« Square Roots & 1st & 2nd Orderings of the Periodic Table | Main | The Tetraktys and Oscillating Pseudoscalars »

The "Glaring Lacuna"

Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 04:38AM by Registered CommenterDoug | Comments8 Comments | References1 Reference

One of the most important and immediate objectives of our research here at the LRC is to address the “glaring lacuna” in Larson’s work, the inability to calculate the atomic spectra. Larson tried to work it out, but temporarily gave it up, when it appeared so complex and obtuse a subject that it became apparent that it would drain his resources and slow his progress in developing his RST-based theory, what we call his Reciprocal System theory (RSt).

It was Nehru who gave it the label with which we still refer to it today. While noting this great contrast with the success of the LST’s wave mechanics in explaining the “vast wealth of spectroscopic data,” he goes on to elaborate on the much heralded success of the LST theory:

The several quantum numbers, n, l, m, etc. come out in a natural way in the theory. Even the “selection rules” that govern the transitions from one energy state to another could be derived. The fine and the hyperfine structures of the spectra, the breadth and intensity of the lines, the effects of electric and magnetic forces on the spectra could all be derived with great accuracy. In addition, it predicts many non-classical phenomena, such as the tunneling through potential barriers or the phenomena connected with the phase, which found experimental verification.

Of course, all of this began with Heisenberg’s great discovery of the non-commutative multiplication in the first mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. As Bohr wrote Rutherford:

Heisenberg is a young German of gifts and achievement. In fact, because of his last work, prospects have at one stroke been realized, which, although only vaguely grasped, have for a long time been the center of our wishes. We now see the possibility of developing a quantitative theory of atomic structure.

In developing an RST-based theory, however, the second postulate limits us to an algebra of magnitudes that is ordered (absolute), commutative and associative (meaning its geometry is Euclidean). Nehru’s approach, an attempt to clarify the physical concepts of quantum mechanics, while keeping the mathematics, is therefore problematic, unless we drop the second fundamental postulate of the RST.

Fortunately, as described in the previous post, the new mathematics developed at the LRC, based on reciprocal numbers as analogs of the scalar/pseudoscalar ratios, maintains these essential algebraic properties. Using this algebra, we have been able to build a simple toy model of the motions and combinations of motions that is consistent with the second postulate and that contains the bosons and fermions (both quarks and leptons) of the standard model of particle physics and the baryons of the periodic table based on Larson’s 4n2 concept, as opposed to the 2n2 concept of quantum mechanics.

The challenge, however, has, again, been to identify the quantitative relations between these bosons, quarks and leptons, as observed in the experimental energy levels of the baryons. In short, we need the RST breakthrough that corresponds to Heisenberg’s quantum mechanical breakthrough.

Well, I’m happy to announce today that the needed breakthrough has arrived; at least it has as far as the toy model is concerned. Recall that our RST-based model, unlike the LST model and Nehru’s model, is not based on rotation, but rather the vibrations of the pseudoscalars, which we call S|T units, the SUDRs and TUDRs, which are inverse pseudoscalar/scalar oscillations. Figure 1 shows how these combine to form the entities of the standard model.

 

 

Figure 1. Scalar Motion Combinations

The middle colors, green, red and blue are used to indicate the relative balance of red SUDRs and blue TUDRs in a given combination. A green circle in the middle of a combo indicates an even number of each. A red color indicates more SUDRs than TUDRs, while a blue color indicates the reverse. We assume an initial value of one SUDR and one TUDR in the green balanced combo, and an excess of one kind of unit in the unbalanced combos.

This works out perfectly in terms of combining protons, neutrons and electrons, but the question has been how to fit the photons into these combos. In the quantum mechanical model, the electron is regarded as orbiting the nucleus (Bohr’s model), even though this was modified (the cloud model) to fit Heisenberg’s mathematical structure, wherein no definite orbital path could be identified.

In the S|T model, the electron doesn’t rotate around the nucleus, but becomes an integral part of the atomic structure, as shown in figure 2 below:

Electron

Figure 2. Combining Quarks and Leptons into Baryons 

Even though the standard model is empirical, the mathematical relations of its entities are described by Heisenberg’s fundamental mathematical structure developed in two theories: The first theory is quantum electro dynamics (QED), and the second theory is quantum chromo dynamics (QCD). Both of these theories are based on rotations and suffer from the algebraic pathology of higher dimensional numbers, as explained in previous posts. The underlying mathematical structure is described as based upon the principles of symmetry in U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) groups, but these groups are formed from numbers derived from rotations.

In our theory, there are no rotations, so the challenge has been how to show the different energy levels of the atomic spectra in the new model, which has no orbits or electron shells. The breakthrough has come by realizing that the combinations of motions in the S|T combos, while numerically balanced and accurate in the baryons and their combos are nevertheless what we might call internally polarized. This was understood by simply tabulating the SUDR|TUDR counts at the nodes of the combos. For instance, tabulating the S|T nodes in the combination of a proton, neutron and electron, as shown in figure 3a below, results in a polarized triangle, representing the deuterium atom, as shown in figure 3b.

 

Figure 3. The Polarization of Non-Ionized Deuterium

This is a remarkable and fortuitous result, since it permits the binding of a boson to the atom, as shown in figure 4 below, without changing anything, but the energy of the combo:

Figure 4. Combining Photons with Baryons

On this basis, we may now begin to develop a quantitative relation between photons and atoms in our model – the atomic spectra! Indeed, we might say that, perhaps, the prospects at one stroke have been realized, which have, for a long time, been the center of our wishes!

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (8)

You lose me every time you claim that SUDRs and TUDRs, which are inverse pseudoscalar/scalar oscillations. form the entities of the standard model.

Specifically, what makes the SUDRs and TUDRs oscillate, and how can a SUDR (a pseudoscalar, which has one property only) fork into entities with many properties. The idea of multiple properties arising out of one property of a pseudoscalar, appalles my mind.

November 15, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterHorace

LOL - Hi Horace,

The question, what makes them oscillate, is the same question people asked Larson, when he was alive. "What mechanism causes the reversals?" His answer was

It is not necessary to assume any special mechanism for the reversal of direction. In order to meet the requirements of the First Postulate the multiple units must exist, and they can only exist by means of the directional reversals. It follows that these reversals are required by the Postulate itself.

These oscillations can then be combined as SUDR|TUDR (S|T) units that have several properties such as 1D, 2D and 3D energy (with physical dimensions t/s) and velocity (with physical dimensions s/t).

I don't know why this would appall your mind, as it's easy to see that an oscillating ball, for instance, would have the same properties. It would have a frequency of oscillation, a changing diameter, a changing area and a changing volume, would it not?

November 28, 2009 | Registered CommenterDoug

Yes, the ball is easy to understand, but the forking envisioned by the very first diagram in the "Glaring Lacuna" post, is not.

In an oscillating ball, all of these properties you mention, are coupled together and I don't see how a diameter could increase while the area is decreasing.

it's easy to see that an oscillating ball, for instance, would have the same properties. It would have a frequency of oscillation, a changing diameter, a changing area and a changing volume, would it not?

December 8, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterHorace

The "forking" is not. It's a representation of the combination of the two balls, which is natural, since they are inverses of each other. Numerically, the red ball oscillation is s^3/t^0 = 1/2, and the blue ball oscillation is the inverse of this, or s^0/t^3 = 2/1.

Combining them is straight forward: 1/2 + 2/1 = 3/3. But this is numerically incorrect, since the 1s are the result of the oscillation. If it weren't for the oscillations, causing the displacement between the numerator and the denominator, the progressions would be s/t = 2/2 and t/s = 2/2, or the unit progression in both cases.

However, with the oscillations, they both become 1/2, since, in each case, the numerator is reduced by the oscillation over the same unit, while the denominator continues normally (see Chapter 4 of NBM). Expressing both oscillations in terms of s/t, so we can combine them, we invert the t/s 1/2, and it becomes s/t = 2/1. Then, numerically, we have to account for the inward half of the oscillation, since 2/2 + 2/2 = 4/4, not 3/3. Thus, we get:

1/2 + 1/1 + 2/1 = 4/4

This is the equation of the "balanced" combo. The term on the left is less than unity (.5c), while the term on the right is greater than unity (2c). The middle term is unity (1c). So, we represent the LHS with a red ball, the RHS with a blue ball, and the middle with a green dot (there is no ball, since there are only two oscillations.)

Now, when we add more units of red, or blue, to the combo, we indicate the difference by changing the color of the middle dot. If we add a red unit to the LHS, the dot changes to red. If we add a blue unit to the RHS, the green dot changes to a blue dot, indicating the one-unit unbalance.

You can think of it as a teeter/totter:
Green dot: the number of units on the LHS is equal to the number of units on the RHS, or
Green dot: #LHS = #RHS
Red dot: #LHS > #RHS
Blue dot: #LHS < #RHS

The difference in the unbalanced combos is always one unit, unless otherwise noted. The equation for the red dot is

2/4 + 2/1 + 2/1 = 6/6

The equation for the blue dot is

1/2 + 1/2 + 4/2 = 6/6

Hope this helps Horace.

Doug

December 11, 2009 | Registered CommenterDoug

So what is the 4th color - the purple dot ?

December 15, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterHorace

There is no fourth color. I thought about it, but it would only make sense if I put the numbers with it. The middle number indicates the quantitative imbalance and the "direction" of the imbalance, which I will use, when I do the quantitative analysis.

I've been thinking about it, but I haven't written much about it. The interesting thing is that since it represents the speed-displacement, it also represents the magnitude of the space/time (time/space) expansion, relative to the oscillating unit.

In other words, the expansion of space (time), relative to the oscillating unit, can be equal, greater than, or lesser than its reciprocal, which translates to gravity (time expansion is greater than space expansion) and dark energy (space expansion is greater than time expansion), relative to the unit, or aggregates of units.

I've been working on the atomic spectra and ionization potentials, and neglecting the other, but it may be that they are related. Funny,huh?

December 22, 2009 | Registered CommenterDoug

I asked because a purple dot appears in your diagram

December 26, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterHorace

Sorry, I see that now, but I forgot that I had used it in the Z boson originally, and then later changed it. In the original boson triplets, the three constituent S|T units were aligned (red to red, blue to blue), but I changed it to alternate (red, blue, red, which seemed to make more sense, structurally.

With the alternating configuration, the Z boson's three S|T units are either red or blue (don't ask me why one or more of them can't be green - I guess they could be, but I haven't thought about it much). Anyway, with the new configuration, I didn't need to use purple and explain its meaning. That made it simpler for the paper I submitted to the FQXI contest, here.

December 28, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterDoug

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>