W.S.M. and Bohr's Hydrogen Atom.

[Aireal]

W.S.M. and Bohr's Hydrogen Atom Model.

Any discussion of the atom must start with the electron. W.S.M uses this description 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.

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.

[Aireal]

How is this last post for being short and concise?

I left out my model for proton formation as it is not the only model that is compatible with Milo's work. I do not want to push my concepts over others that are just as valid. Later I will redo that post on proton and neutron formation and cite opposing views still in harmony with Milo's work, and simplify it at the same time.

The rest of the post I felt was not only in harmony Milo's work, but I also felt there would be little disagreement on it from a W.S.M. perspective.

Let me know what you think.

[haselhurst]

I think

a) Short posts like this are great, particularly when linked to very good quality articles.

b) I learnt several things that I did not previously know (now need to think about) which I really appreciate.

c) You are on the right track.

d) The de Broglie wave forms as a phase wave interference between proton and electron, which determines allowed wave states of electron, and has very high velocity c^2 / v which i suspect explains apparent non locality of QT / EPR.

I wonder what others think - will write to Milo Wolff, Mike Harney, et al - see if they can add anything.

Good work - well done - greatly appreciated.
Geoff

[Devino23]

I see the electron as a reaction from another force, resistance to the proton that creates a field around the nucleus. Pressure, kind of like a bow shock when a force such as water reacts to the resistance of an object in the way. By observing bow shock in a medium such as water we can see that the pressure is relieved by first an acceleration around the resistance that creates friction. Then an equal opposite force like a voetex or an eddy. Maybe I'm way off here but I have been thinking about this for a while now.

Can the wave structure be seen as a pressure force from the resistence to an object (protron) and then an eddy or vortex as a reaction to equal out the pressure? I have been trying to find some information on this idea of a Medium Equilibrium, but I only find bits here and there. The natrual state of a medium is to maintain a constant force relative to its area. Such as the air in a room, any release of pressure is equalled out throughout the room. The reaction to bow shock from the resistance of a rock in the middle of a flowing river is out of balance and an eddy is created to equal out the pressure as so to maintain balance.

There seems to be quite a difference in the case of an atom, for one the wave is spherical but there does seem to be heat generated. And then where would the eddy be found? If the pressure is pushing in from all sides of the sphere then maybe the eddy is around the outside of the electron field.

Further more I see the pressure as a gravitational force (pushing inward) and the eddy field around the outside as a cause of a seemingly attraction force to objects free floating or not in contact with each other. It is rather a cancellation of the pressure between the two objects which allows for the objects to be pushed together.

[haselhurst]

Hi Devino,
The above is not a good post at this forum.
Before speculating about physical reality you must study physics philosophy and metaphysics - understand the rules of the game, what other great minds have discovered.
This is a philosophy of science forum, idle speculation founded on imagination, that shows lack of understanding of WSM is not acceptable.
Search vortex on spaceandmotion site (use search option near top of page).
Read on metaphysics - learn that you cannot use properties of empirical things / matter and apply them to space (like flowing water / vortex).

I do not mean to be rude.
These are the rules of this forum - they are there to ensure discussions here are meaningful and helpful (rather than imaginary and confusing).
They offer great opportunity to those who genuinely want to learn.
All the best,
Geoff

[Aireal]

Devino23

I think I see some of the points you were trying to make. Mach's equations first gained notoriety in explaining the shock wave generated when one exceeds the speed of sound. This is about the only thing Mach is remembered for today. Shock waves like that are only produced when an object exceeds the speed of wave propagation for a given medium.

In my model of quark formation, the proton is an eddy that creates a area of high energy density. When a wave front from the electron encounters this region, it is slowed down by the change in density. If they form a standing wave center at this time, the resultant particle, a quark, would form that was a sub-harmonic of the electron wave form. So waves do create changes in density locally, while the energy density of the universe remains fairly constant in the short term.

As for heat being generated. In normal wave interactions this comes from inertia and friction from the wave medium. Energy is just about the perfect wave medium in that it has almost no inertia and zero friction. This is why heat is not detected in this interaction. As Geoff pointed out, flowing water and vortexes are not good examples when extended into space. But you have to start somewhere. When I first came here, that was the level of my understanding also. It has taken time to progress beyond my first simple models, but they did help me to learn, even though they were flawed.

You are on the right track. Keep reading and the answers and more questions will become clearer in your mind.

Hang in there.
Charles

[John Martin]

Aireal

I left out my model for proton formation as it is not the only model that is compatible with Milo's work.

The article I mentioned when I joined this forum does not include the section on proton and neutron structure that was in my paper I submitted for review (rejected as being to confusing).

What I did was to point out that the formula used for elementary particle structure produces radii close to the radii found by experiment for both proton and neutron, but, only if the neutron mass is made up of a proton plus an electron and a neutrino (the so-called 'decay' product of the neutron).

The reason for the small difference between my figures and the experimental radii can be explained as being due to the fact that I had to treat all vacuum field ZPs as being at the center whereas in reality, of course, that is not possible; there has to be some separation (the separation, about 8 fermi; shows up in the experimental data).

I also show that the triangular arrangement used in the Standard model is questionable. My proposed assembly is one quark in the center with two quarks forming a shell. (i.e. a repeat of atomic structure)

Each particles is a vacuum field with vacuum force carrier (think of this as something and nothing. One is subject to inertia (force carrier/something) and one is not (vacuum/nothing). It is the something (matter/Higgs field? call it what you like) that forms the wave creating wave force. Waves can of course be transfered from particle to particle creating an in/out system; but that does not arise in my work.

I look forward to seeing your explanation of the proton please make sure it is mentioned on this forum.
elas

[Aireal]

John Martin

Again I am amazed at how much we think alike. I understand the small difference in radii due to having to treat all fields as being at the center. You are correct that in reality, that is not possible, there must be some separation.

Harry Costas and myself talked about this on the thread Compact Star Cores http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/compact-star-cores-vt614.html

Normally this separation is about 8 fermi, as shown in experimental data. This may shrink in star cores, but they will not all exist at the center, some distance will be maintained.

I also agree with you that the triangular arrangement used in the standard model is questionable, and that you have arrived at the correct configuration. In my post on wave propagation I used 3 different models that all gave me the same result. One quark would be at the center, and the other two quarks are in a shell around it.

Here is an early post of mine on the proton and quarks, http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/fractional-waves-vt706.html
I have done some more work since then, but have not posted on it yet.

Keep up the good work.
Charles