My Theory of the atom. Based on Milo Wolf's work.

[Aireal]

There are several theories based on Milo's work. Here is my humble effort.

 

My theory of the atom.

 

The Electron.

 

Any discussion of the atom must start with the electron. I use this description of the electron by Milo Wolff. http://www.quantummatter.com/body_point.html

 

Milo gives a description of the electron as a Standing Wave Center formed by the intersection of two scalar waves. These are referred to as the In Wave and the Out Wave. The only addition I can make to Milo's electron happens after it's creation, Milo only dealt with how it was created.

 

As Milo pointed out, the Standing wave center will have a higher energy density which is the observed energy density of the electron. The out wave of the electron starts at the center and will encounter a change in energy density at the boundary of the Standing Wave Center. This will cause partial reflection of wave energy at the boundary, creating its own In Wave. The partly self sustaining action of this process accounts for the electrons more particle like behavior.

 

The Obit of the Electron.

 

Bohr defined the orbit of the electron as a result of the angular momentum of the electron. It can also be described with Mach's equation. http://www.wbabin.net/wahlin/wahlin.htm

 

This gives us a slightly different picture. The electron is not at rest in its orbit. The electrons orbit matches a wave node so that the energy gained and lost by In and Out Waves equal each other.

 

Bohr's method can be considered the electrons Out Wave to the universe, describing its current internal state.

 

Mach's method then is the electrons In Wave from the universe, adjusting its current internal state to match current conditions.

 

Mach's method shows that as the mass of the atom increases, the angular momentum of the electron will change, affecting its orbit. This is why Bohr's method when used alone, did not work with larger atoms. Mach's method provides a way for the electron to adjust to changes in mass within the atom. Without the In and Out waves of Milo's electron, Mach's method would not work.

 

The Nucleus

 

Protons and Neutrons are composed of quarks. Quarks are sub-harmonics of the electron wave. The electron's wave would have its amplitude changed when entering a denser region of space. Any Standing Wave Centers formed at this time would reflect the change in amplitude. This is why they have 1/2 spin like the electron, and why there are anti versions of every quark. This also accounts for their fractional charge in relation to the electron. Asymptotic freedom and quark confinement are explained also, for details see my paper here. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/what-is-a-proton-quarks-a-w-s-m-approach-vt483.html it is a work in progress, but a good start.

 

More importantly, it shows where all the anti-matter went to. Milo showed how, and experiments confirm pair production, so where are all the positrons? They still exist as the positively charged quarks in their sub-harmonic form.

 

Well don't be shy and let me know what you think of it so far, it is a work in progress.

[Little Bang]

Aireal, you have an interesting concept. Your link on Milo Wolff doesn't work. Please fix it and I'll get back to you.

[Aireal]

Little Bang

 

Milo seems to have redone his site. Here is his home page. http://www.quantummatter.com/

 

I am looking through it to find his paper now.

 

Thanks for letting me know.

[Little Bang]

Aireal, Wolff has some very interesting ideas. I would like to discuss it further after a ittle more study.

[DryLab]

Milo Wolf has some very interesting concepts but to me they have the same problem with causality as Quantum theory. The absence of causality in Quantum theory is what sent me in search of a better understanding of how nature works. I came up with four things that might offer some insight to anyone else in search of cause for the various phenomena of nature.

[Little Bang]

DryLab, your four things is a very interesting idea and the concept also has plausibility on it's side. I'll spend some time thinking about it and we will talk some more.

[DryLab]

I'll spend some time thinking about it and we will talk some more.

I don't want to hijack Arieal's thread so I'll start a new thread to duscuss my ideas if there is interest. I only offered them here in support of Arieal's view. I have a keen mindset for new ideas that realize that all of relativity phenomena happens exactly as it must if the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

[Aireal]

DryLab

 

This is an old thread I tested some of my early work on, so do not worry about hijacking it.

 

I liked the 4 points you brought up also. Most of my work has been on the 1/2 spin particles, so I have delt with the photon no more than was needed. I factor I need to rectify.

 

Charles

[DryLab]

Aireal

 

I just noticed the four points were numbered 1 through 5 :) but it is four because the Square-of-the-Shells rule and the Shell Structure of atomic nucleus are really the same thing.

 

Your ideas interest me and I want to keep track of their development.

[Little Bang]

Dry, the concept still requires that I except, without question, the propagation of waves through something that has no medium. I guess that the theoretical quantum foam could somehow be a medium?

[DryLab]

Dry, the concept still requires that I except, without question, the propagation of waves through something that has no medium.

We think of free space as something. It seems to have the properties of electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. It is out of just those two things and only those that we hope to construct the whole of the universe. The only thing we add is electric and magnetic change :hihi:

[Little Bang]

Maybe I just don't understand. Permittivity and permeability to me are just fundamental constants of free space. I don't see how they give space a substance in which waves can propagate?

[DryLab]

Permittivity and permeability to me are just fundamental constants of free space.

And as such are the fundamental properties of free space. It seems to me that to possess properties, the possessing thing must be some thing. If space were nothing, those two properties would need to belong to something else, like belong to the electric field and the magnetic field. But what now if those two constants are a different value in a strong gravitational field than in a weak gravitational field. I don't know the answer.

[Little Bang]

You bring up a very valid point. Isn't it possible that those constants belong to the magnetic field that permeates the entire universe and that they might change in a strong magnetic field?

[DryLab]

Isn't it possible that those constants belong to the magnetic field that permeates the entire universe....

It is difficult for me to think of them in those terms. Permittivity and permeability are properties of all materials; iron, for example, has permeability in the range of 20,000 where as free space has permeability of a very small non-negavite value that is taken to be a constant.

[Little Bang]

I would bet that those two constants are infinite in a singularity and ten billion years ago were much higher than today. Of course I make that statement because I'm prejudiced toward the BB being an infinitely dense magnetic field.