Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Introduction
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory form the foundation upon which modern
physics rests. Yet some philosophers and scientists object to these very successful
theories, because they involve assumptions known to be false and because they are
mathematics theories that fail to give a physical understanding of the processes occurring.
Both Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory are
based on the assumption of point-like particles.
However, electron scattering experiments, for which
Robert Hofstadter [5] received the Nobel Prize in
1961, have shown that neutrons, protons, and other
elementary particles have a measurable finite size, an
internal charge distribution (indicative of internal
structure), and elastically deform in interactions (See
Figure 1). The size and shape of the electron was
measured by Compton [2, 3, 4] and refined more
Figure 1.
Charge Density of Proton and Neutron
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 1
February 2002
http://CommonSenseScience.org
completely by Bostick [6, 7], his last graduate student. The finite size, internal particle
structure, and elastic deformation of shape are ignored by both Quantum Mechanics and
Relativity Theory.
In modern relativistic quantum theories of the atom and nucleus, it is postulated that the
charged electrons and protons move in their respective shell orbits with specific angular
momentum about the center of the nucleus without continuously radiating
electromagnetic energy. These postulates violate both Amperes and Faradays laws of
electrodynamics from which Larmors formula for total power P radiation from a
moving charge is derived, i.e.,
P=
2e 2 dv
3c 3 dt
(1)
Larmors formula agrees with all the macroscopic experiments with accelerating charges.
It requires all accelerated charged particles to emit radiation continuously while being
accelerated. However, radiation from the orbiting electrons and protons in the atom
postulated by quantum theory is not observed and violates energy conservation.
Quantum models of the atom are unable to show that the forces in the atom are in
dynamical equilibrium for S states with zero angular momentum. Normally some
angular momentum is needed to give rise to a centrifugal force to balance the electrical
Coulomb force attracting the negatively charged electron toward the positively charged
nucleus. Otherwise, the Coulomb force causes the electron to fall into the nucleus and
annihilate itself with a proton.
For S states, quantum mechanics postulates that the negative electron vibrates back and
forth through the nucleus without interacting with the positively charged protons. This
postulate violates electrodynamics laws without any physical justification.
In quantum mechanics the self-field of finite-size elementary particles and their changes
due to deformation are ignored. These are real physical and experimentally measurable
effects.
Quantum theories lead to a 100 percent random basis for events of the physical universe.
This is in disagreement with common sense experience and the notion that all effects are
produced by some cause.
Despite the shortcomings of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory, they have
persisted as pillars of modern physics. Their status is due in part to the fact that they
yield mathematical formulas that accurately predict many phenomena. Also, no better
alternative theories have yet been identified and accepted.
This situation has been changed by three events. The first event occurred in 1915 when
Ewald and Oseen [8, 9] discovered the extinction effect in electrodynamics.
Experimentally they found that when light passes through any media, even the best manmade vacuum, it is absorbed by atoms and re-emitted in such a way that it moves with the
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 2
February 2002
http://CommonSenseScience.org
speed of light plus the velocity of the atoms on which it was absorbed. In 1963 Fox [10,
11, and 12] realized that this experimental evidence allowed the famous MichelsonMorley modified Fizeau experiment of 1886 to be explained by classical electrodynamics
using the Galilean transformation instead of relativity theory. Basically the extinction
effect invalidated the second postulate of Relativity Theory that the speed of light was c
in all reference frames.
The second event occurred in 1978 when Barnes [13] published his remarkable proof
from electrodynamics showing that all the known results predicted by Special Theory of
Relativity (STR), i.e. the change in mass of elementary particles with velocity, the change
in electromagnetic fields of elementary particles with velocity, and the change in decay
half-life with velocity could be predicted exactly from classical electrodynamics of finitesize elastically deformable elementary particles.
Once this proof was published, scientists began to realize that Relativity Theory cannot
be applied to real physical finite-size elastically deformable elementary particles without
always obtaining a bad result. This is due to the fact that electrodynamics is sufficient by
itself without help from another theory.
The third event occurred in 1990 when Bergman [1] called attention to a successful
physical model for the electron, proton, and other
elementary particles based on a spinning toroidal
ring of continuous charge. This model depicts the
electron and the proton as thin rings of charge
circulating at the speed of light. The continuous
charge in the ring is repulsive to itself due to the
Coulomb interaction. This force is exactly balanced
by the magnetic pinch effect due to the current in the
Figure 2
ring. The balance of electric coulomb and magnetic
Spinning Ring Model of
Lorentz forces determines R, the radius of the ring
Elementary Particles
(See Figure 2). The half-thickness of the ring r is
extremely small.
Bergman speculates that the electric and magnetic forces on the ring must in general be
unequal with the electrical repulsive forces predominating at small radii and the magnetic
pinch effect predominating at large radii. Bergman suggests that there are special values
of the radius for which the electric and magnetic forces are equal, but no explicit proof of
this has been given. Furthermore, Bergman notes that the dynamic radius of an electron
closely bound to a proton in a neutron would be significantly smaller than the radius of an
electron weakly bound to a distant proton in the hydrogen atom due to the elasticity of the
toroidal ring model.
Three features of the spinning charged ring model of electrons and protons are especially
important to the structure of the atom. The dominating characteristics provided by the
ring model are first, the physical size of each particle; second, the magnetic dipole
exhibited by each particle; and third, the property that a charged spinning ring, which is
surrounded by static electric and magnetic fields, does not radiate continuously.
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 3
February 2002
http://CommonSenseScience.org
e2
8R
ln
2 o c r
(2)
The value of h is determined from the ring structure by the balance of electric and
magnetic forces. Since Bergmans model is a physical model, it allows one to predict
from first principles Plancks constant h, spin, magnetic moment, mass, and other
physical properties of elementary particles.
According to the rules of logic employed in science, whenever one theory is able to
predict the value of the fundamental constant of another theory and give a physical
explanation of it, that theory is automatically superior. Thus Bergmans physical model
of elementary particles is superior to and more fundamental than all quantum models.
Due to the objections mentioned above to the theories of Quantum Mechanics and
Relativity plus the three events also described above, it seemed appropriate that new
work be undertaken to develop a new theory of the atom and nucleus based on real
physical electrons, protons, and neutrons that have finite size, ring charge structure, and
are elastically deformable.
The New Model of the Atom
The scattering experiments performed by Rutherford showed that the atom consists of a
tiny massive nucleus with containing protons and neutrons with the less massive
electrons on the outer surface. Amperes law and Faradays law require that the electrons
radiate electromagnetic energy continuously if they move in an orbit about the nucleus.
Since continuous radiation of the proper frequency for the electron to be orbiting the
nucleus is not observed, it is logical to assume from
classical electrodynamics that the electrons do not
orbit the nucleus.
If electrons in the atom do not orbit the nucleus, but
rather come to some stable equilibrium distance from
it due to the balance of electric and magnetic forces,
then it should be possible to predict the way the
electrons pack themselves in layers or shells about the
nucleus. Finding the structure of the atom should be a
problem of geometry.
There is a field of geometry, called Combinatorial
Geometry that concerns itself with relations among
members of finite systems of geometric figures
subject to various conditions and constraints. Two of
the important topics addressed by Combinatorial
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 4
Figure 3
Classic Problem in
Combinatorial Geometry
February 2002
http://CommonSenseScience.org
Geometry are packing and covering. An example of packing is the number of equal sized
disks in a plane about a central disk. It is easily seen that six equal circular disks may be
placed around another disk of the same size, subject to the constraints that the central disk
is touched by all the others and that no two disks overlap (see Figure 3).
In the three dimensional case it is possible to place twelve balls (solid spheres) around a
given ball, subject to the constraints that all the balls touch the central ball and no two
balls overlap.
Now in the case of the atom, consisting of a
central nucleus with finite size electrons
packed about it in layers or shells, one can
also use Combinatorial Geometry. In this
case, there are additional constraints. The
balls or electron rings have a magnetic
moment and an electrical attraction to the
nucleus or central shell.
Shell
Size
Total
Electrons
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
2
8
18
32
50
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 5
Figure 4
Equilibrium Position of Ring
Magnets in a Circle
February 2002
http://CommonSenseScience.org
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 6
February 2002
http://CommonSenseScience.org
Additional magnet experiments were performed to obtain a crude measure of the relative
binding strength of whole shells. This was done by using two layers of ring magnets for
shell size #2, three layers of ring magnets for shell size #3, etc., and measuring the force
necessary to remove one stack of ring magnets. The results are shown in Graph 2. The
magnet experiments suggest that shells of 18 electrons are most tightly bound and that
shells of 32 electrons are slightly less bound than shells of eight.
Wood Board
Magnets
South Pole Up
Plastic
Weight
Container
String
Weights
Wood
Pegs
Magnets
North Pole Up
Weights
Weights
Weights
Weights
Additional ring magnet experiments were done to determine how many shells with the
same number of electrons might be stable when packed about the nucleus.
This is done by forming a great circle of magnets for each shell and arranging them in a
concentric manner on a very smooth flat surface. The configuration of two rings is found
to be stable when the outer ring has the opposite magnetic orientation of the inner ring
next to it. When three or more concentric rings of the same number of magnets are
constructed, the configuration is found to be unstable with rings rearranging to form other
sizes. Thus the ring magnets like to be oriented in pairs in all directions. This causes two
concentric rings of the identical number of magnets
to be stable.
From an analysis of the electrical forces of
attraction or each electron shell with the nucleus
and the total binding strength for each shell, the
order of the shells is determined by the
configuration with minimum energy. For example,
the electrical attraction of each magnetic shell with
the positively charged nucleus increases with shell
size. As a result, a larger shell can displace a
smaller shell with fewer charges, provided that the
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 7
Graph 2
Binding Force per Magnet by Shell Size
(Experiments with Board and Magnets)
February 2002
http://CommonSenseScience.org
space it occupies is large enough to hold the larger shell. This constraint allows larger
shells to displace the second shell of a pair of smaller shells.
Taking this into account and noting that the first shell size is paired with the nucleus
itself, one obtains the following shell structure for the atom:
Total
electrons
Shell
Nucleus
electrons at center
2
10
18
36
54
86
118
2
8
8
18
18
32
32
N
U
C
L
E
U
S
K
shell
L
shell
M
shell
N
shell
O
shell
P
shell
Q
shell
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
18
18
18
18
8
18
32
32
8
18
32
8
18
Table 2
Distribution of Electrons in Packing Shells
Note the arrows indicating the opposite orientation of the magnetic moments of the
electrons in one shell with those of another. The structure shown in Table 2 is identical
with that given in the Periodic Table of the Elements. Table 3 shows in detail how the
fourth shell displaces the third shell.
Conclusions
The geometrical packing model presented for the atom is very successful in describing
some atomic data. The approach taken here is more fundamental and straightforward
than the methods used by quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity. The
new model does not incorporate the philosophically objectionable assumptions of
quantum mechanics. It replaces features of quantum models that are known to be
inconsistent or in violation of proven laws. Unlike the quantum models, the geometrical
packing model is not simply mathematical, but it is a physical model with boundaries,
sizes, and structures. In this sense the model satisfies a major goal of physics which is,
after all, to describe matter of the physical universe.
Although the framework of a new theory of matter has been presented, the basic
approach needs to be extended to give successful descriptions of black body radiation, the
photoelectric effect, and the energy levels of the atom before it can fully displace the
quantum models. (Please note that this work has been successfully completed and
published [14]. It will be featured in a future issue.)
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 8
February 2002
http://CommonSenseScience.org
Electron
Shells
Atomic
Atomic
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Symbol
Number
Shell
Shell
Shell
Shell
Ar
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Ge
As
Se
Br
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
10
11
13
13
14
15
16
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Kr
36
18
Table 3
Step by Step Buildup of the Fourth Shell
References
1.
2.
3.
Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV No. 1, pp. 20-43
(1919).
4.
Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV No. 3, pp. 247259 (1919).
5.
6.
7.
Bostick, Winston H., Mass, Charge, and Current: The Essence and
Morphology, Physics Essays, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 45-49 (1991).
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 9
February 2002
http://CommonSenseScience.org
8.
9.
Born and Wolf, Principles of Optics 6th Edition, pp. 71, 101-104 (1955).
10. Fox, J. G., American Journal of Physics, Vol. 30, p. 297 (1962).
11. Fox, J. G., American Journal of Physics, Vol. 33, p. 1 (1965).
12. Fox, J. G., J. Optical Society of America, Vol. 57, p. 967 (1967).
13. Barnes, T. G., Alternatives to Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity,
Physics of the Future, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, pp.
88-94 (1983).
14. Lucas, Jr., Charles W. and Lucas, Joseph C., A New foundation for Modern
Science, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Creationism (Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA ) pp. 379394 (1988).
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 10
February 2002
http://CommonSenseScience.org
Graph 3
Nuclear Density for Various Nuclides [6]
nucleons are added to make heavier nuclides. Rather, at some point, the balance of
electric and magnetic forces in the nucleus is such that the smaller interior shells
rearrange into larger shells that are more strongly bound. Thus, the average nuclear
density near the center of the nucleus drops, because the small innermost shells are
missing.
This observation has been confirmed by a ring magnet experiment in which the strength
of binding of the shell was measured versus shell size (see Graph 2). Using the notion
that smaller shells may come apart and rearrange themselves into larger more stable shell
configurations, the nuclear magic shell numbers can be explained in terms of the
combinatorial geometry packing shells as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Nuclear Shells
____________ Combinatorial Geometry Shells __________
Total Number of Nucleons
2
8
20
28
50
82
126
2
2
18
18
32
18
32
32
32
32
50
50
8
2
2
18
18
18
18
50
50
From Table 4 one sees that the notion of shells rearranging into larger more stable shells,
due to the lack of an attracting nuclear center, seems capable of explaining the magic
number shell-like features of the nuclides. But what about the nuclides in between the
magic number shells?
The nuclides between the magic number nuclides have a number of physical properties
which the physical Geometrical Packing Model should explain. One of these properties
is the spin or magnetic moment of the nuclides. Magic number nuclides have no spin or
magnetic moment, because they consist of only completed (full) shells which are
spherically symmetric. Nuclides with an even number of neutrons and protons also have
no net spin.
In the nuclear shell model for which Maria Goeppert Mayer received the Nobel Prize in
1963, [7, 8, 9, 10] the odd unpaired nucleons in shells give rise to the net spin and
magnetic moment of the nucleus. The spin of a nucleon is a combination of its intrinsic
spin plus its orbital angular momentum (from assumed orbiting motion). The Quantum
Nuclear Shell Model is a planetary type model in that the nucleons move in orbits about
the center of the nucleus and possess orbital angular momentum about the center of the
nucleus. The orbital model fails to predict correct spins for nuclides in 114 out of 339
cases in the 44 page version of Table 5 (see the first page of Table 5 at the end of this
article.)
In the physical Geometrical Packing Model, the nucleons do not normally orbit about the
center of the nucleus. Amperes Law and Faradays Law in electrodynamics require that
charged nucleons radiate energy continuously if they orbit the nucleus. This radiation
would cause the nucleus to collapse and never be stable. In the Geometrical Packing
Model the balance of electric and magnetic forces on the finite-size charged electrons
and proton rings in the nucleus causes them to come to a balanced equilibrium position
some distance from the center of the nucleus without having to orbit the center of the
nucleus. The spin of a nuclide is assumed to be due to the odd, unpaired nucleons in the
partially filled shells. Using the rule that odd numbers of neutrons and/or protons in a
shell link together like ring dipole magnets in a line to form the nuclear spin or magnetic
moment by merely adding their intrinsic nucleon spins or moments together allows the
spin of all known nuclides (stable or unstable) to be predicted (see the first page of Table
5 at the end of this article).
In order to complete the shell structure for all the nuclides that have been observed, the
balance of electric and magnetic forces in the shells must be taken into account. The
mathematics for handling large numbers of toroidal rings spatially distributed and
allowed to deform is very complicated, so this was done systematically in a crude way
through a series of assumed rules obtained by an analysis of nuclide data as follows:
Rule 1.
Inside the nucleus, neutrons polarize into electrons and protons which
participate in the formation of packing shells.
Rule 2.
Rule 3.
Rule 4.
Rule 5.
Rule 6.
Rule 7.
nucleons add.
Rule 8.
The number of neutrons and protons in a partially filled shell cannot differ
by more than 25 percent.
Rule 9.
The number of neutrons and protons in a shell cannot exceed the shells
maximum number for each.
Rule 10.
When the number of neutrons and protons must differ by two or more in a
shell, the difference occurs in the most weakly bound shells first.
Rule 11.
When one shell can be partially filled, or a second more strongly bound
shell completely filled and the first shell partially filled, the latter occurs.
Rule 12.
Two shells will combine to form a larger shell when they can populate at
least 75 percent of the shell.
Table 5 shows how these very reasonable rules work out for some of the observed stable
Graph 4
Number of nuclear shell model failures to predict nuclide spin by nucleon number
and unstable nuclides. (The entire 44 page table is available from the authors.) Figure 8
illustrates the arrangement of electrons and protons in the nucleus of the oxygen O16
atom. One filled shell of eight electrons is surrounded by two shells of protons, forming
a proton-electron triplet. The eight large rings represent electrons, and the sixteen small
rings represent protons, although no attempt has been made to show the ring diameters in
scale. The electron could be the same size as the proton in the nucleus due to its
elasticity.
Note that the Geometrical Packing Model approach is more successful than the Quantum
Nuclear Shell Model. The full 44 page version of Table 5 reveals that quantum models
are unable to predict the correct spin for two-thirds of the odd N and/or Z nuclides,
indicating serious deficiencies in the Quantum Nuclear Shell Model. Graph 4 shows the
failures of the Quantum Nuclear Shell Model by N and Z. Note that the quantum model
is best close to magic number shells.
Liquid Drop Properties of the Nucleus
There are some nuclear properties, such as the
binding energy per nucleon and certain nuclear
properties such as spontaneous nuclear fission,
that the Quantum Nuclear Shell Model has been
unable to adequately describe. However, these
things can be satisfactorily described by the
Liquid Drop Model of the nucleus.
The
Quantum Nuclear Shell Model and the Liquid
Drop Model are incompatible in that the surface
of the nucleus in shell models should not act like
a liquid surface. In the Geometrical Packing
Model, however, there is a physical basis for the
Liquid Drop Model. This can be seen from
Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12. For these figures, the
structure of the spherical shells has been
Figure 9
symbolically represented by a slice cross section
through the center of the nucleus such that each spherical shell shows up as a circle or
ring. Each proton shell is shown explicitly. Each neutron shell is depicted as an electron
shell plus a proton shell, i.e. the neutrons polarize in such a way that the neutron shell
appears to be an electron shell plus a proton shell.
Figure 10
Shell Structure of CA-40
Figure 12
Shell Structure of Pb-208
W/ A = K1
K2 (# Neutrons + # Protons in outermost shell) / A
K3 Z (Z 1) A 4 / 3
K4 (# paired Neutrons # paired Protons)2 / A
The first term, K1, represents a constant energy density for nuclear binding. From the
assumption of constant energy density within the nucleus, the Geometrical Packing
Model has the same first term as the semi-empirical mass formula with all the other terms
being of opposite sign and corrections to this assumption.
The second term takes into account the effect of the surface in reducing the binding
energy. In the Geometrical Packing Model, the exact count of the number of neutrons
and protons in the outermost shell is used, instead of an approximation to that number.
The third term corrects for the effect of Coulomb repulsion of protons on the binding
energy. This is the same as in the Liquid Drop Model.
The fourth term represents the magnetic tendency to have equal numbers of proton and
neutron magnets paired in the nucleus as a whole. This term is proportional to the actual
difference between the number of paired neutrons and protons, instead of an
approximation to that number employed by the Liquid Drop Model.
The last term takes
into account the
odd number of
neutron
and/or
protons in a shell
that are not paired
up. These values
were taken from
the
complete
version of Table 5.
Graph 5 shows an
excellent
leastsquare fit of the
formula to all
Graph 5
known stable and
Nuclear Binding Energy per Nucleon
unstable nuclide
binding energies.
The Geometrical
Packing Model is able to predict the binding energy per nucleon to four significant
figures for the average nuclide. This is better than the Liquid Drop Model which can
only fit well either the light stable nuclei or the heavy stable nuclei [11]. The Geometrical
Packing Model can fit both light and heavy stable nuclei simultaneously as well as the
unstable nuclei with one set of parameters.
Summary
A simple physical Geometrical Packing Model has
been presented to describe the packing of electrons
about the nucleus in layers or shells as well as the
packing of neutrons and protons in the nucleus
itself. An example of this packing scheme is shown
in Figure 13 for the Ne20 atom. The arrangement of
electrons for the neon atom was determined by
hanging ten ring dipole magnets by strings in the
symmetrical pattern of the appropriate shells. Of all
the possible configurations the one that
experimentally achieves stability is shown in Figure
13. This configuration minimizes the sum of
magnetic moments for each shell and achieves
symmetry by locating the electrons of each shell on
a great circle.
Figure 13
The new packing model explains the physical origin of the structure of nuclear shells in
agreement with the observed charge density of nuclides. The Quantum Nuclear Shell
Model l, which is based upon a central force potential, cannot explain the observed
decrease of central nuclide density with increasing number of nucleons.
The new model explains the physical origin of nuclear spin in agreement with practically
all observed nuclei, whether stable or unstable (of the 339 nuclei listed in the full version
of Table 5, even Hg-204 was correctly predictedalthough the reported datum was in
error). Quantum Nuclear Shell Models cannot do this with so few assumptions.
The Geometrical Packing Model gives a physical basis for why the outer surface of the
nucleus has liquid-like properties. Thus, the Liquid Drop Model of the nucleus is
physically compatible with the Geometrical Packing Model, but not with any quantum
shell model of the nucleus based upon a central force potential.
The Geometrical Packing Model is capable of improving upon the Liquid Drop Model of
the nucleus in that it gives rise to a better defined semi-empirical mass formula that is not
ill-conditioned for least-square fitting. This allows the least-square fitting process to
produce a better fit to the nuclear binding energy per nucleon over the entire range of
nuclides.
Conclusions
The Geometrical Packing Model presented for the atom and nucleus is very successful in
describing some atomic and nuclear data. The approach taken is more fundamental and
straightforward than the methods used by Quantum Mechanics. The new model does not
incorporate any of the objectionable assumptions of Quantum Mechanics and replaces
those features of the quantum models that are known to be inconsistent or in violation of
proven laws. Unlike the quantum models, the Geometrical Packing Model for ring
particles is not simply mathematical, but it is a physical model with boundaries, sizes and
detailed structure. Thus it satisfies one of the major goals of physics which is to
physically describe the matter of the physical universe.
Although the framework of a new theory of matter has been presented, the basic
approach needs to be extended to give successful descriptions of blackbody radiation, the
photoelectric effect, and the energy levels of the atom giving rise to absorption and
emission spectra before it can more fully qualify to displace the quantum models[15].
Also, the Geometrical Packing Model needs to be extended to develop a new,
comprehensive theory of elementary particles that can displace the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, the Supersymmetric String Model, and Quantum Mechanics on all
size scales. This work is currently under way and promises to be just as successful as the
Geometrical Packing Model.
References
1. Bergman, D. L. and Wesley, J. P., Spinning Charged Ring Model of Electron
Yielding Anomalous Magnetic Moment, Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 1, No. 5,
pp. 63-67 (Sept/Oct 1990).
2. Compton, Arthur H., American Physical Society address December 1917, Physical
Review Series II, p. 330 (1918).
3. Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV, No. 1, pp. 20-43 (1919).
4. Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV, No. 3, pp. 247-259
(1919).
5. Lucas, J., and Lucas, Jr., C. W., A Physical Model for Atoms and NucleiPart 1,
Foundations of Science, Vol. 5, No. 1 (May 2002).
6. Eisberg, R. M., Fundamentals of Modern Physics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York & London, p. 571 (1961); Hofstadter, R. Annual Review of Nuclear Science,
Vol. 7, Annual Reviews, Stanford (1957).
7. Mayer, M. G., Physical Review, Vol. 74, p. 235 (1948).
8. Mayer, M. G., Physical Review, Vol. 75, p. 1969 (1949).
9. Mayer, M. G., Physical Review, Vol. 78, pp.
10. Mayer, M. G., and Jensen, J. H. D., Elementary Theory of Nuclear Shell Structure,
John Wiley & Sons, New York (1955).
11. Howard, Robert A., Nuclear Physics, Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, CA
(1963) pp. 304-313.
12. Bostick, Winston H., Physics of Fluids, Vol. 9, p. 2079 (1966).
13. Bostick, Winston H., Mass, Charge and Current: The Essence and Morphology,
Physics Essays, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 45-49 (1991).
14. Hofstadter, R., Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 28, p. 213 (1956).
15. Please note that this work has already been successfully completed in the authors
1994-1995 science fair project A New Classical Basis for Quantum Physics which
was awarded a Grand Prize at the 1995 International Science and Engineering Fair in
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
16. Lide, D. R., editor, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 73rd Edition, CRC
Press, Ann Arbor (1993).
TABLE 5
TABLE OF NUCLIDE DATA [16]
ATOMIC
SYMBOL
n
H
H
H
H
He
He
He
He
He
He
He
He
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
1
1
2
3
4
3
4
5
6
10
7
8
9
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
13
14
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
8
9
10
Z P1 N1 P2 N2 P3 N3 P4 N4 P5 N5 P6 N6 P7 N7 P8 N8 ACTUAL
RING
MEASURED MODEL
SPIN
SPIN
SHELL
MODEL
SPIN
HALFLIFE
ABUNDANCE
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
1/2
1/2
1,0
1/2
2,1
1/2
0
3/2
0
0
3/2
0
5/2
2,1
3/2
3,0
3/2
3,0
3/2
4,1
3/2
0
3/2
0
3/2
0
1/2
0
5/2
1/2
0
1/2
2,1
3/2
3,0
3/2
2,1
3/2
4,1
3/2
4,1
3/2
4,1
3/2
0
3/2
0
13. m
0.000
99.985
0.015
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.500
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
18.700
81.300
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
8
3
6
6
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
4
3
4
5
8
3
2
3
4
6
6
4
8
2
1
2
3
4
6
2
3
8
3
4
5
4
2
3
4
5
6
3
4
4
6
8
8
8
8
1/2
1/2
1
1/2
2
1/2
0
3/2
0
0
(3/2)
0
(1/2)
2
3/2
1
3/2
2
3/2
?
3/2
0
3/2
0
3/2
0
1/2
0
(5/2)
(1/2)
0
(3/2)
2
3/2
3
3/2
1
3/2
2
?
0
(3/2)
?
?
0
(3/2)
0
1/2
1/2
1,0
1/2
2,1
1/2
0
3/2
0
0
3/2
0
1/2
2,1
3/2
1,0
3/2
2,1
3/2
4,1
3/2
0
3/2
0
3/2
0
1/2
0
5/2
1/2
0
3/2
2,1
3/2
3,0
3/2
1,0
3/2
2,1
3/2
3,0
3/2
4,1
3/2
0
3/2
0
12.26 y
13.7 s
The complete 44 page table is available from the authors for $3.00 postage and handling in U.S.
Z is the number of protons per nuclide. N is the number of neutrons per nuclide. A = Z + N is the nuclides atomic number.
P1, P2, etc., give the number of protons in that nuclear shell.
N1, N2, etc., give the number of neutrons in that nuclear shell. (Each neutron shell consists of one proton and one electron shell.)
Actual Measured Spin is the experimentally measured nuclide spin. A parenthesis around the spin value means that the spin is
inferred but not actually measured.
6. Half-life gives time in seconds (s), minutes (m), hours (h), days (d) or years (y).
7. Abundance gives the relative abundance of the nuclide for the element.
Extension of New Model of the Atom. The Geometrical Packing Model presented for the
atom and nucleus in parts 1 [6,7] and 2 [7,8] based on the Toroidal Particle Model were
very successful in describing some atomic and nuclear data. The physical approach
(based on experiment) taken in these papers is more fundamental and straightforward than
the mathematical methods (based on unproven postulates) used by Quantum Mechanics.
The new model does not incorporate any of the objectionable assumptions and postulates
of Quantum Mechanics and replaces those features of the Quantum Models that are
known to be inconsistent or in violation of proven laws. Unlike the Quantum Models, the
Geometrical Packing Model for ring particles is not simply mathematical, but it is a physical model with boundaries, sizes and detailed structure that can be verified experimentally. Thus it satisfies one of the major goals of physics which is to physically describe
the matter of the physical universe.
Although the framework of a new theory of matter has been presented, the basic approach
needs to be extended to give successful descriptions of blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the energy levels of the atom giving rise to absorption and emission
spectra before it can more fully qualify to displace the Quantum Models. (Please note that
this work was initially completed in Josephs 1994-1995 science fair project A New
Classical Basis for Quantum Physics which was awarded a Grand Prize, sponsored by
NASA, at the 1995 International Science and Engineering Fair in Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada.) The purpose of this third article in the series is to extend the application of the
Ring Model to the emission spectra of atoms.
History of Modern Atomic Data and Theory. When experimenters of the past examined
the emitted spectra from hot solids and gases, they discovered that solids emit a continuous spectrum of electromagnetic radiation while monoatomic gases emit radiation concentrated at a number of discrete wavelengths. Each of these wavelength components is
called a line, because the
spectroscopes used to
record the spectra on film
employed slits with a prism
to separate the wavelengths
of light or different colored
images of the slit (see
Figure 1). These spectroscopes were only able to
measure those wavelengths
Figure 1
Apparatus for Atomic Spectroscopy
near the range of visible
[9, pp. 110-113]
light.
Experimenters observed patterns in the spectroscopic lines of monoatomic gases like
hydrogen (see Figure 2). In these patterns or series of lines the spacing between adjacent
lines of the spectrum continuously decreased with decreasing wavelength of the lines until
it converged at some limit.
A number of these series
were found for hydrogen
gas. About 1890 Rydberg
[9, pp. 110-113] found an
empirical formula, called
the Rydberg Formula, that
described these series of
wavelengths as shown in
Figure 2
Table 1.
Balmer Line Series for Hydrogen
[9, pp. 110-113]
Wavelength
Range ()
Rydberg Formula
Ultraviolet
Visible
Infrared
Infrared
Infrared
k
k
k
k
k
=
=
=
=
=
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
=
=
=
=
=
RH [1/(1)
RH [1/(2)2
RH [1/(3)2
RH [1/(4)2
RH [1/(5)2
1/(n)2]
1/(n)2]
1/(n)2]
1/(n)2]
1/(n)2]
n
n
n
n
n
=
=
=
=
=
2, 3, 4,...
3, 4, 5,...
4, 5, 6,...
5, 6, 7,...
6, 7, 8,...
-1
Bohrs postulates were very radical. They assumed that some electromagnetic laws, such
as Coulombs force law held on the microscopic scale, but not Amperes law or Faradays
law. Thus the laws of physics were assumed to be different on the microscopic scale than
on the macroscopic scale. Also, Bohr neglected the finite size of the electron.
The justification for Bohrs postulates was that they led to a model that produced a mathematical equation that predicted the atomic emission line spectra of one-electron atoms.
Logically, however, this type of justification is incomplete. One must also justify each of
the assumptions or postulates individually. This was never done.
The success of the Bohr theory was very striking, but the Bohr postulates were somewhat
mysterious. Also there was the question of the relation between Bohrs quantization of
the angular momentum of an electron moving in a circular orbit and Plancks quantization
of the total energy of an entity, such as an electron, executing simple harmonic motion
since both incorporated Plancks constant h.
In 1916 Wilson and Sommerfeld [9, pp. 128-131] postulated a set of rules for the quantization of any physical system for which the coordinates are periodic functions of time as
follows:
For any physical system in which the coordinates are periodic functions
of time, there exists a quantum condition of each coordinate. These quantum conditions are where q is one of the coordinates, pq is the momentum
(19 )
n q h = p q dq
2
0
(20 )
d = 2 L
or
nh
= nh
2
L=
(21)
The application of the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantization rule to a particle of mass m executing simple harmonic motion with frequency yields
E
i .e. E = nh
(22)
Sommerfeld used the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantization rules to evaluate the size and
shape of the allowed elliptical orbits as well as the total energy of the electron moving in
such an orbit. Describing the motion in terms of the polar coordinates r and , he obtained
the quantum conditions
nh = p dx = m x 02 =
L d = n h L = n
h 2
p dr = n h L(a b 1) = n
r
(23 )
n = 1, 2, 3,...
h / 2
nr = 1, 2, 3,...
By requiring a condition for mechanical stability, i.e. the centripetal force is equal to the
electrical Coulomb force, a third equation is obtained. Solving them simultaneously he
obtained
n 2 (h 2 )
Ze 2
a=
b=a
n
n
(24 )
n = n + nr = 1, 2, 3,...
n = 1, 2, 3,...
E=
Z 2 e 4
2n 2 h 2
nr = 0,1, 2, 3,...
where n is called the principal quantum number, and n is called the azimuthal quantum
number. The second equation above gives the
shape of the orbit, i.e. the ratio of the semimajor to the semi-minor axes b/a. It is determined by the ratio of n to n. For n = n the
orbits are circles of radius a. Figure 3 shows to
scale the possible orbits corresponding to the
first three values of the principal quantum number. Note that for each value of the principal
quantum number n, there are n different
allowed orbits. One of these, the circular orbit,
is the orbit described by the original Bohr theory. The others are elliptical.
Figure 3
Standing Wave of Bohr Orbits
Z 2 e 4
2n (h / 2 )
2
2Z 2
1 +
n
1
3
n 4n
(25)
(26 )
This condition for orbital transitions is called a selection rule. It states that the change
in angular momentum of the electron orbital must be one unit of angular momentum for
emission and absorption of electromagnetic radiation. Conservation of angular momentum implies that electromagnetic radiation carries one unit of angular momentum.
This version of quantum theory had a number of notable shortcomings [9, pp. 136-137]:
1. The theory only treats systems which have periodic motion, but there
are many systems which are not periodic.
2. Although the theory allows one to calculate the energies of the allowed
=h p
=E h
(27 )
The requirement that the waves associated with a particle undergoing any sort of periodic motion be a set of standing waves is equivalent to the requirement that the motion of
the particle satisfy the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantization rules. The time independent features of the standing waves associated with an electron in one of its allowed states in an
atom was used to explain why the motion described by the standing wave does not cause
the electron to emit electromagnetic radiation. (Note that the fundamental standing
wave in the charge density of charge fibers of the toroidal ring is exactly the de
Broglie wavelength. The so-called particle-wave duality is only a mystery for pointlike particles.)
The de Broglie postulate says that the motion of a particle is governed by the propagation
of its associated waves, but it does not tell the way in which these waves propagate. To
handle the case of a particle moving under the influence of forces, we need an equation
that tells how the waves propagate under these more general circumstances.
In 1925 Schrdinger [9, pp. 165-170] developed a propagation equation for matter waves,
called the Schrdinger equation. It was patterned after the wave equation for strings. He
denoted the waves by the mathematical wave function (x,t). Instead of using relativistic kinematics,
E = P 2 2mo + V + mo c 2
where m = mo
(28)
P2
+V
2m
The three requirements that Schrdinger felt his equation must satisfy were:
1. It must be consistent with de Broglies postulate and conservation of
energy
2. The equation must be linear in the wave function (x,t) in order to pre-
(29)
2
2 (x, t )+ V (x, t ) (x, t ) = ih (x, t )
t
2m x 2
(30)
The Schrdinger wave equation contains the imaginary number i. As a consequence its
solutions are complex (real and imaginary) functions of x and t, i.e. not real functions of
x and t. Thus the wave function cannot represent the real amplitude of the matter wave
that can be physically measured. The question of what is waving and in what medium can
not be answered!! The original wave equations for strings does not contain imaginary
terms, and the real wave function describes the amplitude of the matter wave in the string.
A relationship between the wavefunction (x,t) and the probability of finding the particle
at coordinate x was suggested by Born [10] in 1926 in the form of the following postulate:
P (x, t )dx = (x, t ) (x, t )dx
(31)
If, at the instant t, a measurement is made to locate the particle associated with the wave function(x,t), then the probability P(x,t ) dx that the
particle will be found at a coordinate between x and x + dx is
such that probability is conserved, i.e.
(32)
One problem that the Schrdinger matter wave model has that the Bohr model did not
have is that it predicts the existence of l = 0 or
S states. Here the electron has no angular
momentum about the nucleus and no mechanism due to orbital motion to keep the
Coulomb force from pulling the electron into
the nucleus. Thus the Schrdinger matter
wave model denies the Coulomb force for Swave electrons, but not for l > 0 electrons.
This is a serious inconsistency in logic. The
relativistic version of the Schrdinger matter
wave equation, called the Dirac Matter Wave
Figure 4
Equation, also has this problem.
Mechanical Model of a Toroidal
Elementary Particle
(33)
Figure 6
One-Electron ring
where v is the velocity of the charge in the ring, R is the radius of the ring, and e is the
total charge of the ring.
Now the requirement that the waves associated with a particle undergoing any sort of periodic motion be a set of standing waves is equivalent to the requirement that the motion of
the particle satisfy the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantization rules. The angular momentum in
the plane of the ring for a free electron is given by Bergman [1,11]
e2
8R h
L = mevR = mcR =
loge
=
2
8 eo c
r 2
(34 )
(35 )
n = 1, 2, 3,...
Also it is possible to have standing waves where the standing wave has a wavelength
equal to multiple times the circumference of the ring. In this case
2R = n o
(36)
n = 1, 1/ 2, 1/ 3,...
where
n = ...1 3, 1 2 , 1, 2, 3,...
L=n h
(37)
(h 2)2
mR
(38 )
So
n 2 (h 2)
n = ...1 3, 1 2 , 1, 2, 3,...
(39 )
R=
mZe 2
Now consider the total energy of an atomic electron. If we define the potential energy to
be zero when the electron is infinitely distant from the nucleus, then the potential energy
V at any finite distance r can be obtained by integrating the energy imparted to the electron by the Coulomb force acting from infinity to R, i.e.
2
Ze 2
Ze 2
V = 2 dr =
R
r
(40)
The kinetic energy T of the electron can be evaluated from equation (33) to be
T =
mv 2 Ze 2
=
2
2R
(41)
Ze 2 Ze 2 Ze 2
+
=
= T
R
2R
2R
(42)
1
2
n
(43)
1 E
1
=
= RH Z 2 2
hc
n
(44 )
E=
From = c and E = h = hc/.
k
RH =
me4
= 109681 cm 1
3
4ch
Note that the condition for standing waves in the ring leads to a quantization of the total
energy of the electron bound to a nucleus of charge Ze.
EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF NEW MODEL OF ATOM
When Rydberg analyzed the hydrogen emission spectrum to obtain his empirical formula
in 1890, the line spectrum data was only available from the near ultraviolet, the visible
and the infrared spectrum. This situation continued through the time that Bohr (1913)
developed his model of the atom and Schrdinger (1925) and Dirac (1925) developed
their wave equations.
Then in 1991 Labov and Bowyer [5] at the University of California at Berkeley devised a
way to measure the extreme ultraviolet spectrum from 80-650 Angstrom (). They put a
grazing incidence spectrometer on a sounding rocket to get above the earths atmosphere.
Flying in the shadow of the earth and pointing away from the sun toward a dark area of
the universe, the spectrometer measured the spectrum from 80 to 650 . Presumably this
part of the universe consists primarily of hydrogen and helium gas. The spectrum
obtained is shown in Figure 7. There are a large number of spectral lines or peaks.
The Quantum Theory of the Atom does not predict that there are any spectral lines from
hydrogen or helium to be observed in this range. The new classical model of the atom
predicts 64 spectral lines and peaks for hydrogen in this range as shown in Table 2 (at the
end of this paper). All of the transition lines of Table 2 are found in the spectral data of
Figure 7 [5]
Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrum for Helium and Hydrogen
Labov and Bowyer [5]. Furthermore the predicted transitional data accounts for most of
the principal peaks of the observed spectrum as shown in Figure 7.
Multi-Electron Atoms. The procedures above only apply to one-electron atoms, especially hydrogen. In order to treat atoms with more than one electron, it is useful to review the
results of Amperes experiments for the forces between current loops [12].
1. The effect of a current is reversed when the direction of the current is
reversed.
2. The effect of a current flowing in a circuit twisted into small sinuosities is
the same as if the circuit were smoothed out.
3. The force exerted by a closed circuit on an element of another circuit is
at right angles to the latter.
4. The force between two elements of circuits is unaffected when all linear
dimensions are increased proportionately and the current strengths
remain unaltered.
The important point to note is that the forces between plain wire loops and wire loops with
small sinuosities is the same. Figure 8 shows the neon atom consisting of two complete
electron shells with the magnetic flux loops for each shell
drawn and the great circles on which they reside.
According to Amperes experimental law each magnetic
flux loop may be replaced by a circular wire. The three
resulting parallel circular loops may be replaced by one
circular loop with the nucleus at the center. The effective
radius may be different from that of the free electron.
Thus for closed shell atoms, the atom acts effectively as
if it had a single electron ring about the nucleus, just like
the Bohr model for a one-electron atom like hydrogen.
For the rest of the atoms the situation is not as neat. If the
last outermost electron shell has a number of electrons
divisible by four, the symmetry may reduce to an equivalent ring as above.
For atoms with an odd number of electrons other than 1 and all other cases, the symmetry may not reduce to a single loop. Some sort of computer modeling program may be
needed in order to get precise values for the energy levels and absorption and emission
spectra. (Note that the Quantum Models have problems with these atoms also.)
Fine Structure and Hyperfine Structure in Atomic Spectra. In the past classical models of the atom, nucleus and elementary particles were unable to describe certain phenomena such as the atomic spectra fine structure due to electron spin-orbit coupling (quantum
interpretation) and the atomic spectra hyperfine structure due to nuclear-spin electronspin coupling, because there was no classical quantity known as the spin of the electron
or nucleon. In particular the electron was usually modeled as a sphere with a magnetic
moment due to the rotation of charge but no additional quantity called spin. This situation has been rectified by the refinement of the Bergmans [1] Toroidal Model and the
Bosticks [13,14] Charge Fiber Model of the electron and other elementary particles by
Lucas [15] into a full fledged Classical Electrodynamic Model of Elementary Particles.
According to the Lucas Model all elementary particles are composed of multiple intertwined primary charge fibers. These primary charge fibers may be complex and consist
of multiple intertwined secondary charge fibers. The secondary charge fibers may also be
complex and consist of multiple tertiary charge fibers.
In this model the electron is the simplest of all elementary particles. It consists of three
simple intertwined primary charge fibers in a toroidal shape. The figures 9, 10, 11,12, 13
below [16] show the n = 1 fundamental or ground state of the electron, the n = 2 first excited state or harmonic of the fundamental, the n = 3 second excited state or harmonic of the
fundamental. Also shown are the n = 1/2 and n = 1/3 sub-harmonics of the fundamental.
These latter states are characteristic of continuous rods or springs not discontinuous particles. No parallel exists for these latter n = 1/2, 1/3, etc. states in the quantum orbits of
the point electron about the nucleus of the atom.
Electron n = 2
Electron n = 3
Figure 10
Electron 1st Harmonic or Excited State
Figure 11
Electron 2nd Harmonic or Excited State
Electron n = 1/2
Figure 12
Electron 1st Subharmonic
Electron n = 1/3
Figure 13
Electron 2nd Subharmonic
The absorption and emission of light by the atomic electrons is explained by a combination of macroscopic string theory and macroscopic antenna theory. A stretched string in
a musical instrument is caused to change its vibration mode from the fundamental to the
first harmonic by plucking it or hitting it at the appropriate place to transfer additional
energy to the vibration. For the vibrating string this additional energy added to the string
is dissipated as heat and the string returns to the fundamental vibration. From macroscopic radio antenna theory the wavelength of the radiation emitted is a function of the physical length of the antenna. In this manner one gets radiation as harmonics of the fundamental length of the antenna and as sub-harmonics of the fundamental length. Thus this
Charge Fiber Model for Elementary Particles and the electron in particular gives a physical explanation of absorption and emission on finite size electrons in an atom that is superior to the non-physical explanation of Quantum Mechanics that has no analogy in the
macroscopic world.
Summary. A new foundation for modern science based upon classical electrodynamics
that has been expanded to allow particles to have finite size in the shape of a ring of charge
composed of charge fibers is presented. This version of electrodynamics satisfies the rules
of logic that undergird the scientific method. It is able to describe the emission spectra of
atoms in a logically superior way compared to the politically correct relativistic Quantum
Electrodynamics Theory as developed by Planck, Einstein, and Dirac. It is logically superior for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Describes the physical mechanism for absorption and emission of electromagnetic energy in terms of the harmonic and sub-harmonics of the
fundamental vibration/rotation of charge fibers analogous to the way
that macroscopic antennas work
8.
9.
References.
1. Bergman, D. L. And Wesley, J. P., Spinning Charged Ring Model of Electron
Yielding Anomalous Magnetic Moment, Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 1, No. 5,
pp. 63-67 (Sept/Oct 1990).
2. Compton, Arthur H., American Physical Society address December 1917, Physical
Review Series II, p. 330 (1918).
3. Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV, No. 1, pp. 20-43 (1919).
4. Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV, No. 3, pp. 247-259 (1919).
5. Labov, Simon E. and Stuart Bowyer, Spectral Observations of the Extreme
Ultraviolet of Background, The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 371, p. 810 (1990).
6. Lucas, Joseph and Charles W. Lucas, Jr.,A Physical Model for Atoms and
NucleiPart 1, Foundations of Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-7 (2002).
7. Lucas, Joseph, A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei, Galilean Electrodynamics,
vol. 7, pp. 3-12(1996).
8. Lucas, Joseph, and Charles W. Lucas, Jr., A Physical Model for Atoms and
NucleiPart 2, Foundations of Science, vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 1-8 (2002).
9. Eisberg, Robert Martin, Fundamentals of Modern Physics (John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, 1961).
10. Born, Max, The Mechanics of the Atom, Bell, p. 95 (1927).
11. Bergman, David L., Spinning Charged Ring Model of Elementary Particles,
Galilean Electrodynamics, vol. 2, p. 30 (1991).
12. Ampere, Mem. De lAcad. VI, p. 175 (1825).
13. Bostick, Winston H., Physics of Fluids, Vol. 9, p. 2079 (1966).
14. Bostick, Winston H., Mass, Charge and Current: The Essence and Morphology,
Physics Essays, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 45-49 (1991).
15. Lucas, Jr., Charles W., A Classical Electromagnetic Theory of Elementary Particles,
to be published in the proceedings of the second Physics as a Science Workshop
held at Lanzarote in the Canary Islands June 30 through July 6, 2002 in the Journal of
New Energy.
16. These diagrams of the electron were initially drawn by Clayton Harrison, 2728 East
Franklin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406, with email clayton@oophda.com,
and then redrawn by David L. Bergman, Common Sense Science, P.O. Box 767306,
Roswell, Georgia 30076, in terms of a single fiber. Future work will relate multiple
split fibers to the unstable elementary particles.
17. Lucas, Jr., Charles W., A Physical Scientific Mechanism by Which God Created
According to the Scriptures and Science, Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Creationism, Vol. 1, pp. 127-136. The conference was held July 30 to
August 4, 1990 in Pittsburgh, PA and was published by Creation Science Fellowship,
Inc., 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15228.
TABLE 2 [5]
PREDICTED SPECTRAL LINES IN THE RANGE 80-650
PEAK
#
RING MODEL
TRANSITION
1 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/6)2 - 1/(1/5)2]
-1/ C
2 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/5)2 - 1/(1/4)2]
-1/ C
3 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/3)2 - 1/(4)2]
-1/ C
4 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/3)2 - 1/(3)2]
-1/ C
5 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/3)2 - 1/(2)2]
-1/ C
ORDER
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
PREDICTED
WAVELENGTH
()
OBSERVED
WAVELENGTH
()
82.9
85 ! 5
96.5
165.8
248.7
331.6
414.4
497.3
580.2
96 ! 5
165 ! 5
246 ! 5
332 ! 5
415 ! 5
498 ! 5
580 ! 5
101.3
101 ! 5
122.5
202.6
303.9
405.2
506.5
607.8
122
202
303
405
506
608
102.0
103 ! 5
123.6
204.0
305.9
407.9
509.9
615.4
124
204
303
408
510
615
102.6
103 ! 5
124.4
205.1
307.7
410.2
512.8
615.4
125
205
308
410
513
615
104.2
103 5
126.8
208.4
312.6
416.8
521.0
625.2
129 ! 5
209 ! 5
311 ! 5
417 ! 5
521 ! 5
625 ! 5
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/3)2 - 1/(1)2]
-1/ C
7 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/4)2 - 1/(1/3)2]
-1/ C
8 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/3)2 - 1/(1/2)2]
-1/ C
9 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/2)2 - 1/(4)2]
-1/ C
10 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/2)2 - 1/(3)2]
-1/ C
11 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/2)2 - 1/(2)2]
-1/ C
12 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/2)2 - 1/(1)2]
-1/ C
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
114.0
112 ! 5
141.6
227.9
341.9
455.9
569.9
140
228
342
458
570
130.3
129 ! 5
167.7
260.5
390.8
521.0
651.3
168
260
390
520
645
182.4
183 ! 5
265.1
364.7
547.1
265 ! 5
367 ! 5
547 ! 5
232.0
233 ! 5
384.7
464.0
385 ! 5
465 ! 5
234.4
233 ! 5
391.3
468.8
390 ! 5
470 ! 5
243.1
243 ! 5
416.2
486.3
415 ! 5
486 ! 5
303.9
303 ! 5
633.8
607.8
634 ! 5
603 ! 5
584.6
584 ! 5
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
Absorption
Emission
Figure 1.
Absorption and Emission of Radiation
by Ring-Electrons.
Top (absorption) Energy is absorbed
from the incoming lightwave by the
electron (magnetic induction). Redistribution of charge is shown with electron in
a state of excited energy. The actual
distribution of charge is more complicated
than the drawing shows.
Bottom (emission) Electron releases
energy by radiation of a new wave and
another redistribution of charge (emission
in accordance with electric induction).
Page 1
August, 2003
http://CommonSenseScience.org
particles [9], the structure of both the atom and the nucleus was predicted using
combinatorial geometry and electrodynamics [1-8]. In this part the research is extended
to explain the remaining phenomena that were foundational to Quantum Theory. One
outcome of this work is the conclusion that quantum effects are not due to the Quantum
Electrodynamics Theory of point-particles with a quantum of electromagnetic energy
called a photon, but rather to the internal structure of finite-size electro-dynamic particles.
This possibility has always been recognized, but not seriously considered because it was
not known how to explain some key experimental data such as the Photoelectric Effect
and Blackbody Radiation.
Blackbody Radiation [8]. In 1901 Max Planck [14] was able to find a mathematical
expression that fit the blackbody radiation data. His attempts to work backwards to find
the correct physical theory resulted in the birth of Quantum Physics. However, this
theory was never fully satisfactory. It was based on the notion that point-charges
undergoing simple harmonic motion in the blackbody were absorbing and emitting
radiation. This picture led to oscillations of point-electron charges that were too big to
remain in the lattice of the solid. Also, the empirical laws of electrodynamics were
violated by Plancks theory. Both Ampres Law and Faradays Law require continuous
emission and absorption of radiation for simple harmonic motion of point-electron
charges. Finally, the Quantum Theory of blackbody radiation was not compatible with
optical reflection, refraction, and diffraction phenomena due to its emission of radiation
that is discontinuous in time.
The problem with Plancks work which was to develop a proper scientific theory to
predict his mathematical expressions that described blackbody radiation was that he
had an inadequate model for charged elementary particles in nature. He had the notion
that elementary particles could be approximated as point-particles. This notion is still
found today in Quantum Theories and in Relativity Theory.
Bergmans toroidal ring model of elementary particles behaves quite differently with
absorption and emission of radiation than is the case for point-particles. Radiation may
be continuously absorbed by the ring structure. Since it is a continuous ring structure, the
laws of electrodynamics do not require it to immediately re-radiate the energy absorbed
[18].
When electromagnetic energy or light is absorbed by the ring, there is a disturbance of
the flow of charge around the ring, resulting in oscillations of the electric charge
distribution flowing around the ring at the speed of light. These oscillations reflect the
wavelength of the light being absorbed. The flow of charge around the ring may be
thought of as the superposition of the original continuous flow plus the oscillations of
charge resulting from the absorption of various lightwaves (see Figure 1).
The original state of the ring, i.e. the continuous flow of charge around the ring, is known
as a stationary state. No change can be detected over time. Additional stationary states
of the ring structure will occur when the oscillations of the charge produced by the
absorption of radiation produce standing-waves, i.e. the wavelength is exactly an integral
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 2
August, 2003
http://CommonSenseScience.org
e2
R
hc
log e 8 = n
= nh
2 o c R
r
(5 )
hc
=
2 R
hc
2
2 n
= nh
where = c
(6 )
Page 3
August, 2003
http://CommonSenseScience.org
E2
4
(7)
KE
kT
2
(8 )
= kT
nh e nh kT
n =0
nh kT
h
e
h kT
(9 )
n =0
And the Boltzmann probability of finding the wave in an energy state between and +
d for a system containing a large number of ring-electrons with waves is
(10 )
P( ) = A e kT
The average energy of a wave is given by
P( )d
=
P( )d
(11)
However under our assumption that radiation can only occur from rings with stationary
state charge distributions, we must recalculate by replacing all integrals over by
summations, i.e.
P( ) =0 A
n =0
n
P( )
n =0
e n n
Ae
n =0
kT
n kT
n
nh e
n =0
nh / kT
nh / kT
h
e
h / kT
(12 )
n =0
Now
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 4
August, 2003
http://CommonSenseScience.org
T ( ) d =
N ( ) d
where Vring
Vring
(13 )
(2 R ) r 2
( )
8 (2 R ) r 2 2 d
N ( ) d =
c3
(14)
( )
( )
(15 )
Thus
T ( )d =
h
e
h / kT
8 (2 R ) r 2 2 d 8 2
h
=
h / kT
2
3
3
(2 R ) r c
1
c
e
1
T ( ) d =
8 hc
d
e
hc kT
(16 )
Page 5
Figure 3.
Photoelectric Cell
August, 2003
http://CommonSenseScience.org
ultraviolet light passes through the perforated second electrode and is incident upon the
inner surface of the photocathode, a current is observed to flow through the tube. This
phenomenon is called the photoelectric effect. The effect persists even when the tube is
evacuated to very low pressure, implying that gaseous ions are not the carriers of the
current.
In 1905 Einstein [17] announced a
Quantum Theory of the photoelectric
effect which was closely related to
Plancks
Quantum
Theory
of
blackbody radiation. He reasoned that
Plancks requirement that the energy
of the electromagnetic waves of
frequency in an ultraviolet light
source can only be 0, h, 2 h, ... nh
implies that in the process of going
from energy state nh to energy state
(n-1) h the source would emit a burst
of electromagnetic energy of h.
Figure 4.
Kinetic Energy of Photoelectrons
As a Function of Frequency
[15, pp. 79-81]
Einstein assumed that such a burst of emitted energy was initially localized in a small
volume of space; and that it remains localized as it moves away from the source with
velocity c, instead of spreading out in the manner characteristic of all observed moving
waves. He assumed that the energy of such a bundle or quantum of energy is related to
its frequency by the equation
(17)
= h
He also assumed that in the photoelectric process one of the quanta is completely
absorbed by a point-electron in the photocathode.
According to Einstein the absorption of a quantum by the electron gives it an additional
energy of h. If this energy is greater than the energy E which the electron must expend
in escaping from the atom to which it is bound inside the photocathode plus the energy W
required to reach the surface of the photocathode, then the electron escapes from the
photocathode. The kinetic energy of the electron after escaping from the photocathode
will be equal to E = h - E. For an electron originating at the surface E will just be
equal to W and E will have its maximum value where W is a constant that depends on the
type of atoms in the photocathode (see Figure 4).
E max = h W
(18 )
One of the weaknesses of Einsteins theory was that it could not physically describe the
absorption process in terms of physical changes in the internal structure of the electron.
The physical mechanism for absorption could not be explained. Only the mathematical
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 6
August, 2003
http://CommonSenseScience.org
equations describing the process could be motivated. This is the same problem that
Planck had with his theory of blackbody radiation.
In the Ring Model, when a free electron is captured by an ionized atom, it gives off light
as it approaches the ion and changes from one stationary state (standing-wave charge
configuration) to the next. The size and internal charge density is changing in agreement
with the balance of electric and magnetic forces. In order to free the electron from the
ion, it is necessary for the electron to absorb at least as much electromagnetic energy as it
radiated off when it was captured earlier. Although the electromagnetic energy was
radiated away from the electron in a series of long wavelength electromagnetic waves, it
cannot be freed by absorbing a series of low-energy long-wavelength electromagnetic
waves, because of the short lifetime and quick decay of these excited stationary states
back to the minimum energy bound state due to thermal excitation. Thus, for all practical
purposes, all the energy to unbind the electron must come by absorption of only one
wave-cycle. That is why there is a minimum value of the wave energy being absorbed to
free the electron. The absorption can not be a multi-step process.
In the physical Ring Model the absorption of radiation produces changes in the current
density in the ring such that it has Fourier components synchronous with the absorbed
electromagnetic wave (see Figure 1). For the same reason a ring-electron can only emit
radiation of such wavelengths as it has synchronous Fourier components in its current
distribution [16].
Before the finite-size Ring Model of the electron was developed with its strong magnetic
coupling in molecules and crystal lattices, the classical wave theory of light had a serious
problem in describing the short (10-9 sec) time required for a point-electron to absorb
enough energy to escape from the atom. If one assumed that the point-electron orbit was
on the order of the size of the atom (10-8 cm), and one calculated the incident energy on
the area of the orbit, one can obtain the time required for the photoelectron to absorb the
required 10-12 ergs from ultraviolet light. The time calculates to approximately 100
seconds. Experiments performed in 1928 by Lawrence and Beams using a very weak
ultraviolet light source set an upper limit on
the delay before electron emission of about
10-9 sec [15].
Now there is a big difference between the
model of the point-electron orbiting the
nucleus and the finite-size ring-electron
model. The ring-electron is close to the size
of the Bohr orbits of the point-electron.
However, the ring-electrons are strongly
coupled to one another in the atom, in the
molecule, and in the lattice. Figure 5 shows
a carbon-dioxide (CO2) molecule which is
illustrative of the strong magnetic coupling
of electrons in magnetic flux loops. All the
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 7
Figure 5.
Carbon-Dioxide Molecule showing
Magnetic Coupling of Ring-electrons.
August, 2003
http://CommonSenseScience.org
ring-electrons on the top and bottom of the cubic structure are bound together with a
single flux loop (one for the top and one for the bottom)
The photoelectric effect is only observed in metals. Metals have macroscopic crystal
lattice domains. In these lattice domains large numbers of electrons are strongly coupled
in large magnetic flux loops. The number of coupled electrons is close to the order of
Avogadros number about 1023 molecules/gm-molecular weight. These strongly
coupled electrons form a linear array antenna that has little trouble capturing enough
energy to free some electrons in 10-9 sec. Thus the finite-size ring-electron model with
strong magnetic properties is able to explain all the experimental data that the classical
point electron model failed to explain.
Conclusions. The classical electrodynamics ring model of the electron allows a superior
explanation of the emission spectra of atoms, blackbody radiation, and the photoelectric
effect. It is superior because
1. It explains the 64 observed extreme ultraviolet spectral lines of hydrogen
which are unexplainable in terms of the Dirac quantum theory of the
atom.
2. It explains blackbody radiation without violating Faradays law and
Ampres law requiring oscillating point-particles to continuously radiate
energy.
3. It is compatible with optical reflection, refraction, and diffraction
phenomena since its emission of radiation is continuous while Quantum
Theory is discontinuous.
4. It explains the Photoelectric Effect and Blackbody Radiation in terms of a
physical model of absorption and emission of radiation that is completely
missing in Quantum Theories of point-particles.
For these reasons the classical electro-dynamic ring model of the electron and its
resulting theories of the atom and nucleus are superior to the Quantum Theory.
Quantization occurs in the container of the finite-size electron due to its internal structure.
There is no elementary particle or quantum packages of energy called the photon. The
quantum explanations of atomic emission spectra, blackbody radiation, and the
photoelectric effect are all defective. If the logical rules undergirding the scientific
method since the days of the ancient Greeks had been followed by the scientific
community [19-21], quantum theories would have never been recognized as valid
scientific theories.
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 8
August, 2003
http://CommonSenseScience.org
References.
1. Lucas, Joseph C. and Charles W. Lucas, Jr., The Origin of Atomic Structure,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Creation edited by R. E. Walsh
(Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1994) pp. 305-315.
2. Lucas, Joseph C, A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei, Galilean
Electrodynamics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3-12 (1996).
3. Lucas, Charles W. Jr. and Joseph Lucas, A New Foundation for Modern Science,
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism - edited by
R. E. Walsh (Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA) pp. 379-394 (1998).
4. Lucas, Jr., Charles W., A New Foundation for Modern Physics, Foundations of
Science, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 1-8 (2001).
5. Lucas, Charles W. Jr. and Joseph Lucas, A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei Part 1, Foundations of Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-7 (2002).
6. Lucas, Charles W. Jr. and Joseph Lucas, A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei Part 2, Foundations of Science, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 1-8 (2002).
7. Lucas, Charles W. Jr. And Joseph Lucas, A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei Part 3, Foundations of Science, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-8 (2003).
8. Bergman, David L. and Lucas, Jr., Charles W., Physical Models of Matter,
Proceedings of Physics As a Science, edited by G. Galeczki et al., Hadronic Press
Supplement, Palm Harbor, Florida, pp. 45-68 (1998).
9. Bergman, David L. and J. Paul Wesley, Spinning Charged Ring Model of the
Electron Yielding Anomalous Magnetic Moment, Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol.
1, No. 5, p. 63 (1990).
10. Compton, Arthur H., American Physical Society address December 1917, Physical
Review Series II, p. 330 (1918).
11. Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV No. 1, pp. 20-43 (1919).
12. Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV No. 3, pp. 247-259
(1919).
13. Labov, Simon E. and Stuart Bowyer, Spectral Observations of the Extreme
Ultraviolet of Background, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 371, p. 810 (1990).
14. Planck, Max, Ueber das Gesetz der Energieverteilung im Normalspektrum, Annals
de Physik, Vol. 4, p. 553 (1901).
15. Eisberg, Robert Martin, Fundamentals of Modern Physics (John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, 1961), pp. 77-81.
16. Haus, H. A., On the Radiation from Point Charges, American Journal of Physics,
Vol. 54, p.1126 (1986).
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 9
August, 2003
http://CommonSenseScience.org
17. Einstein, A., Ann. der Phys., Vol. 17, p. 132 (1905).
18. Panofsky, W. K. and M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism (AddisonWesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1962), p. 370.
19. Lucas, Charles W. Jr., Soli Deo Gloria - A Renewed Call for Reformation (Church
Computer Services, 29045 Livingston Drive, Mechanicsville, MD, 20659, 1978).
20. Lucas, Charles W. Jr., A New Unified Theory of Modern Science, Proceedings of
the International Conference on Creationism-edited by R. E. Walsh (Creations
Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA) Vol. 2, pp. 127-135 (1987).
21. Lucas, Charles W. Jr., A Call for Reformation in Modern Science, Proceedings of
the First International Conference on Creationism (Creation Science Fellowship,
Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 198) Vol. 1, pp. 83-87.
on
The Photoelectric Effect
Bergman: One sentence on page 7 especially caught my attention: Thus, for all practical
purposes, all the energy to unbind the electron must come by absorption of only one wavecycle.
I think your explanation of the Photoelectric Effect is correct. However, I think all the energy
that releases an electron would actual transfer in one-half of a cycle, and that the second half
cycle of an incoming wave would not be relevant. When only energy is considered, without
looking at the force mechanisms of induction, the finer points of the Photoelectric Effect are
not explicitly stated.
Perhaps a more detailed explanation of the Photoelectric Effect could be developed for a later
paper. I think we could show that the wavelength of incoming radiation must be close to the
Compton Wavelength and the circumference of the ring-electron. Then, by the laws of
induction, the ring (acting as a receiving antenna) could absorb energy from the radiation only
when that radiation was in a narrow range of wavelengths. The lower limit of energy and
frequency is well-known (as you show by a graph in Figure 4). I once was told that coherent
radiation from a laser source would not liberate an electron, presumably because the
frequency is too high. This seems reasonable since very high frequency would produce
alternating forces between the metal and electron that reverse in direction before an electron
is liberated. Such a conjecture on my part would have more validity if there is supporting
experimental data that shows the entire range of frequencies that liberate an electron.
My conjecture about the mechanism of inducing a liberating force must also be verified by the
experimental evidence that radiation intensity is not a factor in liberating an electron. Here, it
seems to me, a distinction must be made between coherent and non-coherent radiation. I
suspect that liberation may be a function of radiation intensity only when a coherent source is
used.
Lucas: Your comments on coherent versus non-coherent radiation are well taken. This may
be a way to distinguish between the quantum theories and the Ring Model. We do not have
to actually do these experiments if we can find some published results. The quantum theories
should get the same result with coherent or incoherent radiation, but the Ring Model would be
more sensitive showing a difference.
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 10
August, 2003
http://CommonSenseScience.org