[humanbydefault]

I was doing a rutine search in the internet and I bumped into a book. At first glance it seemed like the classic "more of the same" but as I went deeper into the argument I found myself totally IDENTIFIED with what the author of the book, Mr. Dewey B. Larson, had published in it.

The following is the link to his book:

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/

I believe the title of his book was "The Case Against the Nuclear Atom." It is a book written after a great deal of research based upon the personal opinion and individual beliefs of those who have contributed the most with today's level of progress.

I want to add one more reason why those sincerely interested in defining what the TOE is all about should dedicate some spare time to the reading of this incredibly brilliant exposition of facts and LOGIC analysis in regard with the past, present and future of physics.

There was no doubt in my mind ever since I started to work out an ideal model of the atomic structure that the SOLUTION of the true physical representation of the atom HAD TO INCLUDE at the same time the UNIVERSAL PATTERN from where every single aspect of the universe could be properly EXPLAINED. I believe Mr. Larson did a remarkable job by stating all those things I've been identifying inside my mind with the help of images and sort of "alien" language that have guided me all these years.

The book FOCUSES at all the aspects of particle physics IN A SIMPLE AND BEAUTIFUL LANGUAGE >>> NO MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS OR COMPLEX ABSTRACTIONS. It is my humble opinion that books like the one Mr. Larson wrote are the ones that should be recomended in the home page of TOEQUEST. The reason is pretty simple: If there is a TOE and we were some day in a position to finally be able to understand its benefits and limitations that amazing theory won't be like the ones we have right now under the term "official."

Let's meet right here and discuss those topics that you found "familiar" to everything we have said and argue about right here in this FORUM.

UNTIL MY NEXT ENCOUNTER... Right here!

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[AntonioLao]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_B._Larson is a brief description of this particular persona. The fact is that he was an engineer and not a theoretical physicist more than justify his theory. Dirac, the originator of quantum field theory (QFT), also started out as an engineer but went on to create relativistic quantum mechanics and QFT and was awarded the Nobel Prize for his concept of antiparticles. At the same period, Larson remained as an outsider engineer looking into the activities of quantum physicists. He died in 1990; therefore he did have the privilege of knowing all the adventures of theoretical physics up to the unification of electroweak theory as a prelude to the Standard Model of elementary particles physics. Still Larson remained an onlooker. 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. Steven Weinberg in his Nobel lecture mentioned about the existence of a super heavy mass at Planck energy. This is good only in theory and not even all the energy in the entire universe can be used to detect this superforce (see book by Paul Davies). So, all we can say is that it exists otherwise we won’t be here to talk about it.

[humanbydefault]

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

[humanbydefault]

When you gave your first steps in school you were tought to see things as the assembly of "things" a sort of "spare parts."
You are introduced to your first "jigsaw puzzled" and you beging to construct inside your brain a PICTURE of reality made up by the convenient collection of independent components.
There is however a different philosophical current that received the name of HOLISM.
a HOLISTIC analysis of a physical phenomenon helps to explain the interactive relationship between those assumed components into a fully functionning environment.
Being the atom the smallest component of MATTER I have decided long time ago to consider it with the same priviliges as one piece of the "jigsaw puzzle" that can't be divided further. We must try to understand the atom from a most advance HOLISTIC approach and that is what my Theory IS ALL ABOUT.
The "particle" concept ends with the atom itself. A human being can be stripped from his or her clothes and jewelry but when you start taking the body appart in pieces you are not DISASSENBLING it you are MUTILATING IT.
The real problem is that we can't "mutilate" further the ATOM. Our tools to invade its domains are destroyed, absorved and scatterred back to us after every attempt.
When we die we spell lots of things... Among them a horrendous SMELL. Is that smell an integral part of our bodies too? No need to answer this disgusting question.
Decay is the result of an "aging" process. It doesn't implies that atoms behave like human cells, it means that the standing wave process as the result of two or more specks of energy interacting in entangled fashion reached a point where energy becomes depleted. It is a complex process of desintegration and integration across the entire universe. Stars are borne while others have aged and exploded.. It's called ENTROPY and we can do nothing to stop it.
Traveling thought time to cheat our destiny? Come on! Grow up from the childish dream of yours... There are really puzzling things still waiting to be discovered but that is not one of them.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault 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.*

I need more explanation from you regarding these statements but please use some mathematics. Thanks.

[dleviwing]

HbD;
I have read most of Mr. Larson's web-book and thus far only find issue with his presenting scientist as conspiracy groups. Like any group of humans, scientist also have fierce competitions and thus conspiracy is highly unlikely as a result of human nature itself. However I find his concepts on motion or "Reciprocal System" much more interesting even though they are incomplete. I guess it is true that it takes an engineer to translate for the physicist.
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/

Inside the atom, it is only the wave functions that are of any significance and thus your comment about charge inside an atom is quite correct in my opinion. Charge is a function of uniform motion and constructive or destructive wave interference.

[humanbydefault]

Originally Posted by dleviwing HbD; Inside the atom, it is only the wave functions that are of any significance and thus your comment about charge inside an atom is quite correct in my opinion. Charge is a function of uniform motion and constructive or destructive wave interference.

Last night, as it is now a rutinary habit in me, I was doing my midnight stroll after a light dinner. I place great importance to that moment of solitude and a chance to look up the sky and check that the stars are still with us. Anyway, I was thinking about the sentenced underlinned above in your quote and I think I reached a very important conclusion I've never thought about before.
Your definition of CHARGE (outside the atomic structure) is quite correct and I recall writting something similar about that too. You might have misunderstood me when I described CHARGES as "the collapsing of two component (entangled) waves..." I was automatically assuming the same charge at the instant of MEASURING and/or PRODUCING A WORK. When we measure an electron we collpase its complex wave structure into its CHARGE which is no other than (just as you mentioned above) the constructive or destructive interference or interaction if you will at a given point in space.
The same result will occur if we USE the CHARGE of that same electron in the production of a work like when we power our home appliances for example.
From the moment that energy goes through a process of transformation (entropy) into a diferent nature of energy it can no longer be consider one electron anymore.
But the amazing thing happened yesterday when I was trying to translate the concept of "uniform motion" into the actual nature of a CHARGE. I believe Einstein himself might have gone through similar process of illumination when he made the connection between mass and energy... It's just a guess without any implications.
You probably know by now that I am the type of person with strong ties to human LOGIC and COMMON SENSE but also a good deal of imagination too. If it's true that I am and never hide before the fact that I am an outsider in the sense of having credentials to backup my images I feel in my heart the same pasion for physics since I was a kid. The point is that I might have been mislead by that strong attachment to LOGIC when I believed that an electromagnetic wave with a higher frequency (greater energy) SHOULD move FASTER than another less energetic (in the vacuum). I thought that such possibility might have been missed by scientists due to the necessary distance it would take to verify it>> taking into consideration the wavelength of light.
What I did was almost the same as what Einstein did back then... I assumed light speed to be the LIMIT of speed in the universe as he proposed back in 1905. My mind was like a battle between both sides of the brain... The right side was proposing new scenarios to deal with something the left (logical) side was not willing to compromise with... Anyway! Finally the idea pooped up in some corner of my mind:
If a more energetic wave can not propagate faster than other with a lesser content of energy then what will happen to the "system" itself?
Dave I need you to clear your mind and try to see this, please.
What I saw was an increase in the speed of the SPIN of one wave INSIDE the other in a interwinned (complex) MOMENTUM.
The actual MOMENTUM of two entangled waves propagating across the vacuum could as we know be described as one from point A to point B. However If we assumed for a moment that one wave could be moving [simultaneously] along with another with less energy just like a coil built inside another one... That image could explain why we see such UNCERTAINTY in the final POSITION of the quantum once it is made to collapse. The image of two entangled waves (forced to "run together" until their final collapse) might have reached a point in their MUTUAL SPIN where as the energy of one wave increases progressively they suddenly may "jump" into a FERMION (electron etc.)
This is what may have occured during the Photoelectric Effect too!
An electron is made from a higher interference (and alternating constructive and destructive) of two waves whose RELATIVE (mutual) electromagnetic energy has finally reached a SPIN VELOCITY set-up by the nature of the vacuum to become A CHARGE.
In simple English now... If we increased the energy of one or both waves previously entangled in a common path (interference) SPIN will show AN INCREASED RATE OF ROTATION (angula velocity) giving as a result [after the limit is reached] to an increase in the CHARGE of a given "particle."
You see Dave... Einstein probably saw that increase in MASS without in fact knowing what actually caused that we saw it in that way.
It was the SPIN all this time what actually INCREASED its angular momentum having as a result a change in REALITY as seen by our measuring instruments (apparatus).
Think about this and give me your opinion about it. However we have had some difference in opinion in the past I recognize your pasion for physics and the wisdom of your analysis.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

The discovery of the existence of a quantum has revolutionized the way physics had been "operating" for centuries. Still today we find ourselves trying to put all those pieces together in one COMPLETE picture.
That is the case with the concept of ENTANGLEMENT. When are we in the presence of such physical STATE (as I call it) and how many "faces" does it have?
To answer that question we have to "jump back" in time and remember what Plank saw in his experiment. A quatum is more than just a "chunk of energy" moving on the vacuum. It is also a LEGITIMATE magnitude of energy ALLOWED to be "considered itself" STABLE. It is its inherent stability and its internal rejection to be taken apart in random pieces that make it LEGITIMATE in a literal sense. Some recent discoverings in the field of neutrinos have given us a clue about how a quantum (one that we have considered to be a mass-less one in the past) was actually "oscillating" into different existences as it propagates in space.
Some smart physicists are not willing to back up the Standard Model anymore as the "final truth" (the way Bohr used to call it) closing the chapter of matter.
Some members of this forum (including myself) have been proposing interesting ideas to allow us to piece those new observations together into both a LOGICAL and COHERENT picture of our physical REALITY.
One of those ideas I have propossed has to do with entanglement too. Imagine that a legitimate quantum could (as in fact has) be made to SPLIT in ITS COMPONENTS>>> Assuming that the same phenomenon observed with neutrinos might be repeating its pattern in other more complex "particles."
The EPR experiment was unable to solve the puzzle of why if one "particle" was having an "up spin" when it was scatterred the other simply wasn't willing to keep the opposite spin "down" at the moment of collapse and everybody happy...!
I invite you to use the analogy presented in my previous post (look on top of this one for details).
Two COILS made to disentangled themselves from a common path and forced to move at 180 degrees angle from each other.
Since Plank demonstrated that a quantum is a quantum because it can't be divided into other pieces at our convenience what would be the logical solution to a collpased entanglement?
The interesting POINT I want to call for your attention is the SPIN factor.
We have proposed that a quantum could be the result of two waves in a mutual interference (constructive and destructive) right? The PROBLEM that arises from that hypothesis is that both waves may not be equal in its energy content>> One of the coil may SPIN faster than the other as the result of its higher energy... as the case with the case of the "green photon and the blue one" back in the past in the earlier experiment using a mercury lamp... remeber that?
The point is that since the SPIN VELOCITY (of each waves) bears a NON-LINEAR relationship with respect to each other there is no way to predict with entire certainty what will be the state of the SPIN and the angle of its path at the moment of collapse (!)
I believe that it will take a full knowledge of the relationship between those two waves before we would be able to answer why the EPR experiment concluded with a disaster for Einstein and his team of scientists.
It is imperative to understand the implications derived from the actual DISTANCE taken by the wave that "got away" in the analysis of its final angle observed during the collapse. If I was right in assuming that with the net difference of frequency (energy) (even both waves moving at the speed of light from each other) THEN the final POSITION [the one we are allowed to observe it] will be set by a non-linear analysis.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault will be set by a non-linear analysis.

I'm working on a dysfunctional analysis (many-to-many mapping or correspondence) instead of Hilbert functional analysis or linear analysis.

[dleviwing]

Hi HbD;
I recognized the similarities in our thinking from your original posts on ToeQuest. Now that you have toned down your displeasure with the scientific community in your posts, your ideas have become clearer and easier to read.

It's best to avoid using the term "momentum" when discussing motion. Momentum refers to the product of mass and velocity or p=mv. The angular velocity of the electron is uniform motion and thus, as I see it, causes the substance to condense in phases according to its wavelength harmonics. This is why Planck's constant is so important to understanding QM and the wave nature of physical structure.

Understanding this wave nature of structure allows us to see that the forces of nature are in reality the same exact processes; They are just at different wavelengths and spatial density levels. Maybe someday all this will become common sense to everyone.