A Semi-classical View Of An Electron In Hydrogen Orbit

A Semi-Classical View of an Electron in Hydrogen Orbit Salvatore Gerard Micheal, Natural Philosophy Alliance, 21/MAR/2009 Many within NPA won’t understand or appreciate this model because of a lack of interest or appreciation of engineering perspectives. Most conventional physicists will dismiss it for standard reasons which don’t need to be rehashed here. This general neglect is unfortunate because here we have an idea that has been ‘lurking in the wings’ for many years but dismissed for various reasons by various groups and individuals because of their own delusional rationalizations. This idea has the potential to resolve, once and for all, the electron orbital question and more. Not only is this a model of hydrogen but implicit is a model of all atoms and molecules. In addition, implicit in the model is a nuclear model and model of improperly named space-time (better called Time and space). A wonderfully intelligent computer scientist turned her attention toward physics in the last years of her life; her name was Caroline H. Thompson. Her work in physics culminated with the result that, in layman’s terms, locality is not dead. Her work basically indicated that non-locality is not the exclusive and ultimate truth of our existence. Please study her research if you doubt my words. Over the years, I have developed my own view of time and space culminating in a construct I refer to as Iam space (with obvious spiritual connotations). Essentially, I have borrowed concepts from engineering, importing them into my study of physics, and adapting them to the study of elementary particles. When I say elementary particles, I’m very restrictive in my phrasing: I mean only proton, electron, neutrino, and photon. These are the only truly stable particles and no direct evidence indicates otherwise. When we smash beams of particles together in the ‘heart’ of a synchrotron, such as the LHC or Tevatron, what are we doing? We are creating short-lived particles and trying to understand speculated constituents. Quark theory and QED (quantum electrodynamics) are amazingly successful at predicting the outcome of these experiments. But that in itself does not make the Standard Model correct or even desirable. Many conventional physicists have expressed their displeasure with the Standard Model calling it ugly or other appropriate colorful adjective. Unfortunately, machines such as the LHC are very expensive toys for the elites of convention to play with. Unfortunately, the public ‘paying the bill’ has been led astray by jargon and fancy theories which appear comprehensive and rational but are actually delusional and ego-reinforcing for the aforementioned elites. This essay is not about the history of how we have been led astray. It is about this model that has been around for many years disregarded and dismissed by convention and more recently – even so-called dissident groups such as NPA. The model occurred to me after studying models of orbital electrons created by: Bruce Harvey, David Bergman, and Markus Lazar. Whatever their affiliations or religious beliefs, these are practical men. They essentially employ engineering perspectives in their approach toward the atom. They inspired me. So if any accolades are forthcoming, it is they who should receive.

(It should be noted that David Bergman is not the originator of his ring model of atomic structure just as John Koza is not the originator of genetic programming. However, they are both good examples of academics popularizing neglected useful concepts. In this respect, they both deserve mention.) One more final remark and I will dive into the model with you. Richard Feynman was perhaps the greatest physicist of all time. He did more for quantum mechanics, the Standard Model, and physics in general than any other human in history. I am like a flickering candle next to his enduring beacon. I’m very serious here. This man deserves our ultimate praise and respect. However (and I’m sure you anticipated this), he was restricted by conventional motif. He simply could not think outside the box; his brilliance was confined. His particulate theory was so successful because it is a self-interacting theory mirroring a more accurate picture of reality: Time and space. This is the core of the model and deserves some explanation. In this view, space is somewhat secondary and is simply a ‘playground’ for electromagnetic/mechanical events. Space is strictly Euclidean and has no properties other than dimensionality. Space is flat and no speculation is offered regarding any proposed ‘containing space’ such as a hyperMobius loop or hyper-sphere. Time, on the other hand, is perhaps the most important quality of our Universe. Time may be complex (in the sense of Minkowski). But it may have more features than convention supposes. It may contain the quality typically called ‘impedance of space’ (or simply impedance). It may also possess elasticity. Combining these two qualities mathematically is somewhat straightforward if we adopt engineering approaches. The simplest construct embodying both qualities is Iam space: (x,y,z,Zit,C) where (x,y,z) is a point in Euclidean space, Zit is the factor encoding the impedance of media at (x,y,z), and C represents temporal curvature at (x,y,z). These are developed and explained in other papers and booklets available at pdfcoke.com/sam_micheal For simplicity, let c=1. This is fairly standard in the study of elementary particles. I won’t go further in simplification because I need to show how the fundamental constants display themselves within the atom. Bohr was right about the size of hydrogen. And this essay is not about why. Simply, I’m not God; I didn’t design the Universe; I don’t know why the ‘fundamental constants’ are exactly the values they are. But I can tell you how the constants fit together ‘in the big picture’ such as the relationship between elasticity and impedance (the ‘core equation’ in N and Omega). In hydrogen, the electron is spinning at speed 1. It has angular momentum h-bar/2. Think of it as a donut or torus. The Compton diameter comes into play and directly relates hbar/2 and mass (which is actually temporal curvature). As Lazar has pointed out, there is a one-to-one correspondence between regularized vortex and screw dislocation (toroidal surface charge = temporal elastic deformation (different manifestations of the same energy)). There is an insidious spin-factor which relates the two. This model is complex and presumed dynamic but preferable to the hideous Standard Model.

So the electron-donut is an example of the only perfect ‘perpetual motion machine’ in the Universe. As it moves, it ‘reinvents’ itself. It’s like a smoke ring you can blow (if you’re a smoker). Or a bubble-ring you can blow (if you’re a diver). Except for the fact the ring never changes size nor dissipates. I propose the speed of ‘donut turning’ (point on inner torus surface moves to point on outer torus surface) is alpha, the fine structure constant. This is also the orbital speed. This has no relationship to spin whatsoever and is arbitrary. (And so a beam of electrons can have any speed desired less than 1.) The so-called ‘speed of light’ is dependent on media impedance = permeability = 1/permittivity. Here, mass = energy and curvature wrt Planck-time = energy wrt Planck’s constant. So Planck is fundamental. The donut orbiting a proton may have a slightly distorted shape and be larger on the outside than on the inside (however, a beam of electrons should be symmetrical). This may be a way of testing the theory wrt donut shape. Of course, there is interaction between magnetic moments. Of course, there is spin-orbit ‘interaction’ (hyperfine splitting). But this paper is not about those concerns. This essay is about a deterministic and fully local view of an electron in hydrogen orbit. It is proposed an electron exists in definite position, shape, and geometry wrt to central proton. That much heavier (greater temporal distortion) particle has the same basic shape as an electron but different geometry (size) or perhaps similar size with different wave number inside a Planck-sphere – these are issues that need resolving. So the theory needs resolution – not fleshing out. These issues are presented more fully in N and Omega. They say electrons behave as point-masses but protons do not. This says nothing about the charge distribution of each. Bergman proposes some interesting models of atomic structures but .. I hesitate to adopt his view for several reasons: he has no desire to integrate theories with me, he’s a creationist and bound by those values, and I cannot commit to a theory which may contradict mine on certain levels. There is also the issue of: if proton and electron have same (but opposite) charge (and by all accounts, we presume they do), then why do they have differing mass? If I state above that energy in surface charge = energy in temporal distortion, why is it different for electrons and protons? This is something that I attempt to address in N and Omega, but without satisfactory resolution. This does not mean the basis for the theory is wrong. It simply means I have missed something critical in my analysis of the situation. That is another ‘beautiful’ aspect of the theory: a brilliant theorist with clever insights may complete this theory ‘in one whack’. I present it to the public not only asking for consideration but also assistance. My ‘flickering candle’ may be getting brighter (with your help).