Re: The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 9b

On Oct 8, 7:12 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <randama...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics
Modified June 6, 2009, October 7, 2009
John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
Section 9b

johnreed take 25
The Atom as a Compacted Electromagnetic Field Structure - Part 2
Modified September 30, 2008

Supporting Arguments:

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
least action consistent classical "object-space" view has led us into
a sea of apparently mystical probabilities, we have built a quantum
mechanical 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 mathematical 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. Faced with a literal zoo of
electromagnetic shards we theorized the existence of an ultimate shard
that all other particles and shards were built from. 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
exist.

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 fractional parts of the most
prevelent recurring shards, which we statistically apply to our
"charged particles in equilibrium" paradigm in terms that convert the
least action consistent electromagnetic field properties of the atom,
to the least action consistent object-space properties of classical
mechanics. Which "pre-existing" internal to the atom "object" we
cannot locate inside the atom, outside of least action consistent
statistical probabilities that tell us  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 least action consistent 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 orientation 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 orientation properties. Where the entire
atomic theoretical construct is based on discrete, but non-
localizable, charged particles, in some kind of least action
consistent 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 learned that the
released energy is at least partially controlled by the mechanics of
the atom itself.  The idea that "pieces" of light at certain
frequencies, carried a fixed quantity of energy took hold. We have no
absolute reason to believe that these ejected and/or absorbed 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.
The idea that the frequency of light illuminating a metal plate is
related to the electron emission that results in an electric current
is called the photoelectric effect. Where Planck had attributed the
blackbody energy release curve as a function of the blackbody itself,
Einstein concluded that the photoelectric effect was due to a property
of light.  Einstein converted Planck's "pieces" of energy at certain
frequencies to "photons" of light at certain frequencies. Then using
energy as the means by which electrons were dislodged from the metal
plate explained that only light quanta of certain energy (frequency)
could do the job. In the compacted electromagnetic atomic structure
that I propose both the properties of the atom and the properties of
light come into play.

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 interpreted and represented 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.
johnreed, October 7, 2009

A questing, questioning mind. Hear, hear!
john
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Energy Conservation - Static Field
    ... we see the electron with more energy than it had ... geometry and charge on the plates has not changed so it has the same ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: An Electron Structure?
    ... Eq.to obtain the energy ... that has an apparent electrical charge of one, ... the electron as a structure. ... of a finite electron structure. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Accelerating a particle and photons
    ... just saying you're waving a charge around is not adequate. ... A pith ball is not a charged particle, it can only be a charged pith ball. ... but that just localizes it better than say a single electron. ... the energy carrying it. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • johnreed take 25 - Part-2 - Modified September 30, 2008
    ... So we built the 3D atom from 3D charged objects in equilibrium, ... of mass, momentum, and energy. ... Led by J.J. Thompson's isolation of an emitted electron and supported ... terms of a standard unit we call charge. ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)
  • johnreed take 25 - Part-2 - Modified September 30, 2008
    ... So we built the 3D atom from 3D charged objects in equilibrium, ... of mass, momentum, and energy. ... Led by J.J. Thompson's isolation of an emitted electron and supported ... terms of a standard unit we call charge. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)