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
perspective.

oOo

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
divisible.

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
charge.

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.

oOo

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.

oOo

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
base.

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 ...

read more »

--- On Tue, 8/19/08, johnlawrencereedjr <randama...@yahoo.com> wrote:

===============
Impressing and sad.
Impressing, because of the enormous and apparently sincere
endeavor.
Sad, because based on wrong foundations and thus amounting
to useless rediscovering of boiling water.

If you skipped QM which is a recipe of formulas void of
phenomenal sense and looked a bit at the Quantum Field
Theory (QFT), you would find that it said longtime before
you all what you say, only better. BTW, not only said,
but vastly and successfully applied.

You would see that QFT considers “particle” as a state of
the Field such that a particle detector may register it.
It faces mathematical
problems, because the states of Field registered as
Particles are its singularities and there is no
non-linear Algebra allowing to represent singularities.
All we can do for the moment is to "normalise" them,
procedure no less than dubious in Dirac's opinion:

"When you get a number turning out to be infinite which
ought to be finite, you should admit that there is
something wrong with your equations, and not hope that
you can get a good theory just by doctoring up that
number."
(We need) "some fundamental change in our ideas,
probably a change just as fundamental as the passage
from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics."

This change will probably entail on the one hand a
singularity compatible Algebra and, on the other hand,
the unification of four known Fields,

It seems that these two areas encompass most, if not all
currently possible development of fundamental, theoretical
Physics. If I had your age and drive, I'd move there
rather than tediously rediscover QFT.

Georges.
=============

John - it strikes me a lot of chemistry-physics is exploring something
like what you are on about - with femto lasers and the rest - and is
even managing to stabilise nuclei without the electron fields and so
on.  A lot of this is experimental in the soundest senses an could be
subjected to some rigorous thinking.  Otherwise I agree with Georges.

On 20 Aug, 09:28, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello Georges>
As always its a pleasure to hear from you. I will have to give your
response care ful examination. I will get back asap. Thank you. Have a
good time.
johnreed

On Aug 20, 1:28 am, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello archytas>
Good to hear from you again. I will have to study the topics you
mention if I can locate something I recognize as relevant. Thanks for
the response. I will get back asap. Have a good time.
johnreed

On Aug 25, 3:59 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On Aug 20, 1:28 am, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

jr writes>
As an American I "certainly" recognize your right to express your
unsupported opinion. However, unsupported opinions are as common as
the "tongues" that wag them.

jr writes>
You often refer to the phrase "void of phenomenal sense" in your
responses to me. " Sense" in English has many meanings that cannot be
differentiated in your phrase. Reducing it as best I can, do you mean
by "sense", "logic" or "meaning", or as something that momentarily
eludes me like "smell". "taste" "touch" etc.?

 >and looked a bit at the Quantum Field

jr writes>
This is comical Georges. A particle detector indeed. Are you
suggesting that we have a sub-nano detector that we place inside the
atom? What does your QFT say about atomic structure? Does it assume
that because an atom emits a particle that particle retains its
integrity inside the atom? There was a time that a newborn baby was
thought to come from its father's sperm in miniature and allowed to
grow inside the mother. How far we have come Giorgio...eh?

 may register it.

jr writes>
And the math improperly understood will always present problems
stemming from our incorrect  presumptions.

jr writes>
Why do you expound on high sounding low performing mathematical
procedures in a group that you know cannot be expected to understand
what you are saying?  What audience do you play to Georges? You could
explain what you mean by re-normalization with regard to infinity and
equations. Most readers here can be expected to comprehend the nature
of equations to the extent that equals added to equals are equal. Or
what you do to one side of an equation you can also do to the other
side.. So that if your solution results in an equation involving
infinity, you can, in the spirit of Dirac, add the opposite signed
infinity to the equation to eliminate the infinity by renormalizing
the infinite part to zero. Not near so intellectual as it sounds ...
eh Georges?

jr writes>
Note that Dirac starts here with Bohr's orbit theory.  This theory is
based on an atomic internal orbiting electron. Note also that Dirac
passes into quantum mechanics as a replacement. Where quantum
mechanics permanently enshrines the internal orbiting electron by
defining it in terms of the uncertainty principle. IOW we know it
exists but we just can't prove it. I say it does not exist and I offer
a replacement starting with two orthoganally joined circles, the
circumference of each passing through the other.s center. I quote from
the post that you indicate familiarity with:

Begin quote "...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).
End Quote
Are there any singularities up there?  Any internal particles we can
detect with our sub-nano machine?

Do the best you can Georges,
johnreed

jr writes>
My atomic structure eliminates 3 of those fields Georges. How many
does QFT eliminate? All this is in the post which you could not have
possibly read prior to this response. Why waste both our times with
irrelevant drivel?

jr writes>
The problem with mathematical solutions alone is not just that they
solely represent least action phenomena, but that we interpret the
solutions as universal justification for our so called "fundamental"
quantitative but nonetheless subjective a priori assumptions, that
operate within the parameters of the least action phenomena. This is
most clear with regard to time, space, mass and force, but also
applies to the electromagnetic attribute of charge.

This alone would not be nearly so damaging except that we interpret
the mathematical results as a universal truth that also justifies the
mathematical principles used. For example: we build an aspect of the
universe in terms of quantum mechanics and then we base even more
obtuse extensions on the veracity of the uncertainty principle. From
here we can use whatever fantasy that works, like QFT and QCD. Where
the uncertainty principle is based on our inability to precisely
locate an imaginary internal atomic orbiting charged electron. And
altho' there is a reason we cannot isolate the internal electron, that
reason is because it does not exist. The uncertainty principle allows
us to continue to assume that it does exist. So we can use a quantum
mechanical field theory to describe the atom without direct reference
to the internal electron.  Where it is still our fundamental belief
that the internal electron exists.  Consequently in a quantum field
theory the electron is emitted or absorbed with no greater conceptual
accuracy than the original QM.

I am glad to learn that my conceptual approach can be loosely
assimilated into QFT in your mind although it does not surprise me.
Once we acquire a conceptual understanding we should expect it to be
consistent with all rigorous least action approaches. And once the
uncertainty principle is explained in terms of an oscillating EM
field, quantum mechanics becomes statistical probability mechanics,
and the photon becomes baggage. The BKS paper(s)  reduce(s) atomic
structure to an electromagnetic field (oscillation) aspect of
classical mechanics absent the notion for an object-space internal
interpretation. And QFT with respect to atomic structure reduces to
the classical mechanical aspects of least action oscillations, again
statistical probability mechanics

Altho' Bohr's jumping electron bothered me greatly it was quantum
chromo-dynamics that caused me to abandon the physics of mainstream
science and set out on my own. I have a host of posts on my agenda
that are conceptually oriented.  I am not particularly fast at putting
them together. Therefore at any stage I welcome someone ...

read more »

Hi,

Cannot someone complain to Google groups about Georges, Archytas and other friends?

I'd like to know whether any member likes my stuff or else I may as well get on a Hyde Park
soap box.

I'd nearly given up on whether there were any sane members here.

The particle issue> http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/dk/bohr.htm
Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics N Bohr
"..however far the phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical explanation, the account
of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms." Nils Bohr
The Russians do this too. This is both to avoid cluttering up physics with needless jargon and
to keep the findings understandable by a layman. The paper is worth reading. They know quite
well they are enquiring into the intangible aspects of reality,

Altogether the discourse has moved into fields and with adaptations to math seems now moving
into qualitative ideas. The sequence is quite simple:
- Aether or sea of energy, continuum, formless, noumenal, infinite. etc
- Plasma where sentience creates ?transient forms, so equal to Kabalah formation or process.
- Matter where finite stability occurs and attended by space. To believe anything beyond earth
has to fit earth is parochial.
The whole cycles between finitely tangible and infinitely intangible. You can liken plasma to
the occult astral because after all it only re-invents the wheel. The problem of material
stability is still unsettled. It should conform to appearance or Kabalah Kingdom.
As far as I can tell time is a cosmic background noise like the sea or wind in the willows,
etc. Hence we cannot reconcile space with time, as should be obvious. It's reality constantly
adjusting between frequency domains. The only thing we can be sure about is axiomatic setups
and not ever about reality. It's a risk domain us, it, the universal, having free will, which
is not a force, etc.
As, I think called vrittis, the smallest indivisible part that is nothing of itself [ cf
I-Ching 'hsiao i'] in Sanscrit it's mindstuff treated as units. Diamond Sutra: "form is
emptiness and emptiness is form." This is quite aphoristic as any higher, subtler, faster
action is intangible to the form elected as a focus. Cf Earth and frequencies, smaller than
earth circumference seems moving to indetectible, larger becomes contract or background. At
Einstein speed of light it takes 7 cycles.

Schrodinger and others strongly disliked the statistical approach as not leading to useful
insights. AnD< haha, the above pattern conforms to language SvO as A relation B. Relations are
quite unclassifiable. Nor do we need a top level as sentience or god, it's made up of the
stuff. In terms of language, sentience knowing itself is a paradox, but to itself it's obvious.
But verbs class as transitive, intransitive and reflexive in active and passive moods. When you
call me Adrian, I know dang well who you're talking to and I don't need or like my name as me.
But to you, I will be an Adrian, which makes it non-commutable, hence 1st person although to
talk to me it needs 2nd and about me 3rd. Unfortunately science only allows 3rd person.

adrian

My response praised your endeavor both, at the beginning
("the enormous and apparently sincere endeavor") and at
the end, where I praise your drive saying that IMO
you could use it better standing on the shoulders of QFT
and be creative in avant-garde domains of fundamental
Physics such as trials of unification or singularity-free
mathematical field descriptions.
I got an off topic, ad hominem answer, which I shall
comment in-line in a few most typical places.

================
G:
True. Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Maxwell,
Planck, Darwin, Einstein wagged unsupported opinions and
so do you, thus if I wag, I wag in good company.
Yet, as American, claiming in the following paragraph
an expertise in English, you know better than me that
(un)supported is a meaningless empty predicate unless
specified "by whom/what". In your context it is clearly
"by Inquisition" in the sense implied by Paul Marmet:
QUOTE
...in recent years, the "purity" of science
has been ever more closely guarded by a self-imposed
inquisition called the peer review. [...] Like the
inquisition of the medieval church, it has teeth and can
wreck a career by refusing funds for research or by
censoring publications."

There is not much hope for new scientists to try writing
new papers to rationalize physics unless they accept to
end their career. Some centuries ago, they burned Bruno
and imprisoned Galileo. Even in our century, a dissident
of the Copenhagen interpretation is rejected and called
a crank
UNQUOTE
But there is another "support", by intrinsic deductive
consistency, inductively verified and not (yet) falsified
by facts.
My "opinion" seems to be "supported" in this way. But I
don't reinvent Physics, even if I contributer to SR by
rigorously deriving E=MC^2. I induce from it an Ontology
underlying an Epistemology which culminates in a Logic
confirmed by efficient use in the Gemini Project (sending
the man to the moon) and never so far falsified.
I have direct contact with the cutting edge of Physics
mainly via my daughter Agnes, whom I coached in her
beginnings, who spent 12 years to climb through BS, MS,
PHD in Physict to PHD in Astronomy, and worked four years
in La Silla observatory in Chilean Ands to describe three
new discovered stars. Her opinion confirmed by a frew CERN
researchers whom I know, is that the current state of the
art of Physics consists in 1.experimenting, 2.coordinating
with help of QFT mathematics handicaped by weird
normalisation, 3.never interpreting, in wake of Dirac's
"Shut up and Compute".
So, if you want to revolutionize Physics, you would have
to work for 20 years in some CERN or Silla, do some
original experiments and/or equations. Did you?
Then, with this luggage you could climb to the
hypothetical unifying domain of p-brans, superstrings,
etc.
BTW, it's not my cup of tea, but at least I know why the
most realistic unifying theories are formulated in
10 Dimensions. Not from some Stanford or other kitchen
almanac, but from my own experience in Physics.
Do you?
No sarcasm, but hardly anybody knows, so if you don't
I'll gladly explain.
BTW, below you talk about electric current and its
generated magnetic Field.
Do you know at least what is the mathematic fabric of
the so called "magnetic field vector"?
Again, no sarcasm, very few know and I am ready to help.

I write it hoping against hope that it may start some
rational, even if disagreeing discussion.
If not, let's leave it at that.

Georges
================