The Basis for the Mainstream Model of Atomic Structure
Our ideas for atomic structure evolved from our object-space perception of the universe, our notion of gravitational force, and the motions of the planets.
Near the turn of the 19th century J.J. Thomson isolated a charged stream of electrons emitted by an atom. The electron was isolated in the form of a cathode ray. The cathode ray was observed to be deflected by both electric and magnetic fields. Its reproducible existence provided the cathode ray particles a fixed charge and a tangible mass. Its charge to mass ratio [q/m] was determined. The ratio was not zero and not infinity.
Thompson conducted this experiment using different types of gas to fill the cathode ray tube and using different kinds of metal for the electrodes. The results were consistent. The implication that the radiation beam was composed of negatively charged particles, common to all forms of matter used in the experiment, led Thomson to proclaim that electrons are a constituent of atoms.
Thomson also determined the [q/m] ratio for hydrogen ions (the part of the hydrogen atom left after it emits an electron), using the same apparatus. Like the cathode ray, the hydrogen ions were deflected by magnetic and electric fields, but in the opposite direction. The charge to mass ratio of the cathode ray particle was 1000 times greater than the same ratio for the hydrogen ion. Holding the charge magnitude of each the same, one was enabled to conclude that the cathode ray particle (the electron) had a mass 1000 times smaller than the hydrogen ion. Up to this time, the atom was regarded as the smallest constituent of matter. It was seen that the electron is smaller than the atom. Furthermore, since the electron combined with the hydrogen ion to produce the neutral hydrogen atom, it was determined that the electron must be a constituent of matter.
The year was around 1895. Classical mechanics was still the warp and the
weft of physics. The electric force, or charge, like the gravitational force,
was seen to act between objects. J.J. Thomson likened the positively charged
hydrogen ion to a glue like jelly which contained the oppositely charged
electron, to form the neutral hydrogen atom. The electron was assumed to
manifest internal to the atom, exactly as it manifested external to the atom,
maintaining a granular integrity in both fields. It is on this assumption
that our entire construct of atomic structure is based. It
is on this assumption I direct my
instant
I had hoped to persuade my hard science reader of the viability of my position early on in this issue, by providing an instantaneous, clear and concise explanation, as to why the mathematics works so well on the physical universe. While the merit and strength of my reasoning there will only improve over time, as one contemplates it, I must recognize that almost nothing can stand to my credit after one reads the sentence in blue above. So, let me try to win you over a second time with the following words:
To set out to understand natural phenomena absent the mathematics was not the easiest path for me to take. At the beginning of my quest it was considered impossible. Now 40 years later, it is still considered impossible. But, what if it wasn't impossible? What if I succeeded? How would that understanding manifest? How would I go about conveying it to the rest of humanity? Clearly it would have to be explained using the English language. But the mere idea, the mere attempt, would have such a built in prejudice attached to it that a tendency would be to dismiss it outright, as soon as seemingly possible. For the immediate appearance of things would seem to demand that I communicate it to the mathematician. He will however, receive it only in his language. Its a catch 22 situation. The only thing that could cause me to tackle the problem is the certainty that I have discovered valuable information that should be communicated to mankind. But what I have to communicate, is in part, a major overhaul of our thought processes. It can be done in English if I don't lose my reader due to the radical surgery my position suggests.
To return then to the assumption for the electron granularity manifestation internal and external to the atom. This is a far reaching and highly speculative assumption that has no compelling argument for its unquestioned support. The mainstream physicist will point to the marvelous edifice of operational knowledge that has come from the unquestioned acceptance of the assumption. And I say yes, it is a particularly dangerous assumption, considering that it describes a stable system the operation of which is blinded to us, and all that is required to make it operational is an adherence to the principle of least action. I say the mathematics can do this with ease, and I point in the same direction as the mainstream physicist, to amplify my argument.
What it boils down to now, one hundred years later, is this. If it is a good assumption then what appears good, is good. If it is a bad assumption, then what appears good, is bad. Either possibility exists. Therefore for this reason alone, it behooves us to evaluate the soundness for such an assumption, even in the face of the response, " ... wayell if it ayunt broke, whah feeyux it?" �The point is, it was broke from the minute it went into service and has consistently required restructuring for its one hundred years of duty. The fact that it is still serving well speaks to the power of mathematics to represent stable system economics, and not to the veracity of the quantities we have used as internal operators.
Consider some, more apparent, but similar representations in nature. Take a bowl of water and an eye dropper. Draw up some water and place a drop on the hard table top. Place a drop on a newspaper. Place a drop in a small glass of kitchen cooking oil. Finally place a drop back into the bowl. Where in these examples has it been descriptive of nature to speak of the isolated drop of water? On the hard table top, in the glass of oil, and in the air. Where do you suppose our drop of water went when we returned it to the bowl? Can we ever retrieve that particular drop again? Consider this in terms of force fields. A union of two force fields in nature is volumetric if reinforcing and repelling or transverse, otherwise. Water and water reinforce. Water and oil maintain an optimal separation. Each maintain an economic response to what we call gravitational force. So take the electron and place it back into the atom. Will we ever get that very same electron back? The mainstream physicist will say yes, in principle at least, because the electron manifests the same granularity inside the atom, as it does outside the atom.
The quantum mechanics eliminated the internal orbiting electron but replaced it with a probability function that reflects the likelihood of finding an electron somewhere within the atom. This evolved with the uncertainty principle which concludes that we cannot know the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time better than a level of certainty dictated by [h/2pi] , which is a very small number. Conceptually the electron is still regarded as granular internal to the atom. Energy is also regarded as granular internal to the atom. It is difficult to conclude positively that our idea of the internal granulated electron is nothing more than a presumptuous assumption, unless, or until, we can tag an external electron and reclaim it from its atom, quantitatively intact, tag and all. And if the experimental physicist (God bless his innovative and inventive soul) is ever able to accomplish this, I predict that the tag will show dispersion through the atom, unless the tag itself is separable as charge.
Early in the 20th century Ernest Rutherford and his students discovered the dense nucleus. Aiming alpha particles (helium nuclei) at a thin gold foil resulted in most of them passing through the metal. Occasionally some would shoot off at an angle on contact with the gold foil. A few would be stopped completely and bounce straight back. J.J. Thompson's glue like jelly, or pudding atom, did not fit with this discovery. The jelly or plum pudding atomic structure put forward by J.J. Thomson, was replaced by the posit for a planetary like orbit structure. It was suggested that the granular electron revolved around the dense nucleus, like the planet's revolve around the Sun.
To sum the state of our argument at this point. We assumed that the electron energy packet maintains its granularity inside the atom. The electron is exceedingly small as a particle. The dense nucleus is also exceedingly small as a particle. Most of our alpha particles passed right through the thin foil containing the gold atom. We concluded that the atom is mostly empty space.
Consider a circus act with a big cat and a flaming hoop on fire. Because the cat can jump through the hoop and not get burned, is not an argument supporting the coolness of the hoop area within the fire. Range enough hoops in a row and the cat will not make it through the fire unscathed. Indeed, even with just one hoop, the cat must rely on its speed through the hoop to avoid being burnt. To conclude that the atom is mostly empty space one must eliminate the influence velocity has with respect to the alpha particle passage. Increase the thickness of the gold foil or slow the alpha particle velocity. If the alpha particles still pass through the gold foil, then we can more reasonably but not definitely, conclude that the atom is mostly empty space. The velocity and momentum of the alpha particle do serve to show the significance of the forces at work within the atom.
We can take a circle with a radius the length of a football field. Its
circumference is [2pir] its area is
[pir
The energy dissipation through radiation accompanying an orbiting electron
was considered. Niels Bohr used the Balmer atomic spectra equation, together
with Planck's blackbody quanta, to fit the orbit structure, and it worked.
Quantum mechanics was born. Then the nuclear mass required more than the
proton could deliver. The neutron, a particle without charge, was posited
to provide the required mass. But how did the protons, being of like charge,
stay so close together in atoms larger than hydrogen? The nuclear force was
posited...As we have recently witnessed in particle physics, one by one a
representative isolated particle was found to fill the theory. Today the
matter of the atom is thought to be composed of fermions. And where does
the nuclear force come from? Bosons. And what are these quantities, primarily?
Transitory unstable manifestations of energy. I pose the question again.
Of what importance are transitory unstable manifestations of energy? Perhaps
the question, "Of what importance are stable manifestations of energy?',
might offer more direction.
If we assume that each unstable particle that results from high energy collisions
has a granular physical counterpart internal to the proton, we must also
assume that the arrangement internal to the proton provides the particle
its stability. Why should this be so? Why should the transitory particle
external to the atom manifest as a stable particle internal to the atom?
Because prior to the high energy collision the proton is assumed to contain
the particle and the proton is stable.
Consider the phrase "... the stable proton contained, the now external,
transitory, granular particle...". Consider the phrase "... the atom contains
the granular, externally stable electron." At least in the case of the electron
we have a stable manifestation of energy outside the atom. This stability
figures in the logical construction somewhere, if not necessarily, as a granular
object inside the atom. But in the case of a transitory particle it is clear
that it does not figure as a particle in any logical construct for stability
external to the atom. Why should it figure in the logical construct for stability
internal to the atom?
The question this suggests is, "Is it possible to blow apart a stable
manifestation of energy into transitory fragments?" And if so, what significance
do we attach to the transitory fragments? Consider in the mainstream that
we view the transitory particles as though they have an existence prior to
our high energy collisions. This is analogous to a group of billiard balls
racked together for the initial break. The cue ball hits the group of balls
and they separate in various directions. The pre-existing order could conceivably
be deduced from the ball trajectories. But imagine another scenario for our
original condition. Say, instead of a group of well defined and gathered
objects, like billiard balls, we have instead a hollow, spherical, thin shelled
energy field. When we hit it with another energy field at high velocity,
it shatters. What do the resultant energy shards reveal to us? Energy manifests
in quantifiable packets if stable? Energy dissipates and radiates away otherwise?
Like the billiard ball results, all we can really hope to�deduce is
its original shape. But if it is stable, we already know its shape by the
principle of�least action.
If we view both the electron and the transitory particle in terms of energy,
each figures as a quantity in the logical construct, internal and external
to the atomic field. How does this energy manifest internal to the atom in
the case of the electron? How does it manifest in the case of the transitory
particle? The atomic field forces that are assumed to provide internal stability
to the transitory particle energy, also must provide internal stability to
the electron energy. Often is the case where the external transitory particle
decays into an electron, together with the unobserved but m athematically
supplied, epicycle type
If the electron falls as we know it (as an internal atomic duplicate of its
external to the atom manifestation) then so too does the proton and neutron
fall. It is not a case where these additional particles as defined, lend
support to the electron as defined. These particles are the direct mathematical
consequence of the electron. A statement which a mathematician might use
to prove the existence of all three. But its a boot strap operation. If the
electron falls, they all fall. None prove the existence of the other. All
are operational in the mathematical quantitative build.
The subsequent issues of this publication will argue to replace the internal
atomic electron, proton and neutron. In the modification, the proton will
retain its hydrogen ion status, the electron, its external to the atomic
field status, but the neutron will be accounted for as a consequence of the
structure of the proton. If these pillars of atomic physics fall however,
so too does the photon. Which brings us first to the idea of,
Black
Body
Radiation
There exists a line of thought that emanates from a phenomena called black
body radiation. A black body is a generalization that represents a theoretical
radiator of energy. The physical counterpart to the idea is the specific
curve of a graphic function in two dimensions that represents the wavelength
and intensity of radiation at different temperatures. While the temperature
and frequency may vary across types of matter, the shape of the curve stays
the same. This curve maintains its shape regardless of the radiating body.
The shape of this curve had not been derived using classical mathematical
methods.
In 1900 Max Planck put forward an exceedingly simple
equation for the curve: [E=nhf]. There was a caveat however. To arrive at
this description of the black body curve, Planck had to postulate that the
energy [E] could be emitted only in certain discrete values divisible by
multiples of Planck's constant [h], where the number [n] must be an integer
like 1, 2, 3... Here [f ] is the frequency of the light in seconds, and [h]
is the number that is now called Plank's constant. From the experimental
data Planck found that [h] was about 6.6 x 10-34 joule seconds.
The equation states that Energy is emitted in whole integer units of [hf
]such that [E/hf=n], or in words the Energy divided by the product of ,the
frequency and Planck's constant [hf], must always equal a whole number like
1,2,3,4... to represent the number of [hf ] units. The classical definition
for energy is [mgh] and [mv
Even though the electron had been shown to be a standard unit of energy emitted
by all atoms, the idea that energy must come in discrete amounts [hf] remained
hard to take. Even with the data accompanying the photoelectric effect and
the quantum mechanics, it was easier to assume that the electron is an object
inside and outside the atom, than to regard the electron as an energy packet
outside the atom, and bound energy inside the atom.
Transitory
Particles