The Larson Research Center

In the LST theories of the nuclear atom and quantum mechanics (QM), they speak of “filling the shells” of atomic orbits, with electrons of different energy levels, corresponding to the varying electrons in neutrally charged atoms of the periodic table of elements. Physicists characterize these “orbitals” in terms of the speed, angular momentum, magnetic moment, and spin of a given electron. Of course, these are properties of M₂ motion (except the enigmatic motion of spin), the only type of motion recognized by LST physicists. However, in RST-based science, we are able to avail ourselves of the M₄ type motion (see: here and subsequent posts in the New Math blog.)

Nevertheless, In Larson’s RST-based development, the atomic spectra were never calculated from the properties of M₄ motion. Larson spent a lot of time on it (of course, he referred to scalar motion, not to M₄ motion per se, which is an LRC designation), but, ultimately, he felt that he had to move on. He was afraid of becoming bogged down in the mountains of spectral data, while he had many other areas of physical theory that he wanted to cover.

Even in the LST, though, the atomic spectra calculations are only approximate, and then only for the simplest cases, the so-called “hydrogenic” atoms that are actually ions. The rest of the calculations are just too difficult to actually carry out, so it’s referred to as one of those achievements based on principle; that is, if it weren’t so complicated, the calculations could be carried out, but, as it is, the more complicated equations can only be solved “in principle.”

Whether or not we will ever be able to do better here at the LRC, remains to be seen, but the first step is “filling the shells” with more and more electrons, to build the periodic table of elements. Larson did this very successfully by adding more and more units of scalar rotation, where the difference between one atom and the next higher one in the order is a (double) unit of 1D (electric) rotation, as shown in figure 1 below.

Figure 1. The Wheel of Motion Showing Larson’s 4n² Relationship of Scalar Motion

As the Wheel of Motion in figure 1 shows, the periodic table of elements is actually a 4n² relationship of units of scalar motion, where n varies from 1 to 4, resulting in 4 scalar magnitudes in the first group (three of which are subatoms), 16 in the second group, 36 in the third, and 64 in the fourth group. This differs from the quantum mechanics (QM) concept where the relationship is understood in terms of 2n² and n is the unlimited (in principle) number of atomic energy levels Thus, in the QM concept, n is the first, or the principle, of the four quantum numbers determining the electronic “shells” and “orbitals” of the atom. The first shell only has room for two electrons, when n = 1, with up and down spin, but the second shell has room for eight, given the possible values of the other quantum numbers, when n is 2.

In the LST concept, certain selection rules determine the order that these shells and orbitals are filled with electrons. This results in a bizarre order, when viewed in the context of the Wheel of Motion. In Larson’s development, each element in the Wheel results from the addition of one more unit of (double) scalar rotation. However, in the LST periodic table, using the selection rules of QM, only half of each concentric circle of elements in the Wheel is filled first, in ascending order, then the remaining half is filled, in descending order! That is to say, 2 of 4 in the first circle, 8 of 16 in the second circle, 18 of 36 in the third circle, and 32 of 64 in the fourth circle, are filled first, then the last half of the fourth circle, the last half of the third circle, the last half of the second, and the last half of the first, are filled next.

The reason for this is the 2n² energy relationship of QM numbers. Without the 4n² of the RST-based model, it’s impossible to fill the orbitals any other way, because there are not enough magnitudes to do so. On the other hand, the 4n² relationship, which comes naturally to the RST-based model due to the n-dimensional nature of its scalar magnitudes of rotation, has just the correct number of magnitudes and no others. This is especially noteworthy, when one recognizes that the incorrect mathematical relationship introduces errors into the shell model of the LST, predicting more and more non-existent elements, as n increases beyond 4, to accommodate the last half of elements in each circle, or row, in the periodic table. Figure 2 below shows the anomalies.

Figure 2. Anomalies in LST Nuclear Model of the Atom

As the table in figure 2 above shows (see: the Chemogenesis Webbook), there are 164 unobserved elements predicted by the QM model of the nuclear atom. No such problem exists in Larson’s scalar rotation model of the atom, as shown in figure 1 above. However, using Larson’s model, we can only predict the atomic spectra of hydrogen. We cannot go beyond that point, which is a glaring difficulty, or “lacuna” in the RST-based theoretical development.

In the research program at the LRC, we’ve taken a new approach to RST-based theory development in that we’ve eliminated the concept of n-dimensional scalar rotation that Larson employed, in favor of a 3-dimensional scalar vibration concept, which leads to the four, n-dimensional, magnitudes of motion explained in the Chart of Motion.

Happily, in our new RST-based model of the atom, we have been able to identify theoretical entities with photons, neutrinos, electrons, positrons, and the quarks of protons, and neutrons. We even have the anti-entities of all these, along with their chiral versions, which we can formulate in terms of preons called S|T units (see previous posts below.)

In treating these S|T units as preons, we find that the difference between fermions and bosons, which are all comprised of three S|T units each, is in their respective triplet configurations. The constituent S|T units of a boson triplet occupy the same space|time location, while the constituent S|T units of fermions occupy three distinct, or adjacent, space|time locations that are joined together so-to-speak, in a triangle configuration, rather than the parallel configuration of the boson triplet.

This is an exciting breakthrough in the qualitative aspect of our efforts. Nevertheless, to be convincing, we need to be able to find the same level of success in the quantitative treatment of these theoretical entities, as Larson found in his quantitative development of the periodic table of elements, using units of n-dimensional scalar rotation. As previously mentioned, this is a daunting challenge, but we are determined to press forward, confident that the success that we’ve enjoyed to date in the qualitative endeavor was just as unexpected and as daunting a prospect, in the beginning, as this quantitative effort seems to be now.

It’s clear that in moving from the preon level of study to the atomic level, we need to condense our graphic representations of the theoretical entities involved, because attempting to show all the constituent preons of protons and neutrons linked together with those of electrons, in a given atomic unit, quickly becomes unwieldy.  Interestingly enough, though, thinking about how to do this has led to the discovery of a triplet we didn’t understand: the nucleon triplet we will call it.  It is the result of combining the three quarks of the neutron with the three quarks of the proton, as shown in figure 3 below.

 

 

 

Figure 3. Nucleon Red and Blue Triplet 

Since combining red or blue with green doesn’t affect the color (like adding equal weights to both sides of an already unbalanced pan balance), combining the quarks of the proton (upper row), or the quarks of the neutron (middle row), results in a red and blue triplet, as shown in figure 3 above.  Likewise, combining the proton and neutron, as two red and blue triplets (bottom row), doesn’t affect the color, only the intensity, of the combined red and blue triplet.  Hence, we can qualitatively represent all the quarks of a nucleus as a single red and blue triplet.

The three nodes of the nucleon imply that the physical representation of the fermion triplet, as discussed in the previous post below, represents three spheres partially merged together. Since the only possible geometry for this representation is two-dimensional, it follows that the nucleon has two, opposed, faces, one to the left and one to the right, or one to the front and one to the back, or one up and one down. Thus, it follows that multiple instances of these triplets can be pancake stacked, one on top of the other, and, if conditions are right, merged into one set of three locations (again recalling that all fermions occupy three adjacent locations, represented by the three partially merged spheres.)

In order to merge (correlate) the three space|time locations of the constituent quarks of the protons and neutrons together, we must merge the three adjacent locations of each together. This is a departure from the way we have previously combined them. However, this two-dimensional concept of combination, rather than the earlier three-dimensional concept, will not only enable us to represent them more compactly, but represents a logical alternative that is much simpler, and therefore, preferable. Although, the fact that there are now only three consolidated space|time locations may mean that we are headed toward undesirable complications downstream that will cause us to rethink this decision.  For now, however, we will explore it’s possibilities.

Next we will investigate how the nucleon triplets can be combined with the electron triplets to form atomic entities. However, following the 4n² relationship of the Wheel of Motion means that hydrogen should be the last entity (first complete element) of those in the first circle, where n = 1, while helium should be the first entity of the second circle, where n = 2. This is not so in the LST QM model, where the principle quantum number of hydrogen and helium is n = 1 in both cases, and the difference is found in the value of the last quantum number, the direction of quantum spin.

This is an important difference between the two models.  The 4n² pattern of Larson’s RST-based model avoids the 2n² pattern anomalies of the LST-based model, but, on the other hand, the QM model predicts the atomic spectra, at least in principle. Hence, this is going to be interesting.