Rediscovering the Atomic Model (Part Two)

**humanbydefault** · 09-03-2005, 01:31 PM

“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.”

[BREAK]

Zero potential is reached only in the case that energy fulfills completely the capacity of the harmonic. In other words, it means that as a standing nuclear wave spins no mass [dust-ash] is necessary to avoid the perfect vacuum. A perfect example of that will be seen in the ground state of the hydrogen molecule and in the nature of the nucleonic harmonics known to us as “neutrons.” [The first one exactly one level higher than the second one].

Q - How about the so-called attraction between protons and electrons inside the same atom?
A - FALSE!

In fact, never was any attraction between harmonics of the same energy-family, as we could easily anticipate, since electronic harmonics were the spatial projection of proton ones. This is why atoms present a neutral structure with respect to their own. In a bond, however things are entirely different. We refer to this as interactions between two different and isolated systems. One atom was said to feel some sort of attraction force toward the other [or we thought it did] but the force was not coming from any one of them in particular. You may fall deep into philosophical arguments over who felt attraction and who attracted whom… But the whole enterprise is useless!

The only existent force [we have previously divided and individually classified under different names] is the same one that ultimately produced a bond and it was exerted from the entire universe as a whole! If that makes physics non-local SO BE IT!

I know that many of you will not agree with me on this point, but that's the core of my vision of the universe. Besides, I'm running the show here! You'll have the chance to disagree about this later on in your comments for what I sincerely appreciate them in advanced!

We will go back to this important revelation and its own manifestation later on in this article. To tell you the truth, they are countless examples where the universe act upon and we don't even notice it.

Back to bonds! Every single time a bond is formed a resulting neutral pattern is also created and projected in its next octave or overtone. If we talk about molecules, then the bond will be spread across the crystal and so on.

For a bonding to take place [between two different atoms] one thing must happen: a difference in the mutual interacting harmonic nature giving room to a state of “incompleteness.”

Allow me to give them some sort of unofficial order, to make things easier:

e-up + e-down = e-neutral [molecular pattern]

It means that an up and down electronic harmonics will end up in a bond producing a new neutral pattern that will spread further into the lattice of the crystal. Isn't this ironic? We refused to give this newly formed structure the name of “moleculons” as molecule + on. They had the same “birth right” than their ancestors “grandfathers,” the famous neutrons, but we chose to ignore their rights… wouldn't this to be consider some sort of quantum mechanical “discrimination” too? [It's a joke].

Since I want to make things easy to comprehend I decided to respect the present nomenclature of all “sub atomic particles” calling those harmonics located in electronic orbital “electrons.” Not to be confused with the erroneous concept of a subatomic particle since it is just a spinning wave. I heard what you think! Well, mass was part of it too, but I know that you should know by now the side of my story concerning its roll in the vacuum, so let's continue with my analogy, shall we?

Now imagine that we plunge deep into the nucleus of the atom. Do not forget this word… symmetry!

That's the magic word! Since those electronic orbital were the reflection of deeper ones, we are going to see what actually happens to them after the bond that took place a moment ago… I'm still waiting and you know what? Nothing happened!

Nothing that takes place in one scale [gauge] affects a previous one, but the subsequent instead. I said it, didn't I? A lattice of the crystal will be the final result of collective bonding taking place between independent energy-families at electronic levels, but their nuclei remained unchanged. The lattice of the solid on the other hand will be eventually affected by the spatial projection of each individual energy-family present in the newly formed molecule, however to avoid further complications, let's leave this subject for a later analysis. The only thing interesting to be noticed here was that such effects work one way only, toward the outermost orbital and not toward the core of the atom. “Fire won't be felt in the nucleus of Oxygen no matter how hot it was”

Imagine the same bonding case but this time between two energy-families at a “parent scale” instead of the case previously described in the electronic one [“children scale”].

Let's rewrite our equation once again, but assuming the new identities:

p-up + p-down = p-neutral [intermediate particles between protons and electrons] It wasn't that difficult, was it?

If we continue to go deeper into the core we find the familiar quarks. Applying the same analysis we have:

q- up + q- down = q- neutral [neutron]

You may be asking yourselves -where is my proton in this picture?

Protons are the spatial projection of quarks… remember? Each proton also spread its image in harmonics that coincide with what we know as single electrons and so on… So! For those unbounded quarks a corresponding spatial projection is observed as in protons and later on as electrons.

One incomplete quark = one proton = one single electron and so on. But that quark we assume to be the starting point of the story is far away from been just that.

[BREAK]

I don't believe necessary including an explanation at this point over the source of mass of this bonding-pattern either. One thing though is highly interesting in all this! We have learned before that a neutron decays into a proton, a “positive” electron and a neutrino, haven't we?

Heisenberg tried in the past to propose an argument assuming a neutron to be an electron embedded into a proton. Naturally the thing didn't work and Dirac got away with it at the Solvay conference when officially announced the world that a new subatomic particle was born… such “ great moment” for humanity don't you think? We just got fatter with the inclusion of one more particle in our bodies…(?)

Seriously now, I think Heisenberg was half-right and half-wrong. We have said that the mass capacity in quarks, protons and electrons is the same as one-lepton. [I'm talking about real mass here (dust) not the one you measure through spectroscopic analysis or magnetic deviations].

Every single harmonic [standing nuclear wave] responsible for the existence of what we call quarks, protons and electrons is half-filled with energy and mass. I said in the past that where spinning energy was not “helped” with the inclusion of more energy, mass filled those blanks. We have established a “two-spin” system, which could be physically translated this way:

Assuming a “proton” in our analogy for a moment [its harmonic projection on space, remember?]. The energy forming the spinning pattern was originated, as we have said before, in the core of the atom. If we assigned a conventional number to that harmonic pattern let's say + ½ to the primary energy, then any externally applied or internally bounded energy will be re-modulated into a quantum with – ½ spin once mass was replaced. Following me so far?

A neutron is exactly that! “A magnitude of energy [denser than the one found inside electrons] but with exactly the same mass-volume filling the incomplete pattern of our proton on lieu of mass.”

An atom of hydrogen without its electron is a misunderstanding. The fact that we have found a “zero” charge in its ground state only meant that a given harmonic has been completed with sufficient energy to make its potential zero. I believe that the process was given the name of gas ionization.

Always the projection of neutrons will be equal to so-called “complete harmonics” or what's the same “complete sub-shells.” It means that the mass equivalent to “two lepton mass” will be also projected across the crystals. This particular configuration will be ultimately responsible for the next observation:

The effect has been seen in isotopes with respect to external temperature. That balance between energy/mass and harmonic capacity will be fulfilled completely giving as a result some sort of “shielding effect” against any possible permeability of thermal energy into deeper levels from the vacuum.

If we continue to go deeper into the core we find our selves in a non-familiar territory. Applying the same analysis we have:

X(n)- up + X(n-1) = X – neutral and so on.

As a rule, we could say that heavier atoms would find their internal nucleonic structure based entirely on these principles.

The sole exception is when two atoms of identical energy-family configuration [as in the typical case of two hydrogen atoms] bond each other to make a molecule.

One last thing before passing to a different object, according to my analysis there could be some sort of polarity present in the structure of neutrons produced between to different energy-families.

If you recall the molecule of salt [Na-Cl] there is always a residual polarity between the two extremes of the molecule. We had seen the same pattern in water too. Symmetry is a fact in the universe and this particular effect is also present inside nucleonic bonds too. I recall reading that some neutrons respond with a low deviation in the presence of magnetic fields. That wouldn't be the case of the Helium atom, since a perfect symmetry had been achieved between two identical energy-families.

It is believed that such phenomena, as the one seen with hydrogen bonds, are a common feature inside nucleonic bonding too at a different scale of analysis and energy density.

With this final point I close the arguments about the structure of the nucleus. For heavy atoms, a more complex set of overlapping electronic sub-shells has been observed. Assuming a complex multi-layer model of harmonics [included in my theory of the atomic structure] we could find causality in the configuration of those sub-shells overlapping mentioned earlier as well. The point in understanding the complex electronic configuration along with its consequent overlapping gives us a true image of the same pattern at work in the nucleus. We could base our assumptions on the simple argument that each level [i.e. scale] is the spatial harmonic projection of the previous one along with its corresponding transition in energy density.

I hope that you had a better idea of the physical representation of reality that according to my personal expectations will replace old and obsolete ideas from the times of Bohr's “complementarity” and “dualism” along with Heisenberg's uncertainties. A new physics will be borne and with it the long dreamed Einstein's visionary “theory of everything.” For me, these thoughts are already pure fact and the future of the physical reality. The materialization of the TOE is not a matter of if, but when…

[BREAK]

Don't go away! I'll give you a brief chronological account of historical factors that will corroborate [substantially I may add] the conceptual rightness of my atomic model. Let's take a short brake from the subject and go to “commercials” for five minutes… Don't go away!

WHY PROTONS CAN'T DECAY (in only five minutes reading)
(The following notice is sponsored by “The makers of the universe” a non-profit organization)

This question has been the center of studies and controversies for many years now. I decided to contribute to the puzzle with an answer that satisfies my side of the equation. First, the decay should include not only protons, but also quarks as the source of the harmonic pattern we know as protons and also single electrons in the context of the “single-proton-single electron” picture. In other words, we would be referring to the hydrogen atom alone… period.

Allow me to make a short parenthesis and remind you that expensive experiments are currently in process to detect the first hydrogen atom “willing to decay…” All sort of sensor instrumentation placed inside huge buckets filled with water…and so on!

The whole thing is just absurd! What amazes me is that they are supposed to be the creators of the branch of physics that explains the mechanics of the quantum world better than anyone has in the entire world!

Hydrogen atoms are the universe's energy parasites. That's right! If you understood what I've just said moments ago about energy families “moving” from the top of the ladder to the bottom of it as a result of different methods of decay, you would be able to see that hydrogen are the bottom of the ladder itself.

There are no more steps to go further down. Hydrogen, gentlemen, is the simplest expression of standing nuclear waves between two “discharged” specks of radiation. This is it!

First! I have said that the origin of what we have considered to be matter was the wave interference of two specks of radiation energy inside the core of the atom. That's the central core of my theory!

Second! That such interactions [pattern of standing nuclear waves] are quantized in their own nature! [As much as anything else in the realm of the quanta for that matter].

That means that the so-called “lepton factor” must be guaranteed at all cost! No more and no less!

Third! That the universe does not compromise in a violation of the law of conservation of energy! In English that means that the universe does not allow any quantum [no matter the density of the radiation involved] with a spinning mass smaller than “one-lepton.” That's is too, one of the fundamental rules in my arguments about the similitude observed among different quanta (subatomic particles).

Fourth! That the speed of the action-response of the universe in front of such possible violation is practically instantaneous! It also means that do not even try to observe how fast or throughout what mechanisms the universe impose its own rules.

Put in other words: “You may either take it or leave it! Either way, you'll certainly gonna love it!” It's going to require some leap of faith… remember? The origin of mass inside the patterns spinning in my atomic model and also the tiny “center of mass” carried out by fermions were all interacting with energy at a faster than light speed.

Fifth! That there is no [possible existent] lower step to where a quark [harmonic] pattern could go further “down” without compromising the worse case of universal quantum energy violation ever! No way out!

Sixth! That the same way occurred during the EPR experiment; energy will be supplied immediately from the vacuum in avoidance of the decay. Just the same way the universe “forced” the second photon to absorb energy during the reduction of the wave of one of the entangled photons. Such instantaneous absorption would be responsible for a sudden change in the “momentum” of the second photon, including an eventual interaction of the vacuum in the final analysis [reduction] of the wave. [Just as seen before with “the two slit experiment”].

Perhaps this explains why some physicists have justify, with sophisticated words, their ignorance over the source of some energy that was not accounted for in their “calculations.” Unfortunately, they used words like “cheating,” borrowing energy “behind the back” to be repaid in no time and other cases where an unfairly assumed violation of overall conservation of energy has been greatly misunderstood.

Resuming my point! Decay is not a casual and UNCERTAIN process in the universe, but a strong demonstration of the blind application of the “law of conservation of energy” including the entire universe as one system! Stars and other celestial objects are constantly borne while, and at the same time, others “die.” It would be naïve to believe that we may chose to ignore such connections and go on our way as if nothing had happen elsewhere.

Was Schrodinger's cat alive or death in its box? I'll answer that with the help of another analogy of my own!

How many people would win the lottery if I reduced the ticket's price to one cent, keeping the prize exactly the same? What makes economically impossible to win the lottery is what gives it the nature of uncertainty and chance. If we could play all the tickets corresponding to all the possible numerical combinations, I'll assure you that lottery will disappear in no time. Knowing all the details involved in the puzzle will make it no longer a mystery. Unfortunately the absolute and comprehensive knowledge of every single event occurring in the universe does not account among our “human virtues.” Our limitation to observe processes faster than light is just one example of our “imperfect nature.”

Is that a pretext to stop searching for the TOE? Absolutely not! We may not predict the occurrences of quantum events as a whole, however we could have a better understanding of those events and the laws that govern them. That's the reason and the purpose of my articles, which I believe; they are filled with common sense and logic.

[BREAK]

MAGIC NUMBERS

In 1949 a very interesting theory about the atomic nucleus was born: “The shell theory.” In the early years of 1933 a German physicist called Walter Elsasser proposed the idea that “nucleons” could occupy quantum levels similar to those ones seen in electron orbital before. That theory was able to explain excited states found in the nuclear energy spectra. There were some reasons against the acceptance of this brilliant idea, among others was that it “hinted at numerology” and dared to contradict Bohr's “liquid drop model.”

In 1948, Maria Goeppert Mayer, argued that those “magic numbers” [2,8,20,50,82 and 126] were highly stable nucleons and they represented, according to her hypothesis, closed shell in the nucleus.

Does it ring a bell? Would that too different to say that those stable nucleons were “complete harmonics?” Spinning patterns of standard nuclear waves where energy and harmonic capacity reached a perfect balanced? But let's continue with the story!

In 1949 the theory proposed [independently] by Mayer and a German physicist called Hans Jensen was accepted. They suggested that nucleons could move to excited states from “valence nucleon orbital.” This theory was also known as “the independent-particle model.” In 1963 the Noble Prize committee awarded a shared prize between Mayer and Jensen on one side and Wigner on the other.

They [obviously for us now] couldn't answer the mystery about the necessary spin-orbit coupling by that time among many other details. Later on in 1950, James Rainwater, of Columbia University, proposed that the configuration of those nucleon shells must be seen as spheroid instead of spherical. If you recall the shape of standing wave patterns, it won't be a problem for you to understand why those harmonics were in fact elliptical in nature… No big deal!

As time went on, others experimental results confirmed the “suspicion” that even protons and neutron were made out of smaller “subatomic particles.” That was a “direct hit” against theoretical arguments supporting the original “shell theory.” Bohr managed to “fuse” together both theories, namely the “shell theory” and the “liquid drop model” into the so-called “collective or rotational theory.”

It was Bohr's son, Aage Bohr, who developed the above model based on two features:

1 - Surface oscillations

2 - “Single-particle” excitations

3 - Spheroidally shaped rotating nuclei

The rest is history! The point I want to emphasize here is that all those theories [including present ones] could be fit theoretically into my atomic model. As in the mathematical case of many “string theories” reunified into one, those theories were a different scope of looking at mine with their own limitations.

Were they all entirely wrong? Absolutely not! It is our conception of the physical reality what's wrong.

The glue or colored quarks used to keep “subatomic particles” together inside the “standard model” represented a typical manifestation of the progressive nature of different density levels of the same energy.

I believe I have proved to you how we could answer puzzles that have been otherwise out of our intellectual reached for a long time and unfortunately, still continue to be that way.

Where did all this mess start?

In 1897 a physicists named J.J. Thomson hypothesized that those “corpuscles” [later identified with the name electrons] were the “matter” constituent of every element in nature. He [wrongly] assumed those scattering from cathode rays to be “particles” with their own identity and their own place inside the atom. He wouldn't even consider [typical of one experimentalist] the real possibility that they could actually be nothing more than a quantum of E-M energy manufactured [by him] just like photons were before.

What I'm trying to say was that there are two defined branches in physics. One studies the scattering of energy once it has been processed by the internal structure of the atom. The second one is trying to explain the atomic structure and to find the correct model that would simultaneously explain those scattering.

No wonder physicists “take the fifth” when it comes to explain the real “why” scattering take place deep inside the atomic nuclei…

I ask myself the same thing over and over again… Are we ready to accept an objective and comprehensive picture of our universe as it really is or are we going to “force” it to fit into a rather limited and primitive image of our own invention? If your answer is the wise one, I believe your were ready to accept the TOE with all the consequences.

You have the final word!

M. De Zayas [author]

Send you comments to www.toequest.com don't keep it inside you!

ã Copyright 2005

**humanbydefault** · 11-28-2005, 11:45 AM

**baudrunner** · 12-18-2005, 11:55 AM

An abbreviated explanation of your theory should be forthcoming, otherwise I doubt that you would find many adherents as to its originality. For example, first you refute the existence of particles, then proceed to support their existence but only to suit your perceptions of them.

Physicists accept that matter is energy according to Einstein's E=mc². You imply that the only thing that separates characteristic energy "specks" from other local energy specks is their distance from the centre of their location and the shape of their orbitals, which all would contribute to mass differences hence the projection of different discretionary properties. That doesn't really contradict what physics currently believes, it's just another individual's way of looking at it. but I still don't see anything new here. You still end up talking about particles. Physicists agree with you that particles are just energy.

The orbital paths of planets around a sun are also not spherical. Even the moon has a very eccentric orbit. This is only because of the variable densities of the geological formations in different locations within each of the two objects. If a solar system consisted only of a sun of perfectly uniform consistency throughout and a world of perfectly uniform consistency throughout in a very lonely region of the Universe the orbit of that world around its sun would be perfectly spherical. You won't find that in reality.

The way that gravity behaves is curious. At the quantum scale, two quarks exhibit an attractive force much like gravity. This force is observed to behave like a stretched rubber band. The tension and attractive force is great if the two quarks are developing a relationship far apart, like the stretched property of the elastic. As they approach one another the elastic force loosens up until they meet, but they don't collide, you see. They merely establish a close relationship with respect only to one another. That is just like the behaviour of planets around a sun. They don't collide, one just circles (elipses?) the other.

I cannot give your submission the serious consideration it might otherwise deserve because you talk about dust, implying that some kind of static wave wraps dynamically around these dusts. Still no particles? I don't think so.

Thread: Rediscovering the Atomic Model (Part Two)

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Rediscovering the Atomic Model (Part Two)

enthusiasm = quantity

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

A new atomic model paradigm

"REDISCOVERING THE ATOMIC MODEL" [Part three]

Posting Permissions