Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.

johnreed take 25 - August 17, 2008

johnreed take 25 - August 17, 2008 - Physics Forum

johnreed take 25 - August 17, 2008 - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-19-2008, 08:40 PM
Posts: n/a
Default johnreed take 25 - August 17, 2008

johnreed take 25
The Atom as a Compacted Electromagnetic Field Structure - Part 1
Modified August 17, 2008

Although I have previously posted my ideas on atomic structure,
explaining how I got here seemed to be a waste of time without first
providing a platform on which to base a wholesale modification of our
gravitational paradigm. I believe that my most recent gravitational
posts [1] are "sufficient", at least enough for now, where I can
develop the rational, preliminary arguments, that support an
electromagnetic, atomic field structure.

As a youth the primary problem I became interested in was conceptual.
In that regard I was a hold out long after everyone else had given up
on anything more than the least action quantum mechanical mathematics.
However, a conceptual clarity was argued and hoped for as late as
1926. During that year it was published in Nature that the quantum
view was not, "the last word on the subject, and that [physicists] may
yet be successful in expressing the quantum postulate in picturesque
form." However according to Dirac "...getting the interpretation
proved to be rather more difficult than just working out the
equations." (The quotes noted above are conveniently taken from the
recent 2007 book: "Uncertainty", by David Lindley.) So difficult in
fact, that we soon abandoned any idea that atomic structure could be
explained in a conceptually clear manner. Preceded by Planck,
Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, de Broglie, Schrodinger,
Sommerfeld, Kramers, Feynman, etc. etc. and etc., by the time I
arrived on the set, atomic structure was explained primarily in terms
of quantum mechanics, and for the most part, endorsed to some extent,
by the legendary and accomplished "illuminati" listed above.

I wanted to understand quantum mechanics in terms of atomic structure,
rather than to understand atomic structure in terms of quantum
mechanics. So I continued to search for the conceptual idea in part,
because I did not consider the mathematics as an adequate, crystal
ball substitute, for a comprehensive conceptual clarity, and in part,
because the theoretical physicist mathematician not only considered
the mathematics adequate, but the only true path to physical
knowledge. And to that end, she/he would allow any mathematically
consistent fantasy (not outlawed by the mathematics), an extensive
review. Throughout my search I sought an atomic structure that would
explain the experimental spectra data, the wave function, the
uncertainty principle, and remain consistent with quantum mechanics in
general. Additionally and more broadly I sought a reason for the fact
that the mathematics represents the universe so well [2]. I was never
under the illusion that my task was going to be easy. My goal was seen
by mainstream science as a frivolous and impossible to obtain end. I
often received admonitions like: "What? Do you think you can do better
than the brilliant pioneers that preceded you?" and my often silent
response: "I hope so. For the sake of humanity, and for the sake of
science, I hope so." Yet today, through hindsight, the apparent
insurmountable difficulty is now seen by me, to be largely a matter of


If we investigate matter initially, merely as substance extended in,
and displacing space, we can reduce matter to a 3D object. A subject
partially entertained in solid geometry. What is the simplest, most
efficient, representation for a 3D object? The immediate answer is a
sphere (although a torus is just as efficient at enclosing volume) and
the sphere is in fact the default shape for our particles, in our
charged "particles in equilibrium", atomic structure paradigm. However
the default shape for our fundamental particle does not define an
efficient structural representation for a 3D object. Rather, it
defines the efficient object as a fundamental given. This in keeping
with Isaac Newton's laws on the conservation of momentum, and on
gravity as a fundamental, intrinsic property of matter, and the
indivisible atom of Democritus. Therein lies the problem. We build
divisible matter out of "so called" fundamental indivisible matter.
Consequently we think in terms of fundamental bricks. And like the
lady with her "turtles all the way down" offering, we have extended
our fundamental bricks "all the way down". What makes a fundamental
brick, fundamental? According to Newton the universe is composed of
intrinsically fundamental gravitational bricks within a field of
space. According to Democritus a fundamental brick is not further

How do we know if a brick is not further divisible? We don't, but we
assume that if we can devise a functional mathematical scheme that is
esthetically pleasing, based on the classical "object-space" idea for
the charged particles in equilibrium that we have designated as
fundamental, the property of indivisibility will follow as a matter of
course. This idea for indivisible matter was fairly advanced in the
time of Democritus. It is totally primitive today. The best
conclusion we can obtain from an indivisible matter build, is that
matter is made out of matter. If the reader questions the
significance we attach to a particle's indivisibility, note that our
mathematical scheme for the Standard Model has described
electromagnetic charge in fractional units, to allow our contrived
material quarks the required fundamental property of indivisibility.
Where nature has not provided us even a suspicion for a fractional

We have been unable to conceptually justify our charged "particles in
equilibrium" paradigm from its inception, except vaguely in classical
"object-space" terms. What keeps the charged electron in orbit around
the oppositely charged proton? We have converted the atomic
electromagnetic quantities designated as frequency and wavelength (via
Planck's constant), to the classical object-space quantities
designated as mass and angular momentum, and essentially think that it
is the electron's energy of motion that keeps it in orbit. This,
where we cannot even isolate and identify an "object-space" orbiting
charged electron, yet we explain how it would manifest if we could.

The questions arise: Is matter fundamental? Or is electromagnetism
fundamental? Are frequency and wavelength the properties that allow
the atom's absorption and emission of energy packets? Can we build, as
well as generate electromagnetic fields, with our indivisible bricks?
Or can we build our generating bricks from compacted electromagnetic
fields? If we can build our bricks from compacted electromagnetic
fields the property of brick indivisibility vaporizes. And the notion
for a fundamental brick takes its elementary place in the teachings of
Zen Buddhism, while we seek to build an atom from compacted
electromagnetic field structures, in terms of the controlling
properties of frequency and wavelength, aided by Planck's Constant,
where mass is a consequence, rather than a cause. Emergent [3], rather
than controlling.


Using iron filings we observe the magnetic field structure that
emanates from a bar magnet. If we theoretically reduce our bar magnet
to a single atom and if we retain the magnetic field structure (we
probably could not use iron filings to determine this), it is
reasonable to suspect that the field structure reflects an optimally
stable and efficient state of atomic structure, where atomic structure
in general conforms to the structural principle observed in the dipole
field itself, whether the atomic structure is optimally efficient or
not. This idea is based on the well worn notion of form follows
function and on the idea that an efficient internal atomic field
configuration will generate an external magnetic field. A 3D
representation of this dipole field will serve the reader, for the
purpose of this post, as a general visual example of the
electromagnetic orientation for atomic structure, that I propose. Note
that in this model electric current must pass through the center of
the atom.


Consider that an enclosed area is a bordered extension of 2D space and/
or, a displacement of 2D space limited by a boundary (although
displacing 2D space with 2D space is much like displacing nothing with
nothing, a boundary can be extended by adding internal space). A
circle is the simplest, and most efficient boundary for an enclosed
area. We can combine the 2D circle with another 2D circle, arranging
them orthogonally with each circumference passing through the center
of the other circle. With this construct we can displace 3D space. If
we allow for some as yet, undefined force here, we can view the
orthogonally chained circles as a least action representation for a
locked physical join. If we wish to build an efficient 3D object in
terms of a structured substance extension, or space displacement and
force, this is one place to start. An efficient Occam's Razor
structural representation for a 3D object. Two geometric 2D circles
joined solely to provide an initial efficient buildable symmetric

Visualize the two orthogonal, center joined circles in any kind of
regular, mutually restricted motion for each circular element. For
example, we can set each circle circumference in a circular spinning
motion, allowing that circumference to pass through the center of the
other circle, or we can set each circle plane to travel orthogonally
along the circumference of the other circle, or any combination of the
two. With respect to the time-space properties between points on the
joined circles the two motions are symmetrically equivalent, provided
the motions are constant. Additionally, any instantaneous condition
between any point on one circle to any point on the other circle can
be set equivalent provided a conservation law is generated. Which I
offer here momentarily as an aside. However, note that T^2/r^3 at this
level, suggests that such a conservation law exists. Additionally,
E=mc^2, frequency, wavelength, 2pir, pir^2, Planck's constant as a
conversion factor for frequency to energy, the collapse of the wave
function, and more, can all be "massaged" into, and/or, out of, this
simple, initial structure. A rather nice elementary example of a
correspondence between the mathematics here, and the stable system
least action universe motion in general.

An ordered regular boundary requires a cause. We may call this
construct a representation for a primordial state of matter, a
particle, where the property of extension in space requires some
containing structural principle. The single principle that threads
through all our stable system models is the principle of least
action. Therefore that is the principle I initially bring to the
table. Searching for some semblance of a grounding physical meaning
here, given the join and each circle we can break the two circles down
into two original straight lines. This is where the simple construct
and the single principle get complex. Call them fundamental
(indivisible?) electromagnetic (energy?) threads, that manifest
independently in the absence (or attenuation) of a controlling
electromagnetic field (or in the absence or the attenuation of any
other background or controlling condition). Say each thread is a like
monopole, or unlike monopole, or a dipole (I have a preference here
but they each function in a subsequent build). When each thread joins
as two interlocked circles how do the two circles manifest
electromagnetically? Starting as dipoles, as joined circles they are
identical and may electromagnetically repel and/or attract each other,
depending on orientation. Perhaps as though they are like monopoles,
even as they share a locked physical join. The rigid orthogonal
configuration, each through the other's center, could be maintained by
mutual maximum repulsion of like monopoles.

Or, following the join, do we have one circle contract while the other
expands? This option is of prime interest to me at present. Where one
circle represents what becomes electric current and the other circle
represents what becomes its generated or binding magnetic field.
Developing this construct as a build from rings (circles), the
contracted ring(s) serving in place of the measured mass of the so
called neutron(s) surrounding the dense section of the expanded
(rarified) rings that serve as the measured mass of the proton(s) (or
vice versa). The expanded, rarified, ring(s) separating uniformly
around the now nuclear binding rings as wave orbitals, filling shells.
The expanded ring(s) in the outermost shell(s) can easily collapse to
emit a single electron, and can easily break apart and straighten out,
on the application of electric current through the atomic center. As
temperature is decreased approaching absolute zero the inner shell
orbitals may spontaneously break apart to join the electric current to
explain superconduction.

As temperature decreases or compression increases (events that are
"generally always" opposite in our present "object-space" view for
atomic structure) the innermost shell orbitals may also break apart
and straighten out, to join the electric, current carrying inner shell
orbitals of adjacent atoms, and ultimately, as a change of state,
spontaneously (as a consequence solely of the temperature drop or
severe compression) become super conducting electric current through
many atoms, forming a composite current loop to complete a circuit,
where the formerly individual atomic contracted binding rings, are
repulsed and gathered together on the composite current loop, allowing
the composite current loop to break apart and arrange symmetrically as
orbitals around the repulsed, but gathered from many atom's composite
binding rings, to build, in the experimentally contained, temperature
lowering case, the Einstein-Bose condensate (see johnreed take 6, 15,
and addendum to same). Its almost slight of hand isn't it? Elegant I
think is the word (see the post "johnreed take 23 - Dark Matter" for
the proposed increased compression case).

Can we massage the construct to represent the behavior of dipoles and/
or, like monopoles, elastically seeking maximum separation space
within the restricted parameters of the join? Or as unlike monopoles?
Or do we choose to build it directly out of what becomes electric
current and the generated or binding magnetic field. In any case, the
model initially provides us a simple mathematical construct and a
simple but promising guiding principle, on which to build an atom in
terms of the properties of compacted electromagnetic field structures.

With this construct as is, allowing for the contracted and expanding
rings (circles) and starting with hydrogen, we can directly and
immediately mirror the periodic table qualitatively (recall that in
most mathematical models we use stick figures rather than fully
musculatured and innervated representations) and with the assistance
of Planck's constant quantitatively match (a better word can be used
here) the "electromagnetic" representation to the "classical" object-
space representation, which is another nice example of least action
primacy. From this primordial particle construct, representing an
origin (a seeding) for an electromagnetic field (rather than two
joined quarks), we can mirror the periodic table and anchor quantum
mechanics to a descriptive and continuous picture, that accounts for
most, if not all of the experimental spectra results (there may be
some that I am not aware of).

My partial goal here is to provide a conceptual carrier for
oscillations, frequencies, wavelengths, uncertainty, wave functions,
their collapse, and quantum mechanics in general. My overall goal is
to build matter conceptually from electromagnetism. Once I have
completed that to my satisfaction and provided no one else has
relieved me of the burden, and if I am still alive, I will return to
do the easier mathematical part. It is important to get this
conceptual comprehension out, as I do not think that we can afford to
allow my mind alone to continue, since its taken all of my life to get
to here. The torch must be passed from where it lights the way.


In any event, we have never before entertained such notions as these,
choosing instead to force our classical "object-space" view onto the
universe in terms of probabilities. That is to say that although our
classical "object-space" view has led us into a sea of apparently
mystical probabilities, we have built a model consistent with least
action principles, showing the way it could be if it was correct.
And where our charged particle model runs aground we invent special
particles and forces to get it to float. We just assumed that
fundamental indivisible 3D spherical objects existed, that served as
the efficient bricks, by which all 3D atoms were built. So we built
the 3D atom from 3D charged objects in equilibrium, and 3D neutral
objects to serve as a mass adjusted filler (a Kluge supported by the
identification of a neutral particle found outside of, or emitted by
the atom). In short we built our fundamental bricks from more
fundamental charged and uncharged smaller bricks and we devised
suitable forces to enable them. Planck's Constant provided us a means
by which we could convert the atomic electromagnetic properties of
frequency and wavelength into the classical "object-space" properties
of mass, momentum, and energy. So that the atom is ultimately viewed
as being composed of little indivisible balls of stuff that,
indivisibility notwithstanding, exchange little balls of force. We
call this construction the Standard Model. Not so much as Democritus
predicted but again, like the lady who offered that "it is turtles all
the way down."


We discovered that some forms of matter that we call elements reduce
to the smallest fundamental matter units we call atoms, and that each
atom is unique, as each element is unique. We define elemental matter
in terms of the smallest unit of elemental matter. The periodic chart
of the elements describes fundamental states of matter in terms of the
properties of atoms. We have described the fundamental elements of
matter in quantitative terms that we can perceive and measure, that
define the properties of the smallest example of the element. This is
where Democritus applied, where Democritus had no concept of an
electromagnetic field.

Led by J.J. Thompson's isolation of an emitted electron and supported
by the phenomenon of radioactivity, we learned that the atom was not
indivisible. And because it was not indivisible we concluded that
some, even more fundamental, form of matter, existed inside the atom.
We defined this form of matter in terms of the atom's naturally
ejected and naturally absorbed particles, and in terms of the atomic
electromagnetic shards we observed after high energy experimental
collisions. We subjected the atom to intense investigation and
destructive scrutiny and continue this today. This, just as though we
possess only the limited information available to Democritus.

We reconstructed the atom using the particles and the shards as the
building blocks. We assume that the particles and shards maintain
their discrete existence inside the atom. In the process we invented
more forces to overcome and explain the flaws in our "object-space"
charged particle construction. Never recognizing that the charged
particle flaws required Herculean efforts to overcome, even as we were
led further into conundrum. This even after we accepted the
Uncertainty Principle where we admit that the internal to the atom
existence of our charged "particles in equilibrium" paradigm cannot be
verified, except in terms that again tell us how it could be if it did

We search for the fundamental structure of atoms by destroying this
structure into shards of electromagnetic rubble and then we rebuild
the electromagnetic structure using the most prevelent recurring
shards, which we statistically apply to our "charged particles in
equilibrium" paradigm in terms that convert the electromagnetic field
properties of the atom to the object-space properties of classical
mechanics. Which "pre-existing" internal to the atom "object" we
cannot locate inside the atom, outside of statistical probabilities of
where it could be found if it did exist.


We observe electromagnetic spectra data that is an electromagnetic
signature for each element. To explain the hydrogen electromagnetic
spectra data, Bohr introduced the idea that an atom's assumed orbiting
internal accelerating charged electron could match the spectra data if
the pre-existing electron orbit was described proportional to its
frequency of rotation. Note how our assumption that the electron
manifests inside the atom as a charged particle has us tied early on,
to the whipping post. Bohr does not deal with the problem associated
with our classical "object-space" view but rather describes it in a
manner that conforms to the experimental spectra data. Our "object-
space" orbiting charged electron has severe problems and should be
discarded but Bohr describes mathematically how it could be if it did
exist. This stabilized the orbiting charged electron, by defining it
in mathematical terms that agreed with the experimental
electromagnetic spectra data. A defacto stabilization while carrying
our conundrums forward. With a "jump" here and a "jump" there, this
Bohr atom then modeled the Balmer series for the hydrogen spectra.

The Balmer series was an oversimplification as the spectra was soon to
be shown to be modified by externally applied electromagnetic fields,
into closely spaced doublets and triplets, etc. We had the
electromagnetic spectra of the atom modified by an external to the
atom electromagnetic field. Nothing surprising here provided we regard
the atom as a compacted electromagnetic field structure. This is known
as the Zeeman effect, and was thought to result from internal charged
electron orbitals set at an angle to the external fields causing the
'energy' of the orbit to change slightly. What changes slightly are
the frequency and wavelength characteristics of the atom as shown by
the spectra data, our "object-space" interpretation notwithstanding.
Here we further shelved the fact that an orbiting electron could not
sustain itself in orbit without losing energy (not to mention just its
continual attraction to the positively charged proton), while allowing
the external electromagnetic field to modify that energy, rather than
to modify the atom's electromagnetic frequency and wavelength
properties. Where the entire atomic theoretical construct is based on
discrete, but non-localizable, charged particles, in some kind of
fantasy, object-space equilibrium, enabled by Planck's Constant, and
where the spectra data is in purely electromagnetic terms. Again, the
crucial problem we must address is our assumptive a priori belief that
matter is made of matter. That it is "turtles all the way down."

The ultra violet catastrophe and blackbody radiation forced us to
conclude that there are severe conditions where the atom does release
excess absorbed energy in discrete quanta. We have no absolute reason
to believe that these ejected discrete packets of energy exist in the
packet form inside the atom. If the atom can release excess absorbed
energy in discrete quanta under varying and extremely adverse
blackbody radiation conditions, is it not reasonable to suspect that
the magnitude of the ejected excess energy occurs as a consequence of
the experimentally varying built in frequency and wavelength limits
attendant to the atom and to its compacted electromagnetic atomic
structure. And is it not reasonable to conclude that the atom can
also release "standard" packets of charged energy quanta under a less
adverse and more stable condition?

No one even considered that the electron might not be a charged
particle inside the atom. No one suspected that the electron might be
a "standard" packet of energy that the atom easily releases to
maintain stability, at the collapse of an internal orbital wave that
serves as an interface between the atom and its surround. No one
thought that the electron might manifest as a charged standard packet
of energy external to the atom (as well as an electromagnetic wave),
that the atom readily absorbs to regenerate its collapsed energy
deficient internal wave orbital. Where here the nature of the
"wavicle" starts to take a rational form. This, enabling the atom to
maintain stability, conduct current, and build the universe we observe
under non-severely adverse, reasonably stable conditions.

Of special significance is the fact that the fundamental elements
share a common quantity of energy called the electron, that manifests
as a particle (and a wave) outside the atom, enabling the atom to
easily interface with its surround, maintain its core stability,
conduct current in special cases, and build the universe we observe.
We have no clear reason to suspect that this common packet of charged
energy manifests as a charged packet of energy inside the atom. The
Uncertainty Principle attests to this. Even so, our a priori idea that
the electron exists as a discrete charged particle inside the atom,
set our course of investigation for the entire 20th century. We had no
proof for this, and no compelling reason to believe it. But believe it
we did. Again, we just assumed that it was so because the isolated
proton and electron exhibit a mutual attraction that we measure in
terms of a standard unit we call charge. Holding the integrity of the
isolated electron paramount caused us to build the atomic structure
consistent with our only physical example. The planet orbits. This,
even when we knew that an accelerating charged particle generates
electromagnetic waves. So by our thinking, the orbiting electron if it
is a charged particle inside the atom, should be losing energy and
spiral into the nucleus in less than a second. Since it does not lose
energy, rather since the atom retains stability (remember that we have
only assumed that the electron is a charged orbiting particle inside
the atom) we could easily question the existence of a "jumping",
internal to the atom, orbiting, charged electron packet. More broadly
since the electron is negatively charged and the proton is positively
charged when isolated, if they each retain their integrity and charge
when joined inside the atom, what keeps these charged particles
separated inside the atom? Here it is the classical object-space
notion of the energy of motion that separates the electron from the
proton. And Planck's constant is the mathematically expedient
conversion factor.

Did we question the existence of a "jumping" internal to the atom,
orbiting, charged electron packet? Yes and no. Once we had a
mathematical capability to convert the atomic electromagnetic
properties of frequency and wavelength, to the classical "object-
space" quantities of mass and angular momentum, we occupied the atom
like a foreign invader, speaking the only language we knew. To match
the electromagnetic spectra data the aspects of the imaginary electron
orbits were restricted to specific values, where each is a multiple of
Planck units. Recall that Planck's constant allows us to duplicate the
atomic emitted blackbody frequency and wavelength radiation curve in
terms of energy. Three quantum numbers reflected orbit size,
ellipticity, and orientation, each a multiple of Planck's constant. A
fourth quantum number is based on a half integer unit with respect to
Planck's constant. This is the most external orbital and can be viewed
in terms of an electromagnetic field structure as a less compacted
wave describing a torus around the atom, where its point of anchor on
its boundary, to the atom, passes into and is influenced by the
atomic nucleus. This outer oscillating wave orbital is not
necessarily always rigidly restricted by the mutual repulsion of an
adjacent say, standing, or orbiting wave. With this approach only
certain shapes and sizes and orientation of orbits were allowed, to
conform to the only language we knew, measured in units as multiples
of Planck.s constant. It is significant that these data were
interpretted as though the electron maintained its discrete charged
particle status inside the atom. Where the conceptual problem as I
came to see it, was the difficulty in recognizing that emitted
electrons are particles (and waves), while absorbed electrons are
oscillating and/or standing, compacted orbital waves.
Significant Indicators
Heisenberg gave us the limits that our "object-space" charged
particles in equilibrium view of atomic structure, set for us. The
Uncertainty Principle tells us that we cannot show that the electron
exists as a charged particle inside the atom. All we can get is the
collapse of the wave function which seeks its own regeneration and
manifests as charge, where the momentum and location of the emitted or
absorbed electron depends on where the wave orbital collapses or
where it is regenerated. Where in the photoelectric effect although
the atom always releases its standard packet of energy, the momentum
of the packet can vary to accomodate the collapse point on the orbital
plane where the electron exits the atom (the integrity of the orbital
plane is maintained by the mutual repulsion between the planes). Or to
accomodate the release of excess energy that is not sufficient to
cause a standard electron packet to be emitted.

In the compacted electromagnetic model for atomic structure that I
propose, both the location and the momentum of the electron are
defined precisely by its point of exit or entry on the rigidly
constricted orbital planes, and less precisely on the most external
orbital plane. So we are reduced to probabilities that are consistent
with the electromagnetic atomic field structure dimensions, defined by
frequency and wavelength. We convert this into our object-space
classical quantities, by redefining the electromagnetic controlling
properties consistent with units, that represent orbitals that are
multiples of Planck's constant. Here we are essentially converting
natural phenomena currency in the wrong direction.

A wave interpretation for atomic structure had previously been
directly approached. "Schrodinger insisted that a particle was not a
tiny billiard ball but a tightly gathered packet of waves that created
the illusion of a discrete object. Everything. fundamentally, came
down to waves. There would be an underlying continuum. with no
discontinuities. no discrete entities. There would be no quantum
jumps. But instead smooth transformations from one state to another
[restricted by the object-space idea for an internal orbiting
electron]. None of this followed directly from Schrodingers equation.
It was what he hoped his wave equation would lead to." "Uncertainty",
2007, David Lindley. (text in brackets added by johnreed.)

The idea that an external radiation field existed was put forward by
John C. Slater and picked up by Bohr and Kramers. The collusion
between the three became known as the BKS paper. The initial idea was
that an external field interacted with atoms internally, governing the
way the atom absorbed and emitted energy. This was later modified to
include the idea that the atom acted internally as though it
consisted of a group of "virtual oscillators". The physics for
oscillations was successfully used to explain the spectral lines of
the atom, absent any attempt to describe the structural aspect in
detail. This idea for virtual oscillators is a forerunner of what is
now called string theory.

"We will assume that a given atom in a certain stationary state will
communicate continually with other atoms through a time-spatial
mechanism which is virtually equivalent with the field of radiation
which on the classical theory would originate from the virtual
harmonic oscillators corresponding with the various possible
transitions to other stationary states." BKS Paper, 1923 as quoted in
"Uncertainty", 2007, David Lindley.

Translating the above, it states that an atom is composed of
oscillators that match aspects of the external radiation field such
that an interchange between the two occurs, that is sufficient to
explain the observed "emission and absorption" spectra. This
complementary radiation field served to replace the idea for light
quanta. If Bohr had articulated these ideas more precisely he might
have stumbled upon (as I did) the electromagnetic field structure for
the atom. Which provides a controlling meter for the emission and
absorption of discrete quantities of energy in terms of frequency and
wavelength alone. No impacting photons required. An oscillating (or
rotating) electromagnetic atomic field, wave orbital, would be
selective with regard to the frequency and wavelength of the radiation
it could absorb and emit, as a partitioned revolving door limits the
rate at which each person and the number of persons can enter and exit
in the course of one complete revolution.

For reasons I will not entertain here, by 1925 Bohr abandoned the BKS
paper. The idea was continued by Kramers who rigorously demonstrated
that the atom's absorption and emission of energy at a certain
frequency could be precisely matched to the spectra data if the atom
contained a specific set of "virtual" oscillators. On the face this is
a major clue that supports an atomic electromagnetic field structure.
But Kramers still considered the idea merely as a mathematically
convenient tool for calculation. The oscillator idea described the
measured spectra properties attendant to atoms, without speaking to
any conceptually clear internal structure. As a consequence perhaps,
the overtly recognized idea for discrete charged electron orbits was
soon to be quasi-abandoned and permanently enshrined in our conceptual
scientific view. Replaced by the statistical probability of finding
that object-space pre-existing charged electron at a particular
location and at a specific momentum, inside the atom. Which
demonstrably shows that we will tend to build the universe after our
own a priori image in spirit, if not in fact, by devising a consistent
mathematical scheme that reduces that image to a quantifiable
mathematical statement.

Where a sum of all possible histories as a set of givens, will always
provide a most probable, or least action solution. How important is
it that we obtain a correct conceptual understanding of natural
phenomena, before we blindly incorporate mathematical methods that
lock us into bogus notions, that function solely from a statistical
consistency with least action events? My next post titled "johnreed
Take 25A - Radioactive Half Life", will show this importance in terms
of the many formerly closed doors that have been opened by a mere
change in perspective. In my opinion, the BKS work provided the best
(although there are many more) clues for a coherent, conceptual,
mathematically verifiable, compacted electromagnetic field
interpretation, for atomic structure.


We have two structures in physics that "jump" out at us. The planet
orbits and the electromagnetic field structures. We have assumed that
atomic structure consists of discrete charged particles in
equilibrium, akin to our object-space classical gravitational model,
where the pure data reflects a composition that consists of
electromagnetic field structures. If we build the atom from these
electromagnetic fields it turns out that atomic structure does indeed
follow from Schrodinger's wave mechanics. It also follows from
Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in a more precise manner. To see this we
must "truly" abandon our object-space "particles in equilibrium" view
of atomic structure and build the atom from compacted and "massaged"
electromagnetic fields [3]. This construct will be consistent with our
scattering experiments from Compton [4] to 2005.

Inside the atom, the wave function, as opposed to Heisenberg, more
closely describes conceptually what is happening. For example: The
collapse of the wave function occurs when we cause it to collapse. We
can view this as a result of our interference or as a property of the
atom, or as both. In either case, it is the wave function itself that
fundamentally pre-exists and its collapse creates the particle and its
regeneration absorbs the particle. Consequently we must build the atom
structurally consistent with wavelike quantities. A compacted
electromagnetic field structure rather than an electromagnetic field
generated by a cobbled together object-space construction representing
charged particles in equilibrium. Our conundrums are then greatly
alleviated and a clarity falls out of quantum mechanics that can be

Author's Afternote
The questions we ask today to provide answers for the future, are
based on the conclusions of the present. The conclusions of the
present rest on our a priori assumptive foundations, and an attendant
supporting mathematics. As long as our assumptive foundations operate
within least action principles anonymously, the applied mathematics
will predict the relevant experimental results. Not because the
mathematics is a crystal ball on the universe, but because stable
systems are least action systems and the mathematics represents least
action well. Consequently we can have similar least action systems
where the comparative dynamics are not necessarily proportional with
respect to time and space (3), in addition to our quantum mechanical
models that solely represent statistical probabilities for least
action events.

For several centuries we assumed that the universe is the "object-
space" mass driven world as subjectively [3] quantified by Isaac
Newton. This was consistent with the world we perceived and measured
and quantitatively interacted with, as inertial objects. We sought the
nature of this universe in terms of components of matter, quantified
in terms of resistance (mass) within a field of space. An "object-
space" view of the universe where a notion for time direction
developed from the time lines of our lives. We are born. We live. We
die. We "durate" in a direction beginning at birth and ending at
death. We applied this subjective sense of duration as an arrow of
time, to our classical gravitational view of the universe in terms of
the big bang, entropy, and beginnings and endings. Where in an
electromagnetically controlled universe the dissipation of energy
becomes a cyclic phenomenon. And in fact the primary physical measured
counterpart of time is repetitive duration. This cyclic controlling
aspect of time, with regard to stable system action, was lost to our
subjective notion for a direction in time, and to our quantitative,
but nonetheless subjective notion for mass generated gravity. The time-
space connection was virtually amalgamated with our coordinated
Cartesian construct for dimension direction, as a fourth so called
space-time dimension by Einstein and peers. In a least action universe
space and time, and mass and force, will reflect or operate within the
least action principles, where a subjective interpretation of these
quantities can easily ensue. Einstein attached great significance to
our subjective view, but that is the focus of another post.
[1],[2],[3] If the reader wishes to review my earlier posts on atomic
structure, gravity, the measure of lightspeed, dark matter, etc.,
etc., and etc., she/he can do a Google.group search on "johnreed
take". Then sort by date to avoid my many earlier even more primitive
attempts to succinctly articulate these connecting ideas.
[3] Also see the paper by Andre Michaud at:
[Only registered users see links. ]
[4] Here you must read the small print accompanying Compton's
experimental results. Which I am not able to locate in my notes at
this time. It is mentioned, but glossed over in many introductory
physics texts.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 09:51 PM
Posts: n/a
Default johnreed take 25 - August 17, 2008

"johnlawrencereedjr" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Seen it before. Why are you repeating it? To waste your time again?

Reply With Quote

2008 , august , johnreed

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
qPCR NEWS December 2008 Editor www.Gene-Quantification.info Protocols and Methods Forum 0 12-17-2008 09:03 AM
johnreed take 25 - August 11, 2008 johnlawrencereedjr Physics Forum 14 09-08-2008 12:47 AM
qPCR newsletter August 2008 with focus on PCR efficiencydetermination Editor www.Gene-Quantification.info Protocols and Methods Forum 0 08-14-2008 01:38 PM
Jobs: US - Environmental / Botany Jobs David R. Brierley Botany Forum 0 02-02-2008 10:23 PM

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.26814 seconds with 16 queries