARE THEM... Sorry!
However you know what happen to those trying to swim against the current like the author of this book? Do you know that he was called ROBIN HOOD...?
(NO COMMENT!)
My theory explains why we can not assume the composition of atoms by the assembly of independent "components."
I "redirected" back to the Bohr and his "theoretical apostles" the same arguments they proposed once and gave them the Noble Prize in the past!
I said that CHARGE is a physical manifestation of POSITION just as MAGNETISM is a product of the MOMENTUM of energy-waves *
CHARGE is only present after the collapse of entangled waves component of a given quantum as they propagate across the vacuum.*
THEREFORE... CHARGES HAVE NO PLACE INSIDE THE ATOM- PERIOD.
I am not contradicting the so-called "Uncertainty Principle" by saying you could have both the knowledge of momentum and position simultaneously in fact I inforce it!
If everything I'm saying is true and I am right... The entire CALCULATION we refferred above is FLAWED (!)
Q>>> Do you still wonder why we need a constant RENORMALIZATION?
Q>>> Are you still puzzled by the fact that quantum mechanic's marvelous achievements hasn't even come up with a reliable way to CALCULATE the structure of heavier atoms?
A>>> Because I'm not.
One theory discarded for being considered a "HINT TO NUMEROLOGY" [Shell theory] was able to predict why certain atoms are found in greater number in nature and also was able to explain the spectrum of some nuclear scattering of photons. It did not make Shell Theory the final but you can't expect to come up with a assumed final PHYSICAL PICTURE OF THE ATOM
WITHOUT INCLUDING SOME OF THE FEATURES ALREADY SEEN IN SHELL THEORY TO BE CORRECT *
My Theory DOES INCLUDE Shell Theory's achievements by considering the atom under the principle of ONE ENERGY-ONE PATTERN (!)
It is true that I used to refer to lower orbits as the "atomic nucleus" It has always been the way to talk about it but the way I described its structure practically makes it UNNECESSARY (!) Using LOGIC does not take too much brain to understand that an entity made of layers of different energy-density (spinning standing nuclear waves) does not have a FAVORITE boundary (limit) to identify some "middle point" just to satisfy our CONVENIENCE. *
WHY is the so-called NUCLEUS so small compared with the outer orbits?
We cover that in the past... Because there is a principle that states that energy decreases with the square of the distance. They are in inverse proportionality.
Imagine that you start from a fix position with one step forward. Then the next time you step twice the same distance and continue with four steps and the next time you cover 16 steps and so on... It's easy to guess the point. Now! based on that example I just proposed to you: Where is the "NUCLEUS" ? Could you show me a point that bears more LEGITIMACY with respect to the other?
THANK YOU!
I'm not trying to IMPOSSE anything my friends... I'm helping those with OPEN MIND and some basic curiosity to have their own opinion and express it freely without fear of being CENSORED by those considered to have the monopoly of the truth... That's all!
Regards to all... and thank you for your comments!
HUMANBYDEFAULT