The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 9c update 2
johnlawrencereedjr
Modified June 6, 2009, October 31, 2009, June 8, 2010, June 19, 2010
John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
Section 9c update 2, August 29, 2010
johnreed take 25
The Atom as a Compacted Electromagnetic Field Structure - Part 3
Modified September 30, 2008, October 31, 2009
1 Introduction
We have two structures in physics that "jump" out at us. The planet
orbits and the electromagnetic field structures. We have assumed that
atomic structure consists of discrete charged particles in
equilibrium, akin to our "object-space" classical gravitational model,
where the pure data reflects a composition that consists of
electromagnetic field structures.
Heisenberg gave us the limits that our "object-space" charged
particles in equilibrium view of atomic structure, set for us. The
Uncertainty Principle tells us that we cannot show that the electron
exists as a charged particle inside the atom.
All we can presently get inside the atom, is the collapse of a wave
function which, when taken literally, seeks its own regeneration and
can manifest as charge, where the momentum and location of an emitted
or absorbed electron depends on where the wave orbital collapses or
where it is regenerated, from inside the atom. We call a regenerated
state, a stationary state for an orbiting electron object, or a stable
standing wave orbital state. We view the process as a "jump" for the
electron object orbital trajectory. This was an ad hoc determination
to produce the mathematics to fit with the discrete element spectra.
2 Neils Bohr
Consider the idea for the electron "jumps" first put forward by Neils
Bohr. Viewing the electrons as orbiting the atomic nucleus (as planets
orbit the sun), Bohr theorized that when light (a photon) was absorbed
by the atom one of its electrons "jumped" to a higher energy orbit
(further from the nucleus). This was offered as a means to explain the
discrete spectra specific to the hydrogen atom. Since here the atom
only emits light (a photon) when it "jumps" back to its original
(stationary state) orbit, it served to explain the discrete spectra of
the hydrogen atom in terms of our perennial 20th century assumed
internal orbiting electron.
3 Atomic Structure as an Electro-magnetic Dipole
Think of an atomic structure modeled on the principle of a magnetic
dipole. Inside the atom, a wave orbital, as opposed to Heisenberg,
more closely describes conceptually what is happening. For example:
The collapse of a wave orbital occurs when we cause it to collapse. A
wave orbital can collapse internal to the atom and release an energy
packet. A wave function can collapse into the atom to regenerate a
collapsed wave.
We can view this as a result of our interference or as a property of
the atom, or as both. In either case, it is a wave orbital itself that
fundamentally pre-exists inside the atom and its collapse creates the
emitted particle and as it regenerates it absorbs the energy
equivalent (frequency of EMR) of the particle it emits. This energy
equivalent emission and absorption is a function of the atom's wave
orbital frequency and/or spin rate.
Viewing atomic structure in the picturesque form of a magnetic dipole
where each loop represents a standing or rotating wave orbital at a
fixed frequency. The wave orbital shell can be spinning around the
nucleus and retain a standing wave relationship within the shell. The
inside perimeter of each wave orbital is connected to, and/or, passes
through the nucleus. The atom will absorb a specific frequency of EMR
with the rotation of the standing wave orbitals under constant
external exposure if the rotation is in resonance with the externally
applied EMR, and will contain that energy for one revolution,
whereafter it emits the excess energy as a so called photon.
In some cases under constant exposure the energy will be released as
an electron (Photo Electric Effect). Where, in the photoelectric
effect, although the atom always releases its standard packet of
interchangeable energy (the electron), the momentum of the packet can
vary to accommodate the collapse point on the orbital plane where the
electron exits the atom (the integrity of the orbital plane is
maintained by the mutual repulsion between the planes), viewed in
terms consistent with the resonance of the wave orbital rotation. Or,
to accommodate the release of excess energy that is not sufficient to
cause a standard electron packet to be emitted by the atom.
The release or absorption location can be precisely determined from
the frequency, and spin rate of the wave orbital, and the radius of
the wave orbital, when gauged against the momentum of the electron
packet on emission or absorption.
In the compacted electromagnetic model for atomic structure, both the
location and the momentum of the electron are defined precisely by its
point of exit or entry on the rigidly arranged orbital planes, and in
cases, less precisely on the most external orbital plane.
Which provides a controlling resonance, orbital wave spin metric, for
the emission and absorption of discrete quantities of energy in terms
of frequency alone, in Planck units. No imaginary but causal impacting
photons are required. No internal orbiting electron is required.
An oscillating (or rotating) electromagnetic atomic field, wave
orbital, would be selective with regard to the frequency of the
radiation it could absorb and emit. The resonance fit can be
conceptually viewed as similar to an old time department store
partitioned revolving door that limits the rate at which each person
and the number of persons can enter and exit in the course of one
complete revolution. The crucial conceptual difference is that the
emitted or absorbed energy packet either collapses or regenerates an
internal atomic wave orbital. In the case of regeneration it can be
caused by the collapse of an external wave (double slit phosphor
screen experiments).
Again, a way to conceptually view the mathematics here is as follows:
while the atom is stable its electron energy is dispersed inside the
wave orbital. Where it is emitted from, and where it is absorbed into,
reflect its instantaneous velocity as a function of the spin rate of
the wave orbital at that location.
There is a maximum amount of excess energy the atom can retain and
remain stable. At this threshold the atom releases the energy, on the
fly, in a form set by the stable atom itself.
Here we account for the "jump" and the "collapse" within one
revolution of the wave orbital. We can see through this model that the
"jumps" are not discontinuous but depend on the frequency (and/or
rotational spin rate) of the atomic wave orbital.
Presently in our orbiting electron object-space model, we are reduced
to probabilities that are consistent with the electromagnetic atomic
field structure dimensions, partially defined by frequency and
wavelength and Planck's constant as a conversion factor to energy. We
convert this into our object-space classical quantities by redefining
the electromagnetic controlling properties, consistent with units that
represent stationary state orbitals, that are multiples of Planck's
constant. Here we are essentially converting atomic natural phenomena
currency in the wrong direction.
The electromagnetic dipole structure of the atom can quantitatively
account for the discrete spectrum frequencies of all atoms built to
fit the periodic table data. The discrete spectrum bar codes for each
atom can be predicted from the orbital wave model massaged to fit a
dipole model. This model will be consistent with any viable quantum
mechanical model.
When we build the atom from electromagnetic fields it turns out that
atomic structure does follow from Schrodinger's least action
consistent wave mechanics. It also follows from Heisenberg's matrix
mechanics in a more precise manner, and in a manner that, for the true
believers in a literal mathematical veracity, may provide a
mathematical direction for time.
We must build the atom structurally consistent with wavelike
quantities. A compacted electromagnetic field structure rather than an
electromagnetic field generated by a cobbled together object-space
construction representing charged particles in equilibrium. Our
conundrums are then greatly alleviated and a clarity falls out of
quantum mechanics that can be visualized.
To see this we must "truly" abandon our object-space "particles in
equilibrium" view of atomic structure and build the atom from
compacted and "massaged" electromagnetic fields [3] (recall again from
Sections 9a-9b that our conceptual view for atomic structure here is a
massaged magnetic dipole). This construct will be consistent with our
scattering experiments from Compton [4] to 2005.
4 Supporting History
The idea that an external radiation field existed, was put forward by
John C. Slater and picked up by Bohr and Kramers. The collusion
between the three became known as the BKS paper. The initial idea was
that an external field interacted with atoms internally, governing the
way the atom absorbed and emitted energy. This was later modified to
include the idea that the atom acted internally as though it consisted
of a group of "virtual oscillators".
"We will assume that a given atom in a certain stationary state will
communicate continually with other atoms through a time-spatial
mechanism which is virtually equivalent with the field of radiation
which on the classical theory would originate from the virtual
harmonic oscillators corresponding with the various possible
transitions to other stationary states." BKS Paper, 1923 as quoted in
"Uncertainty", 2007, David Lindley.
Translating the above, it states that an atom is composed of
oscillators that match aspects of the external radiation field such
that an interchange between the two occurs, that is sufficient to
explain the observed "emission and absorption" spectra. This
complementary radiation field served to replace the idea for light
quanta. If Bohr had articulated these ideas more precisely he might
have stumbled upon (as I did) an electromagnetic field structure for
the atom.
For reasons I will not entertain here, by 1925 Bohr abandoned the BKS
paper (most likely due to the ongoing exchange of ideas he maintained
with Heisenberg). The idea was continued by Kramers who rigorously
demonstrated that the atom's absorption and emission of energy at a
certain frequency could be precisely matched to the spectra data if
the atom contained a specific set of "virtual" oscillators.
The physics for oscillations was successfully used to explain the
spectral lines of the atom, absent any attempt to describe the
structural aspect in detail. This idea for virtual oscillators is a
forerunner of what is now called string theory.
On the face this is a major clue that supports an atomic
electromagnetic field structure. Kramers still considered the idea
merely as a mathematically convenient tool for calculation. The
oscillator idea described the measured spectra properties attendant to
atoms, without speaking to any conceptually clear internal structure.
In my opinion, the experimentally discounted and conceptually
overlooked BKS work provided the best (although there are many more)
clues for a coherent, conceptual, mathematically verifiable, compacted
electromagnetic field interpretation, for atomic structure.
The probability model can serve as an additional guide by which we can
model the wave orbital dipole atomic structure, since both models meet
least action requirements. The electron energy packet is the coin of
the realm for stable atoms. By releasing, absorbing, exchanging and
joining in multiples of this energy unit, on the fly, our stable
electromagnetic surrounding universe is achieved and maintained.
5 The Double Slit Experiment
Consider Young's experiment and others that followed. The electron
emitted by an atom is a bundle of energy from the atom. After it is
emitted and as it travels away from the atom it seeks its normal wave
state until it arrives at another atom in resonance with and in need
of an electron. At this destination the free expanding electron wave
collapses if it is in resonance with its destination. This collapse is
analogous to Bohr's orbital "jumps". This appears as a random action
because of the large number of atoms available on the phosphor screen
within the areas where constructive interference applies. The collapse
will occur at the atom where least action applies.
6 Schrodinger
By 1926 a wave interpretation for atomic structure had been directly
approached. "Schrodinger insisted that a particle was not a tiny
billiard ball but a tightly gathered packet of waves that created the
illusion of a discrete object. Everything fundamentally, came down to
waves. There would be an underlying continuum. with no
discontinuities, no discrete entities. There would be no quantum
jumps. But instead smooth transformations from one state to another
[restricted by the object-space idea for an internal orbiting
electron]. None of this [appeared to] [follow]ed directly from
Schrodingers equation. It was what he hoped his wave equation would
lead to." "Uncertainty", 2007, David Lindley. (text in brackets added
by johnreed.)
Erwin Schrodinger developed his wave function, patterned on the ideas
of Louis de Broglie. Schrodinger provided an improved idea for
standing waves inside the atom that had to resonate with the light it
absorbed and emitted. It is likely that this would have been further
expanded to meet a dipole model had it not been for Max Born who
proposed that Schrodinger's wave function represents the probability
of finding the assumed internal electron inside the atom at a
particular location.
Born essentially continued the assumption that the electron maintains
a granularity inside the atom. He concluded that Heisenberg's and
Schrodinger's work proved that we could never precisely understand
atomic phenomena and therefore we must use statistical mechanics to
accomodate our continual assumption for an orbiting electron object.
From here quantum mechanics became the fundamental interpretation for
atomic reality. Insofar as it reflects our limitations and our
preformed notions, the presumption is flawed. It is merely a means by
which we can make predictive use of events of which we have no
comprehension. To suggest otherwise is a continued misuse of the
mathematics.
As a consequence the overtly recognized idea for discrete charged
electrons in orbit was soon to be quasi-abandoned and permanently
enshrined in our conceptual scientific view. Replaced by the
statistical probability of finding that object-space pre-existing
charged electron at a particular location inside the atom.
Supported by Bohr, Born and Heisenberg and opposed by Schrodinger and
Einstein, Boltzman's otherwise brilliant statistical approach was
appropriated and became the scientifically accepted model for the real
nature of the universe. A statistical mathematical solution turned
into a blind religion.
7 Discussion
It is not my intent to prove anything here. Aside from the subjective
functionality of physical events, all we can prove using the
mathematics is that the stable universe is a least action consistent
universe. It is my intent to provide information. To that extent I
seek only to communicate.
As a consequence of our unbridled faith in our subjectively applied
mathematics, even on the brink of a rational understanding we are
locked into our presumptive "object-space" paradigm, so that we "jump"
at any chance to secure our erroneous intellectual foundation. With
quantum mechanics we define the universe in mathematical terms that
are based on our own sensory limitations. Which demonstrably shows
that we will tend to build the universe after our own a priori image
in spirit, if not in fact, by devising a least action consistent
mathematical scheme that reduces that image to a quantifiable
mathematical statement.
Where a sum of all possible histories as a set of givens, will always
provide a most probable, or least action solution. How important is
it that we obtain a correct conceptual understanding of natural
phenomena, before we blindly incorporate mathematical methods that
lock us into bogus notions that function solely from a statistical
consistency with least action events?
When we base statistics on our inability to locate an imaginary
quantity like an orbiting electron in the name of uncertainty we open
a Pandora’s box of virtual particles with which we can momentarily
fill any pothole we stumble into that we did not anticipate. Contrary
to current belief and practice the UP follows from the field structure
and function of the atom and not from our inability to locate a
nonexistent entity within the confines of its supposed containing
theater. Consequently the UP does not give us a blank check to justify
any thing that fits into our object-space erroneous view of the
universe.
This does not detract from the Boltzmann statistical probability
approach which is a least action approach in all its guises. However,
least action approaches provide no valid foundation for the pure
fantasy ideas popularized by Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, and others.
Again, this does not make the statistical approach void of value. In
an electromagnetic oscillating atomic field that creates and absorbs
electron packets on the fly the statistical approach still offers a
most probable or least action solution with regard to the emitted or
absorbed electron. The present and resolvable uncertainty is tied to
the electromagnetic atomic structure and function itself, rather than
to our inability to locate a non existing entity.
8 Author's Afternote
The questions we ask today to provide answers for the future, are
based on the conclusions of the present. The conclusions of the
present rest on our a priori assumptive foundations, and an attendant
supporting least action consistent mathematics. As long as our
assumptive foundations operate within least action principles
anonymously (independently), the applied mathematics will predict the
relevant experimental results. Not because the mathematics is a
crystal ball on the universe, but because natural stable systems are
least action systems and the mathematics represents least action well.
Consequently we can have similar least action systems where the
comparative dynamics are not necessarily proportional with respect to
time and space (3). This, in addition to our least action consistent
quantum mechanical models that solely represent statistical
probabilities for measured least action events.
The math reflects the least action characteristics of the stable
universe. The quantities that operate within this least action
universe are considered fundamental if they are conserved. The
property of being conserved within a least action universe means that
the property operates within the least action parameters without
effect (except as we might sense [quantify] their existence. This does
not make them causal outside of our interaction with them.)
For several centuries we assumed that the universe is the "object-
space" mass driven world, as subjectively [3] quantified by Isaac
Newton. This was consistent with the world we perceived and measured
and quantitatively interacted with, as planet surface inertial
objects. We sought the nature of this universe in terms of components
of planet surface matter, quantified in terms of resistance (mass)
within a field of space.
An "object-space" view of the universe where a notion for time
direction developed from the time lines of our lives. We are born. We
live. We die. We "durate" in a direction beginning at birth and ending
at death. We applied this subjective sense of duration as an arrow of
time, to our least action consistent classical gravitational view of
the universe in terms of the big bang, entropy, and beginnings and
endings.
Where in an electromagnetically controlled universe the dissipation of
energy becomes a cyclic phenomenon. And in fact the objective primary
physical measured counterpart of time is repetitive duration. This
cyclic controlling aspect of time, with regard to stable system
action, was obscured by our subjective notion for a direction in time,
and to our quantitative, but nonetheless subjective notion for planet
surface mass generated gravity. The time-space connection was
virtually amalgamated with our coordinated Cartesian construct for
dimension direction, as a fourth so called space-time dimension by
Einstein and peers. In a least action universe space and time, (and
the spacetime geodesic) and mass and force, will reflect or operate
within the least action principles, where a subjective interpretation
of these quantities can easily ensue. Einstein attached great
significance to our subjective view, but that is the focus of another
post.
Endnotes
[1],[2],[3] If the reader wishes to review my earlier posts on atomic
structure, gravity, the measure of light speed, dark matter, etc.,
etc., and etc., she/he can do a Google.group search on "johnreed
take". Then sort by date to avoid my many earlier, more primitive
attempts to succinctly articulate these connecting ideas.
[3] Also see the paper by Andre Michaud at: http://www.wbabin.net/science/michaud1.pdf
[4] Here you must read the small print accompanying Compton's
experimental results. Which I am not able to locate in my notes at
this time. It is mentioned, but glossed over in many introductory
physics texts.
johnreed, October 31, 2009, June 17, 2010
I have made it easier to reference my supporting work by creating a
Google Science and Technology Group titled: "The Least Action
Consistent Universe and the Mathematics". Currently it contains
Sections 1 through 9 for reference. The many sub-sections and work
prior to 2007 has not been included. I will develop it further as I
have the time and gain familiarity with the venue. Meanwhile my more
recent work is available for public review to all, and open to
criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. This is a
condition established by Google and newsgroups in general. I seek no
recruits. I provide information. However, there are no restrictions
or requirements to join.
Current web address: http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed
If you respond to this post from a newsgroup other than the above,
please send a copy to Randa...@yahoo.com, if you want a timely
response. Thanks.
spudnik
about the electron. it's just about the impossiblity
of two kinds of measurements, taken at the same time, and
it certainly applies to many "macro" situations (like,
Lord Bertie Was Lying, Then .-)
Schroedinger made an excellent joke about the Copenhagenskoolers,
and that cat stinks to high-Heaven, by now!
thus:
size of sail is not really limited;
tack at a right angle to the wind.
> Yes and directly into the wind.
thus: ah, so; never done a proof by contradiction??
thus: wow, that is exemplary, dood. (of course,
it's in the M&M paper, that they most certainly did
n o t find "no results," however slight .-)
> You cannot have an aether that is
> at rest with any one body. If the earth
> were at rest with the aether at any
> point, then every other galaxy that is
> accelerating away from earth would
> experience an aether flow towards earth,
> and *their* light would be affected....
> Therefore the aether must be
> moving in all directions wrt ALL bodies equally....
> M and M simply disproved something
> that could not be possible in the first place.
thus: Bjorn's change-of-heart could've been predicted, since
1st espoused his views in a Holy Economist guest editorial
-- the only thing that is ever signed by an author in it. so,
naturally, he is a proponent of bpTM's old KyotoTM cap&tradeTM,
and my Rep. Waxman's and my California Assemblywoman's
(now Senator) cap&trade derivatives, a.k.a. "free-er trade
on the free market -- free beer &or freedom!"
and, of course, one of Bjorn's telltales is that
cold generally leads to more deaths than heat,
per annum.
thus: he stole that from Hooke, then burnt all
of his portraits -- "ahahaha,
on the shoulders of that clever little dwarf!" (viz,
Sir I., the plagiarist, Freemason, alchemist-
who-burnt-his-"Principles"-in-an-accident-and-
had-it-"reconstructed"-by-the-RS-with-the-dydx-rectangle
etc. ad vomitorium .-)
thus: Euclid's proof is so simple, that
it takes a truly linguistically challenged individual
to dyss it; after all, all
of math problems are, really, wordproblemmas!
thus: as for ordinary spatial finite elements,
you really need tetrahedronometry; eh?
--les ducs d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net
--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
johnlawrencereedjr
> I stopped at the part about what Heisenberg "says"
> about the electron. it's just about the impossiblity
> of two kinds of measurements, taken at the same time, and
> it certainly applies to many "macro" situations (like,
> Lord Bertie Was Lying, Then .-)
>
> Schroedinger made an excellent joke about the Copenhagenskoolers,
> and that cat stinks to high-Heaven, by now!
> jr writes>
I didn.t stop here. I read the entire rambling prose. But this is
direct to me, I do often stop early on in the posts I read. However,
unless they are obviously garbage I read all of any I respond to. I
cut through Heisenberg by simply noting that we have based our
scientific application of the math on an assumption that originally,
blatantly modeled the atomic structure in terms of objects and a space
they are contained within.
Then instead of switching to the other physical structure that jumps
out at us (electromagnetic structures) we simply forced oue object-
space interpretation on atomic structure through the statistical
analysis of events we can measure and applied the results to our
blatant planetary idea for atomic structure.
The conservation of mass and momentum and energy apply to the planet
surface objects we measure because they are independent of the planet
attraction action. The so called uniform gravitational field is a
consequence of the planet's uniform action on each atom.
EMR is an efficient dispersion of energy. It disperses best absent a
medium. I won't go into anymore detail to accomodate any of the many
places here you would stop anyway. Thanks for the reply. Have a good
time.
johnreed
spudnik
there is no such a thing. it seems that he did not know
about "partial pressures."
> EMR disperses, best, absent a medium.
thus:
no-one has bothered to defend most oilcos,
that they are 99.44% behind cap&trade.... this just in:
The Straight-up National Gas Association,
bought to you buy, Whom?
thus: is Lindbergh Filed *the* airport in San Diego?
thus: as I said, it's very easy to show, either way, and
would amount to a retrospective metastudy.
> Petroleum chains can be either cracked or built with the right mix of
> temperature/pressure.
> So, why can't there be abiotic petroleum? This is not to say that
> petroleum molecules are all abiotic -- only that abiotic molecules exist
> in abundance in parts of the universe thought to be devoid of life.
thus: too little history for the evenescent sea-ice
to tell us any thing -- and too many nuclear ice-breakers!
> It also mentioned the re-establishment of the Arctic dipole.
thus: ATM means Asynchronous Transfer Mechanism, packetswitching, and
that is no coincidence re voting.
thus: Monsters Eat Whiny Children Before Bedtime ...
"nothing but prohominemania, or else."