Atomic Model

[David George]

I have already described the form (shape, structure) of an electron as a rotating sphere, rotating on three axes. This electron form occurred to me many years ago as a natural result of an innocent (ignorant) question I asked myself. The question was, "If I were God, and I were trying to create a universe out of nothing, how would I do it?" At the time, the most basic understanding of "the universe" (the world outside our thoughts) was that it is expanding: galaxies are generally moving away from each other. This is still the understanding. It is due of observation of the light emitted by distant galaxies following absorption (or emission) by hydrogen atoms. This light has a pattern of two closely related frequencies at a certain location on the electromagnetic spectrum, and the frequencies are due to a transition between energy levels of the electron "orbiting" the hydrogen nucleus (a proton). The "hydrogen light" from the distant galaxies is shifted from its normal spectral location to a less energetic location (toward the infrared) and is said to be "redshifted". Such shifting occurs acoustically in sound emitted from a moving source where it is called Doppler shift. However, it is thought that receding galaxies are not moving through space; rather, following Einstein, space itself is expanding and the galaxies are going along for the ride. So the galactic recessional redshift is termed "cosmological redshift". And that is enough about that for the time being.

Accepting that "space" is expanding, the "creation" question above has a corollary. How would God create the galaxies out of nothing? And more fundamentally, how would God create matter out of nothing? So the task is twofold: how to create "expanding space", and to create matter within that expanding space. That matter exists must be assumed: according to what we "know", there is an influence created by bodies of matter, according to which they gravitate toward one another. Before Einstein, gravitation was thought to be "instantaneous action at a distance"; after Einstein, it is thought to be a deformation of the "space-time continuum" (of which more must be said, but not now). Based on the evidence of gravitational attraction, it is safe to say that there is some source of this attraction, and that source is "matter", whose physical property in this respect is "gravitational mass" ("inertial mass").

So these are two universal concepts: expanding space, and matter. Quantum theory deals with matter as a mathematical point (a point lacking spatial extension, adopted from the Newtonian concept of an "ideal" material point), and places this point onto a map of space - a very small space where both expansion and gravitation can be ignored, thus avoiding complications of Einstein's theory of gravitation. But it is very questionable whether in physical reality a body of matter (with its accompanying field of gravitational influence) is such a mathematical point. Would God say, "I will create expanding space; and then I will place into this expanding space a certain number of mathematical points!"? I don't believe so.

As I saw God's task, it would be to do the whole job at once. (And if we place ourself in God's shoes, what is God really trying to do? It occured to me that God is trying to become. In other words, from some unimaginable spaceless, timeless darkness, "God" begins to imagine. And that is enough of that for the time being.)

Unbeknown to me at the time, there is a concept in physics theory of the "spacetime-energy complex". The foundation for this concept is that (1) energy exists; and (2) it is impossible for physicists to deal with energy without having some place where energy can be. (Here it is worth noting that matter is thought to be a form of energy; so it is the energy, rather than the matter, that is "fundamental".) With that in mind, the "spacetime-energy" concept arises because it is impossible to deal with forms of energy without having a map (a space, or spacetime) onto which to locate mathematical points, or arrows representing motions at certain locations, etc. So a system of two entities is envisioned: one entity is "energy/matter"; and the other is the "spacetime continuum" onto which the behavior of energy/matter is mapped. Even a deformable spacetime continuum dictated by the motion of energy, which is Einstein's contribution to understanding, cannot avoid the "integrated dichotomy" of spacetime and energy. (But Einstein gives us a clue to physical reality when he tells us that if the gravitational field associated with the energy/matter disappears, the spacetime also disappears, since the deformable spacetime is only a "structural component" of the field.)

The point here is that the "spacetime-energy complex" is our human creation, created for the purpose of tracing the various motions we sense as physical reality. Would God have the need for two separate entities? More to the point, would God create two separate entities, one of which is reserved for the use of a future human race? I don't believe so. But this did not occur to me at the time I posed myself, acting for God, the task of creating the universe. I only wondered, what would be the first task, the most fundamental task? Once again, imagine God in some spaceless, timeless darkness. Then the first task is to create some space! And then to light it up! (Here the first words of the book of Genesis become very interesting, for their prophetic value if not for their "scientific" understanding of physical reality.)

It seemed that the simplest, most direct way to create space would be to expand it. And here I must digress. It is a mathematical fact (I think) that a finite entity such as a sphere can expanded infinitely; but that finite entity can also be contracted infinitely. So just as there is no limit to spatial expansion, there is also no limit to spatial contraction. So at what "finite size" would God make this initial expanding space? This is a significant question in view of the hypothetical time line for a "Big Bang" scenario (which is a "spacetime-energy complex" scenario). But that is enough of that for the time being.

The initial condition of the universe, as God seeks to become, is then expanding space. And expanding space automatically includes time: the initial condition is then "spacetime". And where does the energy come in? It is reasonable to say that to expand space requires energy. So we replace the "spacetime-energy complex" with "energetic space": space moves. It is an energy field.

So an expanding spatial energy field is created in the spaceless timeless darkness. How fast does it expand? It expands at God's full potential (say, c). Does this field expand like a bubble with nothing inside it? No, the "nothingness" is outside it. Inside it is energetic space. And what is the initial condition of this energetic space inside the bubble? According to God's initial condition, it must expand, say at c. But this creates a problem. The entire field inside the expanding bubble is filled with space attempting to expand at c. But all the space inside the bubble is already occupied by expanding space. It is impossible for all that space to expand as a sphere at its full potential. Every space is struggling with every other space for space to expand into! The result is pressure. So pressure builds up inside the expanding field - expanding at its full potential c at its outer limit, mind you - and something has to give. What gives is that space inside the field begins to rotate. This relieves the pressure, and gives rise to unequal pressures at various locations within the field.

At this point I am at a loss to say exactly what goes on, but one possibility is that smaller bubbles arise spontaneously at locations of unequal pressure, where the field is temporarily "depleted" due to rotation. There may be other possibilities. However it turns out, the outcome of all the fighting is that there appear inside the field numerous bubbles, characterized by a surface inside which there is an internal pressure of space attempting to expand outwardly, and outside which there is an external pressure of space attempting to expand inwardly. So the bubbles are surfaces, absorbing the opposite pressures of space by rotating. The universal energetic space thus filled with spatially extended spheres of rotating space. But it is not yet lit up.

 

[David George]

The "Big Bang" class of hypotheses for universal evolution is based on the idea that the universe "began" (or emerged from some unexplainable nonexistence) a short time after T=0 in a hot, dense state. It cannot be said that the universe at that moment "knew" that it was (1) hot, or (2) dense with energy. The "early" universe is compared with the present universe, and according to a scenario in which the universal movie is run backwards until it disappears in quantum uncertainty (a measurement principle, remember), theorists hypothesize that it was hot and dense. This is based on the assumption that all the energy we now see has always existed, and so as "the universe" is contracted backwards in time, all this energy is squeezed into a tiny location of essentially infinite energy density (and infinite curvature of space - a singularity). The theorists then release this energy, and space expands. In order to save the hypothesis, a short period of exponential expansion, "inflation", is added to it. Our observable universe then becomes a kind of bubble of widespread "quantum fluctuations" in a larger universe. This is so the numbers match observations (without it, the universe would be "dead" already). I should note that there is not only one "Big Bang" scenario. There are many, but they have in common the initial condition of a hot, dense state.

But this idea of a hot dense state is based on our current measurement of universal heat and energy density. In other words, the early universe was hot and dense compared to its present state. In other words, the universe emerged, and expanded, and began cooling as it expanded. It cannot be said to have had any particular temperature when it emerged. As I understand it, temperature is a measurement of "energy in transit", a measurement we humans make with our instruments, a concept we associate with physical reality. But - whatever temperature it had - the idea is that it has been cooling down since then. Clearly there is an alternative to the idea that the universe "emerged" and cooled down: alternatively, the universe "emerged", and heated up!

In an earlier post is the concept of the "spacetime-energy complex", by which is meant the integration of energy and the space-time continuum, two separate entities necessary for mathematical manipulation of energy or, more generally, motion. The space-time continuum has an ambiguous existence, somewhere between physical reality and an imaginary ideal. But it cannot be eliminated from the study of physical reality. Where does it fit in the Big Bang scenario? According to this scenario, the spatial expansion of the universe is "driven" in its early stages by radiation pressure. But pressure against what? The early universe could not be anthropomorphically aware of its own extreme energy density. That is a subjective judgement made by humans, as they run the movie backwards with the assumption of a finite universal quantity of eternally "conserved" (neither created nor destroyed) energy.

If, as some theorists believe, "time" and "space" began at the same time and in the same space as the infinitely hot, dense universe, and the space-time continuum is simply a structural component of the universal field of that time, then "outside" the universe there was no time and no space. So against what boundary was the early "radiation dominated" universe pressing? There was no boundary. The answer is that the radiation was pressing against itself. But according to general relativity, a virtually infinite radiation energy density would produce an infinite curvature of space - the universe could not "expand", rather, it would be eternally gravitationally bound to itself. This is another case for the Heisenberg measurement uncertainty principle re-interpreted as a natural uncertainty principle: the universe was uncertain exactly where it was, and somehow appeared outside its own gravitational enclosure! Once it had escaped, gravity was left to catch up with it. But accepting that the universe did expand - its spatial volume increased - then this expansion was due to radiation pressing against itself.

That concept is somewhat similar to the scenario I am proposing, but there are some differences. According to the Big Bang scenario, there is "no speed limit" on the rate of universal expansion. "Space", as an ambiguous quasi-physical entity, can expand at any rate! It is, after all, only "a structural component of the field" (or, according to quantum field theories, of a multitude of fields). So in this case, it has no physical property. And yet, elsewhere, we will find that "empty space" is a seething mass of quantum fluctuations - then it acquires a distinctly physical quality. And it has been shown that there is energy in empty space (the Casimir effect). So as the spatial volume of the universe grows, so presumably does the seething mass of quantum fluctuations, and so the energy of the universe increases. Just how this fits into current theory, no one knows - the expansion of "space" at the present time is supposed to be due to "dark energy", i.e. some "form" of energy that is not understood! The confusion I have described above may be a clue that the current school of physics does not understand physical reality at all. I am proposing a simpler scenario: expanding space is the initial condition of the universe, not a quasi-physical theoretical entity associated with energy.

In this scenario, the expansion of the universe is not driven by any other entity such as "radiation pressure"; rather, it is a manifestation of the driving force, or power source, of the universe. Space expands at the full potential of the source - but space cannot expand everywhere simultaneously. Spatial expansion requires time. So space and time are inextricably linked, not in a "spacetime-energy complex", but in a "space-time complex". The root of expanding space is motion itself: the motion of a spirit, if you like. The spirit moves, and by moving creates "spacetime", or "energy", in the form of expanding space: an expanding energy field. The universal expansion is not driven by its internal pressure; rather, its internal pressure (of space) is the response of the energy of the universe to itself. Its outer "boundary" is defined by the potential of the field to expand at a maximum rate, given that it cannot expand "all at once". And if we are to give this rate a quantity, we may as well call it "c" - the speed of light within the field. This imposes a speed limit on the rate of universal expansion. But inside the field, it cannot expand at its full potential; and this potential then creates a directional deviation: it finds rotation.

The result, as I outlined in an earlier post, is spheres of rotating space, created and maintained by the opposition of internal and external pressure; so a sphere of "matter" is essentially a pressure wall between two opposing "forces". Now, in order to absorb pressure (dissipate energy) from any direction in space. That "omnidirectional response" means the spheres must rotate on the equivalent of three axes (tri-axial rotation). And that is the model I am describing.

According to this scenario, the first matter particle is a neutron. A neutron is electrically neutral, but it has a magnetic property (magnetic moment). A neutron is a nuclear entity: it exists naturally in the nucleus of an atom. Outside the nucleus, experiments show that within approximately 15 minutes a neutron "decays" into a proton and an electron (with a small loss of momentum-energy assigned the label of an "electron anti-neutrino" for modern current theoretical purposes).

Given this experimental evidence, what does "decay" represent in the atomic model I am describing? It represents an evolutionary process in which the universal energy field is not capable of exerting sufficient external pressure to maintain a neutron. The external field is depleted. The neutron then splits into two spheres, one (a proton) inside the other (an electron). And so between these two spheres is an intermediate field which is of enormous significance. In that field, energy moves back and forth in waves between the electron and the proton. They are connected by that field.

The proton-electron system is an evolutionary system of the universe. It is the "natural" state of most of the matter of the universe, a hydrogen atom. It is an electrically neutral system, and importantly it is a harmonic system: the proton and electron fit each other, and they fit together as a response to the universal energy field. In modern theory the proton and electron of a hydrogen atom are said to have a "binding energy": that is, it takes energy to separate them. This energy is approximately 13.6 electronvolts, not a great deal of energy; the separated proton and electron then are said to form a hydrogen plasma. And, separated, the proton and electron have a natural attraction to each other; while protons repel each other; and electrons repel each other. The proton and electron are then said to be "electrically charged particles": they have a natural compulsion, or "charge" to repel their twins, but attract their "other halves". But this "charge" only exists when the proton and electron are outside their harmonic state (the proton nestled inside the electron).

I will note before ending this post that in this scenario, in the region of a matter particle, space does not expand. And, over time, electrically neutral particles (and bodies of particles) move toward each other. This is gravitational attraction - a net motion of space.

 

[John G]

You have definitely put in some work not only for your thoughts but in trying to understand the mainstream ideas which are certainly incomplete and likely wrong in places. I think one thing that would help is if you had your own ideas and your understanding of existing ideas in more of a math framework.

For example, something like there is an

interesting, statement of similarity, based on the common Conformal Group symmetry of:

Maxwell's equations of Electromagnetism
Gravity derived from the Conformal Group using the MacDowell-Mansouri mechanism
the Quantum Theoretical Hydrogen atom
the Lie Sphere geometry of SpaceTime Correlations in the Many-Worlds picture

Electromagnetism, Gravity, and the ZPF all have in common the symmetry of the Conformal Group whose compact version is Spin(6).

Further, the 12-dimensional Standard Model Lie Algebra U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) may be related to the Conformal Group Lie Algebra in the same way that the 12-dimensional Schrodinger Lie Algebra is related to the Conformal Group Lie Algebra.

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/mwbn.html#SakharovZPF

The above is hardly a final answer but you could call it an interesting math framework from which you might get things like dark energy and inertial mass with a math basis.

For the big bang and inflation, there's a cellular automata-like technique that lets you look at information and time more than energy and there are perhaps information reasons for inflation to end. Perhaps one could relate the information in old cold universes to the big bang information and get something more cyclical and closed.

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QuantumMind2003.html#pzizzi

The main idea is to have the math as a check to see that things are fitting together in the big picture.

 

[David George]

Thank you Bluelamp, I begin with math in the next post! However the math you are giving is far beyond me - I have seen it but never understood it. I am using just basic physical constants, the electric charge (which I call q), Planck's constant h, speed of light c, the fine structure constant a, and another constant which I will designate as r (the proton-electron ratio). And I put them together with basic algebra. And that is the extent of my ability. So you have anticipated my very next step, which will I will post according to circumstances (hopefully tomorrow).

 

[John G]

Sounds like you want to relate the standard definition for the fine-structure constant with the proton to electron mass ratio which interestingly is what Armand Wyler did using bounded homogeneous domains based on the conformal group I mentioned earlier.

 

[combsbt]

It is hard to delve into the mainstream (or any other) theories without making huge assumptions. Even the idea of expanding space is still theoretical, and there are other theories that attempt to explain the observed redshift: (here is one of them) _http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm

For me it is frustrating trying to understand all of this, and I'm even willfully attending a University to study it! It looks to me that a lot of assumptions need to be reevaluated, and it gets kind of discouraging when whole theories that have been extensively developed for years need to be tossed out. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from researching theories, and I think Bluelamp has an excellent suggestion. Building a solid mathematical framework is probably the best starting point. At least that's where I'm starting :D

 

[durabone]

Expanding space can be viewed as four-dimensional flux through a three-dimensional volume, or "plane" (ala Cartan).

 

[David George]

Thank you for the responses, I have to reiterate I have no physics training whatsoever, this comes from following my nose and trying to understand what the fundamental constants represent, and what the whole system represents, so I have to play the part of only a reporter (which I used to be!). I do not understand any "educated" theory. The following is what I wrote before I read the comments above:

Clearly this model of an atom is radically different from the "standard" particle model. Rather than being a point located somewhere in an atomic orbital (or electron cloud), an electron is the entire orbital "shell". Similarly a proton is also a shell, inside the electron shell. Before attempting to understand how a molecule of hydrogen, or an atom of deuterium or tritium, or a chemical element would look (I believe it is a matter of shells) it is first necessary to compare this model with known properties of protons and electrons, to find whether this model can be accommodated into the knowledge system that has arisen over the past two hundred years. If it can, to the extent of its skeletal structure, then clearly more study (a great deal of study) is warranted. To the limit of my understanding I have come to the conclusion that it can be fitted. I do not know whether it can be tested or falsified (i.e. is a scientific hypothesis) but I believe it should be testable.

Before I set out the model of an electron-proton system in detail, I must distinguish between the system and its components separated from their system state. In order to separate from the electron, the proton must move through the electron shell (or rather, the electron shell must move past the proton shell, since the proton has much more inertial mass than the electron). I believe that it is at this point that the electric attraction originates, and it has to do with the motion of the electron and the proton, which it seems to me will impart a twist to the space surrounding the electron and proton. However, I have not studied this in detail; I have been content to consider the electric effect as an effect of the axial rotation of the electron and proton (i.e., in an interaction they each have an "electric axis").

In addition, if energy is essentially a motion of space, the addition of some energy (say 13.6 electronvolts) to an electron which causes it to emit a photon (pressure wave) indicates that the addition must arrive from some particular direction. And the addition of energy is itself in the form of a pressure wave. However, in this evolution scenario, there is not yet any photon to separate an electron from a proton to form a plasma. A neutron "decays" into a hydrogen atom with the loss of momentum characterized (in the standard model) as an electron anti-neutrino. Neutrinos seem to be a form of neutral photons (neutral pressure waves). They are a disturbance in the field. Whether the action of neutrinos can cause an electron to be ejected from its orbital shell around a proton, to form a plasma, I do not know. The plasma production may be gravitational. But I must admit to being hazy on all these points. As I say, this is a skeletal model. So here goes.

If we visualize the electron or proton as a rotating sphere, we can deal with it as a massless current, moving at c. It is then reasonable to deal with the current as a superconducting electric current (but without signs), with units of electric charge q in coulombs or ampere-seconds (C = A * S), keeping in mind the confusion that may arise when dealing with time units. One coulomb is defined as a current of one ampere flowing for one second. Then one ampere of current is equal to one coulomb of charge per second. The rotating sphere can be visualized as a current of 1.6021753 e-19 amperes flowing for one second.

Work is done to maintain this rotation (rotation being an acceleration). The unit of energy, the joule (J) may be interpreted either as work required or as work done, and in this case it is interpreted as work done to maintain the rotation. If energy is emitted from and absorbed by these spheres in quantized units, it is reasonable to say that this is because they exist in a system within which each rotates at a specific frequency (or within a narrow frequency range if we account for small oscillations of rotation, which do occur), which in turn is due to the energy available to them from the field which maintains them. Then it is reasonable that a Planck energy (E = h * f) can be assigned to each sphere as the work done per second to rotate them.

Then during one second that a current equal to q flows, h*f work is done. This allows us to derive a current per cycle equal to q/f. Planck's constant has units of joule-seconds (J * S). Then h = J * S, divided by q = A * S, gives h/q as work done per ampere.

h = J * S
q = A * S

Then h / q = J / A

Here we find a connection to magnetic flux, since h/2q is the magnetic flux quantum. So h/q is equal to two magnetic flux quanta. Magnetic flux is measured in units of webers (Wb). One weber is equal to one volt-second, in that a flux of one weber for one second will induce an electromotive force of one volt (Wb = V * S). This allows a second interpretation of h/q, since a 'coulomb-volt' is equal to a joule of energy (J = V * C).

Wb = V * S
J = V * C

Then C * Wb = J * S = h

h = C * Wb
q = C

Then h / q = Wb = J / A

At this point there is a great risk of confusion in attempting to describe the action that takes place between the electron and the proton. In the electron-proton system, as superconducting currents a magnetic flux quantum is exchanged, since magnetic flux between superconductors is known to be quantized. I believe such an exchange of quanta characterizes the intermediate field between the proton and electron. This intermediate field is the means by which the electron and proton exist in a stable relationship, and by which energy from the field external to the electron is transferred to the proton. However, the units in use to describe the events seem inherently confusing here.

In assigning an electric current per cycle, we have already seen that q, in units of ampere-seconds (an electric current flowing for one second and totalling 1.60217653 e-19 coulombs of charge), is divided by f, in units of cycles per second (here taken as rotational cycles per second), to find electric current in amperes per cycle. Dividing q/f results in a 'nonsense' quantity, "coulomb-seconds per cycle" if the units are not clearly understood to mean amperes per cycle.

Similarly, the terms of the Planck equation E = h * f are subject to confusion. If h*f is taken here to mean work done in one second, then simply dividing E by frequency f gives "work done per cycle". But the units of Planck's constant h are J*S, i.e. "joule-seconds". (Perhaps this is a historical problem.) So we are 'formally' saying "joule-seconds per cycle", which is similarly nonsensical (to me, anyway).

If we now seek to equate "work done per cycle" with the units of magnetic flux, namely webers, equal to "volt-seconds", similar lack of clarity arises. But there is a definite association to be found here. The association is found in the Josephson constant (here K for want of a subscript), whose value is equal to 2q/h, i.e. the inverse of the magnetic flux constant h/2q.

The Josephson constant 2q/h is apparently interpreted as "hertz per volt", while the inverse is in units of webers but must also be interprable as "volts per hertz"! If we divide volts by hertz in this case we come out with "volt-seconds per cycle", i.e. "webers per cycle".

When we relate h and q in terms of "work done per ampere" with webers (or volt-seconds) it is similarly unclear what time unit, if any, is indicated. We find that h = Wb * q, or

J * S = V * S * A * S

Then J = W * S
= C * V
= Wb * A

which is correct, but unclear (to me) as to its underlying meaning. However, in order to make progress in understanding the activity betwen the electron and proton, we must take the direction indicated by the existing superconducting treatment. This produces some very interesting relations. We find:

h / q = Wb = v / f (as in "volts per hertz", the inverse of K "hertz per volt")

Then h * f = v * q

which indicates that the work done to rotate the electron and proton spheres can equally be interpreted as h * f or as v * q. This is consistent with the Planck equation units of energy, namely joules, since v * q is in units of coulomb-volts, and J = C * V. Therefore it is accurate to say that E = v * q in this case. I believe that v*q is the source of h*f, and so is the source of the quantization of energy - due to the harmonic relation of the proton and electron in their atomic system. This interpretation also provides us an alternate way of looking at the electron-proton system not as Planck-quantity waves but as rotating spheres, with a unit of current and a unit of force propelling the current, so that light is naturally emitted as a quantized entity.

We find, first, that the ratio of rotational frequency to "force" or "potential" is equivalent to the ratio of q to h. So we can assign a potential/force and a frequency to each rotating sphere as follows (with electron (e) or proton (p) in brackets):

f (e) / v (e) = f (p) / v (p) = q / h

In order to find a frequency, and hence a potential/force, we can refer to the known quantities by converting between the Einstein and Planck equations, E = mc^2 = h * f. We find values for the proton and electron as follows:

f (e) = 1.235 589 912 e20 rotations per second
f (p) = 2.268 731 717 e23 rotations per second
v (e) = 510 998.8962 volts
v (p) = 938 271 988.2 volts

These values of v (e) and v (p) are identical to the mass-energy values of the conventional treatment, but here the units are not "electronvolts/c^2" but simply volts. What this property actually is may not be identifiable in terms of volts, but it represents the same phenomenon represented by the Josephson constant K: in other words, a "voltage" of the electron or proton, combined with the elementary charge q, represents the same energy as a "frequency" of each body combined with Planck's constant h. They are two faces of the same phenomenon in the same way that, according to the Josephson constant, voltage produces frequency and vice versa. The significance of this relation of voltage to frequency may appear when we find (using the values above) that:

v (e) * v (p) = 4.794 559 503 e14
K (2 q / h) = 4.835 978 791 e14

There is a "factor" difference here of 1.00863881. As we proceed we will find, if not a complete explanation, a calculation that eliminates this difference. For the time being it must be remembered that the values provided by current information on the mass of the proton and electron are found by measuring free particles, not system particles. But here we are dealing with the bodies in their system state.

I will end this post here. This relation of the system electron and proton potential to the Josephson constant was the first "discovery" that led me to believe this model is valid. The product of the two potentials, which is supplied by the field, produces specific frequencies of rotation, i.e. "hertz per volt"! It seems that the electron and proton power each other. I do not know how to make the relation more clear; that is probably for someone much smarter than me. But I do not believe this relation is a coincidence. If the Josephson constant deals with macro-scale electric circuits, it also appears to operate at the atomic scale of two "electric circuits", indicating there is a micro scale analog, even source, of the macro scale phenomenon.

 

[David George]

If (as I believe) the following equation then holds true,

v(e) * v(p) = 2 q / h

Then there is a basis for further information about the electron-proton system in this model. We already know that

f / v = q / h

and therefore that

f(p) / v(p) = f(e) / v(e)

f(p) * v(e) = f(e) * v(p)

f(p) / f(e) = v(p) / v(e)

but it is impossible with this information to find a new set of values (f and v) for the electron and proton without knowing their ratio - that is, the ratio of their frequencies and potentials. Although their mass ratio is known from mass spectrometry, this is the mass ratio of free particles, which does not necessarily apply in their system state. The final equation above gives us a natural dimensionless ratio of the proton and electron in their system state. However, it appears impossible to find that ratio without more information. Fortunately, using the "unadjusted" values above (ignoring the units), the following is also found:

f(e) / v(p)^2 = 140.35

which is suspiciously close to the current best measured value (137.0359991) of the inverse of the dimensionless fine structure constant alpha (here "a"). Making the explicit assumption that the number does indeed represent the inverse of alpha, it is possible to find the dimensionless ratio ("r") of the proton-electron system, and much more:

f(p) / f(e) = v(p) / v(e) = r

f(e) = v(p)^2 / a

2 f(e) / v(e) = v(e) * v(p)

2 f(e) = v(e)^2 * v(p)

2 v(p)^2 / a = v(e)^2 * v(p)

2 v(p) / a = v(e)^2

v(e) = 2 r / a

v(p) = 2 r^2 / a

(I apologize for the notation as well as for the lack of numbering. But these equations do follow.)

Then

(2 r / a) * (2 r^2 / a) = 4 r^3 / a^2 = 2 q / h

r^3 = a^2 *q / 2 h

and we find the value of r as 1860.308707 (last digit depending on calculator and original values), and thus the values

v(e) = 509 858.5241 (1.002236644)

v(p) = 948 494 251.2 (1.010894776)

f(e) = 1.232 832 504 e20

f(p) = 2.293 449 041 e23

The numbers in brackets represent the "factor" difference from the original values of the free particles above. The system v(e) is smaller than the free v(e) while the system v(p) is larger than the free v(p), and the reverse is true for the frequencies. When we derive spatial dimensions such as circumference and surface area from the frequency of the particles moving at c, we find that the free electron has a smaller radius than the system electron, while the free proton has a larger radius than the system proton. This indicates (as it intuitively should) that when the proton sphere is separated from the interior of the electron sphere, the proton becomes larger and the electron becomes smaller.

End of this post, more to come. I believe there is much food for thought here. It troubles me somewhat that in the interaction of frequency and potential/force, elementary charge and Planck constant, the units become all mixed up. But I don't know what to do about it.

 

[David George]

With the system frequencies of the proton and electron found above, the circumference, radius, and surface area of each particle can be found by

C = c / f
R = C / 2 pi
A = 4 pi R^2

This gives

C(e) = 2.431 737 13 e-12 meters
R(e) = 3.870 229 846 e-13 m
A(e) = 1.882 276 323 e-24 m^2

C(p) = 1.307 168 602 e-15 m
R(p) = 2.080 423 444 e-16 m
A(p) = 5.438 928 409 e-31 m^2

The Bohr radius (here "A(o)") is given (i.e., in Wikipedia) as

A(o) = h / (2 pi * mass(e) * c * a) = 5.291 772 108 e-11 m

Using the mass conversion formula mass = h * f / c^2, and the system electron f(e) found above, this can be written as

A(o) = c / (2 pi * f(e) * a) = 5.303 608 138 e-11 m

which is simply the formula for R(e) above with the addition of the divisor term "a". The factor difference from the Bohr radius A(o) above is 1.002236644, which will be explained in a later post.

The classical relativistic electron radius (here "R(c)") is given as the inverse of (4 pi * E(o)) multiplied by q^2 / (mass(e) * c^2), or

R(c) = (c^2 * 10^7) * q^2 / (mass(e) * c^2) = 2.817 940 325 e-15 m

which, using the mass conversion formula and the system electron f(e), can be written as

R = c^2 * q^2 / 10^7 * h * f(e) = 2.824 243 169 e-15 m (factor difference inv. 1.002236644)

Given the relation that v = f * h / q, this can be written as

R = c^2 * q / 10^7 * v(e)

Given that v(e) = 2 r / a, this can be rewritten as

R = c^2 * q * a / (10^7 * 2 r)

This differs from R(e) above by the inverse of "a". In other words, the system electron R(e) is 137.0359991 times smaller than the Bohr radius, and 137.0359991 times larger than the classical electron radius. But in this model, the electron is not a particle orbiting a nucleus; it is a sphere surrounding a nucleus which is also a sphere. (But since the sphere also oscillates, at no time is it a perfect sphere.)

The appearance of the elementary charge (here "q") in the formula for the classical electron radius enables a derivation of q by means solely of the dimensionless constants "a" and "r" and of the speed of light "c". This is because the system electron f(e) can be written as

f(e) = v(e) x q / h

f(e) = (2 r / a) x (q / h)

Since v(e) x v(p) = 2 q / h, then

2 q / h = (2 r / a) * (2 r^2 / a) = 4 r^3 / a^2

q / h = 2 r^3 / a^2

f(e) = (2 r / a) * (2 r^3 / a^2) = 4 r^4 / a^3

Then

R(e) = c * a^2 / (4 r^4 * 2 pi)

Then, with the formula for R(c) above, and multiplying R above by "a" so that R = R(c),

c * a^3 / (4 r^4 * 2 pi) = c^2 q (10^7 * 2 r)

q = a^3 * 10^7 / (c * 4 r^3 * pi) = 1.602 176 533 e-19.

I will end this post here, there is still more to come, although I am not sure whether anyone is following this now. It seems likely that it would require rewriting this information in a more readable form in order to make sense of it. I do not have a way to make the proper mathematical notation, and I have neglected numbering, for which I now apologize, since the references are getting complicated. At any rate, the information is there if anyone wants to sort it out. I would appreciate any comment before continuing. Future posts (if any) deal with magnetic moment and binding energy E(b). I have also done work on atomic energy level transitions (the Lyman series, etc.).

 

[John G]

I will end this post here, there is still more to come, although I am not sure whether anyone is following this now. It seems likely that it would require rewriting this information in a more readable form in order to make sense of it. I do not have a way to make the proper mathematical notation, and I have neglected numbering, for which I now apologize, since the references are getting complicated. At any rate, the information is there if anyone wants to sort it out. I would appreciate any comment before continuing. Future posts (if any) deal with magnetic moment and binding energy E(b). I have also done work on atomic energy level transitions (the Lyman series, etc.).

I'm still following. You use a lot of known formulas, that's a good thing and makes for a good introduction or review of known things. I'm not following along using a calculator but there are a couple things that worried me a little. One is that via mc^2 you seem to introduce the electron and proton masses rather than have them show up on their own. Also it seemed that your choice of q forced you into a v(e)*v(p)/K of about 1 and maybe that is some known thing.

 

[David George]

Thank you so much, Bluelamp. I haven't thought about how mc^2 introducing the electron and proton masses, the use of hf = mc^2 was first to come up with a frequency, using the measured masses. The way I see "mass", it is gravitational mass or inertial mass (identical I think) and so belongs in a gravity setting. In other words, the rotating sphere tends to stay in the same place unless something acts on it! And this is due to the external pressure of the space. But there is a potential, I'm not sure whether it is technically "energy" in the scientific sense but it is absorbed or dissipated by the rotation (an acceleration). When I then use mass elsewhere it is to convert into the current model, i.e. the radii.

When I began with these equations I didn't know about the Josephson constant. I had an h and a q, and I got an f, then v(e) and a v(p), and I just multiplied them to see what came up. And somewhere around the same time, I came across the Josephson constant, and they were so close it was like a thunderbolt, but it was delayed because I didn't know what I was looking at, so at first I said, "Oh, sure, of course." It took awhile before the relationship of potential v and frequency f dawned on me. But I am not aware that v(e) times v(p) is known, unless someone has multiplied the mass-energies of the proton and electron and come up with the K, so it is known that way. But it was a discovery to me, and it makes this model seem valid.

Anyway, I will carry on here. I found the "Physics Forum" website and it has some requirements for submitting there, but also has a LaTex function that I will have to learn before I submit it to them (and that doesn't guaranteed acceptance). I apologize again for the poor notation and lack of numbering. It may be a couple of days before the next post, I am rewriting as I go along now.

 

[John G]

Anyway, I will carry on here. I found the "Physics Forum" website and it has some requirements for submitting there, but also has a LaTex function that I will have to learn before I submit it to them (and that doesn't guaranteed acceptance). I apologize again for the poor notation and lack of numbering. It may be a couple of days before the next post, I am rewriting as I go along now.

I was briefly on "Physics Forum" when they were discussing Garrett Lisi's E8 model. They're a bit strict there, I'm not sure I'd go there if I were you. The units thing would probably be a huge problem. It looks like you are using the wrong h (the J one instead of the eV one). In general I don't mind the idea of working with different units if there is a good enough motivation (like diffusion through volume for force strengths and masses) but what you are doing could come across as using the wrong constant not just using unrelated units.

 

[waasekom]

This may seem dumb, but are there actually any neutrons in an atom? Or do both the 'electron' and 'proton' seek neutrality?
I am just wondering because I do not understand the structural representations of these two qualities.
thanks in advance.

 

[shijing]

This may seem dumb, but are there actually any neutrons in an atom? Or do both the 'electron' and 'proton' seek neutrality?

It's been awhile since I learned about this, but I hope this helps: there are actually neutrons in an atom -- they make up the nucleus of an atom, along with the protons, and the electrons orbit the atom in layers called 'orbitals'. The number of electrons and protons is normally equal, but atoms can become ionized (gaining a negative or positive charge) if they either gain or lose an electron upsetting this balance. But neither protons nor electrons can become neutrons -- they are discrete entities.