Hi Kenneth,

Thanks you for addressing this neglected issue. I'm certainly not a physicist, but in my experience I've found that even highly successful mathematical representations of a system may not accurately represent all processes and elements involved in producing the system's observed characteristics. I think most physicists would consider me naive (or more directly, ignorant) but I...

view entire post

Hi Kenneth,

Thanks you for addressing this neglected issue. I'm certainly not a physicist, but in my experience I've found that even highly successful mathematical representations of a system may not accurately represent all processes and elements involved in producing the system's observed characteristics. I think most physicists would consider me naive (or more directly, ignorant) but I do think that physical effects are produced by physical mechanisms, not mathematical abstractions. Certainly mathematics are required to very precisely analyze and describe physical effects, but many people will never comprehend those necessarily complex mathematics.

I would like to mention that I had difficulty understanding your caption to Fig. 6: "... as its transparent cone shows, the orbit extends outwardly relative to the nucleus, intuition tells me that it will to give rise to a stronger orbital magnetism than the 2s state."

I was confused, since all points within the illustrated electron's orbit are equidistant from the nucleus. Then I realized that you were referring to the electron's orbital axis - a smaller orbit does increase the distance between the electron's orbital axis and the nucleus.

The distance of the electron's orbital axis from the nucleus might indeed have some significance in determining its magnetic properties, but I can't assess.

While the uncertainty principle seems to make electrons' precise simultaneous location and velocity indeterminable, established theory constrains their locations to a set of specific distances from the nucleus; I don't know that there should be any problem proposing that they be further constrained to, not just a specific area of a 'shell', but a circular orbital path within that specific area.

However, that conception seems to conflict with the electron illustrated in Fig. 3, where the electron's charge is 'smeared' around it rotational plane. The later illustrations (especially Fig.s 7 & 8) seem to lose the idea that particles are not localized, as expressed in the orbital 'cloud' analogy.

I hope I've explained my reservations somewhat understandably - please feel free to ask questions, etc. Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions - you've undertaken a very challenging but I think important task.

Thanks and congratulations, Jim

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Mr Kenneth Snelson

It was a pleasant surprise to read your article. Your quest for understanding the working (relative stable atomic structure) is exemplary. As you have properly put the question & result of Solvay Conferences of 1927 and 1930 in perspective in these words ' "real" atom models versus abstract non-visual mathematics in favour of Niels Bohr and his Copenhagen world view....

view entire post

Mr Kenneth Snelson

It was a pleasant surprise to read your article. Your quest for understanding the working (relative stable atomic structure) is exemplary. As you have properly put the question & result of Solvay Conferences of 1927 and 1930 in perspective in these words ' "real" atom models versus abstract non-visual mathematics in favour of Niels Bohr and his Copenhagen world view. However, when I was introduced to atomic structure, it was through the Bohr's model for hydrogen atom.

I will try to put across view of PicoPhysics on working of atoms. Now since it is far away from basic concepts of Konservation as enunciated in my essay on 5-dimensional universe, it may not be very clear. Nevertheless here it is.

When we develop the unary law 'Space Contains Knergy', we arrive at some basic dynamics in nature. The logic sequence & this dynamics are highlighted below;

1. For Konservation the reality is required to be measured to a finite multiple of unit of measure

2. Requirement of finite measure makes it obligatory for a natural unit of measure to exist for Konserved reality (Knergy)

3. Natural unit of measure means it can not observed (or measured) as a fraction of this unit. Thus quantization in nature is built around Konservation.

4. Since Space is not Konserved, It is defined by unary law 'Space contains Knergy' to measure to third exponential order.

5. Space has three dimensions (Space of Unary law is hence identified with Euclidean space).

6. Unary law 'Space Contains Knergy' now provides first simple model of universe as isolated existence of identities (composed of Knergy & occupied space) separated from each other by intervening space.

7. Now a static model of universe will mean that space itself is divided into two parts - one that possess Knergy, and the other that don't possess Knergy. This is negated and negation is considered part of word 'Contain' in the Unary law. Thus unary law enunciate a dynamic universe. Additionally the unary law defines the two physical realties 'Space' and 'Knergy'. Thus we can not divide space into two realities.

8. Now all of space shall have a possibility to posses Knergy.

9. This requirement lead us to three basic process leading to dynamics in the universe;

a. Distribution - variation of Knergy density (represent able by real number)

b. Consumption - Consumption of space by Knergy

c. Creation - Creation of space

10. Other static and pseudo static models were considered and rejected as not compatible with Unary law. Improvement on this model is feasible.

11. The dynamic model of universe now leads us directly to concept of instants, traceability, time interval and invariance of speed of light. This is also origin for my essay on 5-dimensional universe with time axis mapped on one of the three Euclidean space dimensions (observed as direction of motion of Knergy).

12. Now since space is not Konserved while Knergy is, presence of Knergy in space, binds the occupied space.

13. I will now jump directly to model of atom skipping the formation, explanation and description of charges and electromagnetic effects, and check where we land

a. The field between +ive charge and -ive charge is composed of Knergy

b. The contents of the same can be integral multiple of natural unit of Knergy (Please note Knergy density and contemporary field strength are proportional).

c. The stability islands are provided by integral multiple of Knergy in field between electron and nucleus with minimal penetration of Knergy unit into nucleus.

d. You may note that field strength looses inverse square proportionality near nucleus due to factors such as rate of consumption of space in the nucleus (mass) as well as matter density at nucleus surface. The space density is higher near Knergy concentrations.

14. Important Notes:

a. In contemporary physics, the stability is attained in multi-particle system by forces acting between particles and reaction there-of. In PicoPhysics the stability is balance between Konservation (Knergy) and relaxation time of object and surrounding space.

b. PicoPhysics establishes interaction between Space and Knergy follows law of refraction (Snell's law). It thus establishes Refraction as the unary interaction – all other interactions are built-on of this interaction.

c. Knergy and Matter are synonymous.

Thus in PicoPhysics natural quantization of Knergy results into Nuclear and atomic properties of Matter. I understand that it is difficult to agree or comment on above text. But I have taken the opportunity to put-in the above to record some of the results of essay on 5-Dimensional Universe.

Please accept my gratitude for the enlightening essay.

Thanks & Best Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Proponent - Unary law

view post as summary