ToeQuest

Tesla TOE Member Quest Prime Numbers

“REDISCOVERING THE ATOMIC MODEL.” (Part Two)
by M. De Zayas

“It is therefore not, as is often assumed, a question of a re-interpretation of quantum mechanics, -the present system of quantum mechanics would have to be objectively false, in order that another description of the elementary processes than the statistical one be possible.” (Von Neuman, Pinch 1977, 185)

We are going to learn much more about astonishing and striking revelations deduced entirely from the theoretical side of my atomic model in just a moment… I promise! However I found a highly interesting paragraph attempting to describe what the so-called “unified field theory” should look like and I decided to share it with you too:

“The aim of a unified theory is to understand the richness and diversity of the world in terms of a single theoretical scheme. The mass and charge of the electron, for example, are usually considered to be contingent properties, that is, quantities that just happen to be what they are (“things given”). They do not follow uniquely from any law of physics and for this reason; they could presumably be different from what they are. According to the view of unificationists, the mass and charge of the electron (and generally, the properties of all elementary particles) must ultimately follow from theory –they must be turned from contingent into law-governed quantities. Not only that, but the number and kinds of elementary particles must follow from theory too; not merely those particles that happen to be known at any given time, but also particles not yet discovered. In other words, a truly successful unified theory should be able to predict the existence of elementary particles- no more than exist in nature, and no less. This is a formidable task, especially because physical theories cannot avoid relying on what is known empirically and thus must reflect the state of art of experimental physics.” (Helge Kiragh 1999, 118)

Since my atomic model does not involve, at any level, the necessary inclusion of the concept of “subatomic particles” in the structure of the atom, I found at this point that expressing my most open disagreement about that [controversial] aspect of the quote would be nothing more than an understatement. Being said that, I happen to agree in the requirements such a theory should and must meet in order to be taken seriously.

My (physical) model is in a perfect agreement with those conditions as the following conclusions could be derived from it:

First} the direct correspondence between quark-proton-electron has been established under the assumption that they were not particles associated by casual and non-related events, but [one and the same] “spatial projections” of standing nuclear waves or harmonics produced inside the core of the atomic nucleus.

Second} the mass and charge of those spinning patterns [wrongly assumed to be subatomic particles] are deducible from the principle that high-energy radiation energy is being progressively transformed from one scale to the next from higher to lower density. The mass factor (known by the author's of this article as “lepton factor”) is based in the theoretical fundament of avoidance of the perfect vacuum caused by interacting specks of radiation during their spin. This (original and unheard) rule previously published by no one besides me, proposes a causal nature to its existence and a quantitative relationship between the energy involved in the specific harmonic and its required mass proportionality.

Third} the original theory of “one-energy-one-pattern” explains the concept of matter as a symmetrical series of interactions at intermediate scales too, just the same way as the one observed between atoms in molecules. Bonding was not a property of molecules alone. The earlier theory of atomic nuclei known as “shell theory” was never the less a more primitive and distorted version of my own one, however it was a wise one. You must remember that in “shell theory” the atom was still conceived as a casual and random association of “independently existence” and “non-related” bunch of particles assumed to adopt [no questions ask] the same configuration seen earlier in electrons. I'll return to this theory later on.

Fourth} finally I'd like to point out that all those levels of “subatomic particles” along with [certainly] deeper ones, could eventually be predicted with entire certainty once the proper mathematics will be available.

It is with regard to the last reason, which I’d like to elaborate a little more.

In the first part of this series of articles concerning the internal structure of the atomic nucleus I gave you a vague idea of the way “nucleonic bonding” took place. Today I will clarify this process to you in an easy to understand format.

Let's begin with a basic concept, the correspondence between “so-called” quarks-protons-neutrons and electrons. The one-proton atom [hydrogen atom] was the starting point in my last example. I said that we should consider what I called an “energy-family” in every single analysis. I also said that neutrons were the same symmetrical pattern seen before in molecular bonding only at a higher scale.

Now, I'll explain to you how such bonding takes place.

Q - What is a bond in the first place?

A - Bond is an association between two energy-families in search for a more stable energy state. In order to keep up with the necessary requirements to bond with another family there had to be an “attraction force” of some sort, an energetic stimulus and that is what we are going to clarify right now.

If we learned something from the bonds taking place in electronic orbits before, we could deduce a simple rule: “two atoms must show their outermost orbital (sub-shells) in different harmonics or to be two identical atoms. To make a simpler analogy out of this specific case, I would bring to our analysis the basic musical concept of overtones. According to my atomic model we could consider that energy on those harmonics has quantifiably diminished, as a result of that it will be easy to assume a [relative] positive polarity of the harmonic closer to the nucleus and in the opposite case of the one located farther [negative]. In the specific case of electron-orbits, “we” have unilaterally decided to assign them a negative value. We consider electrons to be the rightful owners of negative electrical charge and that point could be confusing to many people. It was for Mr. Dirac who conceived the existence of a “negative sea.” Polarity, dear friends, is a relativistic concept… We know that, but the thing needs further theoretical elaboration. Considering my theory of “one-energy-one-pattern” a correct one, we must consider the E-M energy of the electron higher than “zero.” An evidence of that is found in crystals if we consider the existence of the next harmonic or spatial projection of that of the electrons and subsequently the spatial projection of the previous one and so on. It's not a new revelation at all! We have seen that the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom get closer and closer as they get distant from the nucleus, but [mathematically speaking] they never assume the ideal value of “zero.”

ToeQuest

Search

Navigation

Forums

Sponsors