New Meson Based Atomic Model

  • A new meson based atomic model has been developed. The model offers significant new insights into atomic physics including:

    - Atomic nuclei structures resolved,

    - Link between chemistry and nucleus structures demonstrated,

    - Consistent with LENR observations and de-excited electron theory,

    The model is based on electrodynamic flux flow and "wave-particle equivalence", offering a replacement to Rutherford electrostatics, the standard model, Einstein's relativity and most of the last 100 years of theoretical atomic physics.

    The model is published at:

    Please let me know your thoughts!!!

  • Looks very interesting. Your experimental results and approaches look very promising. But in my opinion you are on the wrong track (though not nearly as wrong as the mainstream). Of course I know you won't want to hear that, since you've obviously put a lot of work into these models, and they're quite impressive. But that's what I think and no need to pull any punches.

    The reason there is an 'equivalence' between between waves and particles is that waves are produced by the "spin state" of the fundamental particle that comprises all matter (a photon that actually has physical extension and is not just a point particle). In other words, as the photon/particle spins, it traces a kind of sinusoidal zig-zag through space -- a sort of wave-like shape. The problem is that we have mathematically described this wave-like motion using field wave equations, but the "wave" is actually a property of the particle as it traces out a wave-shaped path through space. There is a direct and proportional relationship to the energy carried by the particle and its 'size' in terms of wavelength.

    In fact, the spin states also explain the reason why light/energy is quantized. It is also the reason why you are able to mathematically "fit" mesons into protons and neutrons: mesons are also created by a state of that fundamental particle that has a spin radius between the electron and the proton/neutron. Since spin states are simply a doubling of the radius of the previous spin state, they all have a very precise and pre-defined mathematical relationship to each other.

    The electro-magnetic flux you discuss is mechanically created by the potential created by the flow of these elementary photons as they are channeled or pumped through electrons, baryons, atoms, and molecules (which can also be called b-photons or charge photons).

    I realize nothing I just wrote is likely to makes sense to you. Here are some papers that will help clarify, including a critique of the conclusions that have been drawn from Rutherford's scattering equations, and my paper that tries to use this theory to understand LENR:

    And here is my paper that tries to use Mathis's theories to understand LENR:

  • Simon says "Please let me know your thoughts!!!"

    1. My experience is that physicists as a group are just as mired in outmoded tradition as biologists.

    Biologists=EVOLUTION Physicists=QUANTUM

    It's good to hear some more new thought 100 years after Rutherford.

    2.There are several new theories but the crunch is to come up with the differentiating test and do it.

    You have made a kind of prediction that the positron radius would be such and such

    Not so easy to test as was Thomson's plum pudding model with an alpha gun

    but have you any thoughts how to test that?

    3. "Chemistry comes from nucleus"

    This comes from your summary tables which differentiates your model from Mills/Rutherford.

    We know that the chemistry of C-14 being similar to C-12 was necessary to elucidate the Calvin cycle.

    Other investigations have shown that isotope form does not change chemical behaviour very much.

    This blanket statement may need to be qualified..

    the chemical behaviours of C-14/C-12 is not very different because the nuclear structures are not much different ?

    4. Nobel gases(new atomic model) should be Noble gases.( or Inert). Sorry to nitpick.

    What's in a name.. who knows what God calls them.

    Our thoughts are far away from His thoughts

  • Thanks for the comments.

    Josh G - Firstly to clarify, the model is based on a "background energy" view of the universe with waves (and particles) as "fluctuations" in background energy. There is a separate page on the website covering some discussion on background energy theory. If you start at a fundamental particle assumption you will likely end up with slightly different conclusions. I'm looking forward to reading more of Miles' work. From what I have read he definitely has a lot to offer, so it will be great to compare our ideas.

    Robert B - Thanks for some really open minded feedback and comments. You have picked up on some interest potentials of the model. In terms of further validation, there is a lot of ongoing R&D that fits with the model, such as identifying proton sub shells (incorporated in to the model today). Often there is a lot to be learnt from reinterpreting existing data rather than needing to do massive new experiments. I'm going to continue validation work, and make improvements where appropriate, but being able to produce potentially valid structures for nuclei, consistent with isotope stability patterns and chemical bonding, must be the biggest plus for the model. A good starting point for this and any other atomic model. Thanks for the tip on the naming of "Noble" gases. Alfred Nobel has probably got enough recognition already...


  • the model is based on a "background energy" view of the universe with waves (and particles) as "fluctuations" in background energy.

    Yes, please keep reading his work, I think there are some interesting points of overlap between your theories. For example your 'background energy' view of the universe is in some respects similar to his charge field theory (for him the charge field is sort of like an aether, except that it is made of physical particles that have real presence; there is nothing virtual about them).

    You write on your website that "Background energy theory is that space is permeated by electro-magnetic wave energy." Well for Mathis, the charge field is simply composed of photons (except that his photons have mass; they are not massless point particles), so in a very real sense he also argues that space is permeated by electro-magnetic energy, in the form of photons. He has also shown that dark matter/energy is simply these charge field photons.

    I wouldn't say that he started with the assumption of a fundamental particle. It was more like something he has deduced.


  • Simon said

    "proton subshells incorporated today".

    Looks interesting, Thanks for taking the time to put that up on your web site.

    it looks more useful than the zillions story put out by Strassler.

    Does CERN have a mindset which restricts them from interpreting their

    The Infinity Energy Magazine references supporting this are not of course available on university cross searchs, pity

    Is there any possibility that this proton substructure could support the idea of a metastable binuclear hydrogen as proposed by

    Paolo Accomazzi

    reading his brief pdf he postulates

    "a potential well (as the two proton spins oppose each other) at a smaller distance than the normal H_H bond length."

    the difficulty with proving his postulate is not just the Hamiltonian equation solution but also the validity of the equation.

    Perhaps your subshell model could yield a calculatable equation for the proton proton interaction that depends on distance?

    Please let me know your thoughts on that?

    Happy Easter/ We don't know how lucky we are,(John Clarke in memoriam)

  • robert bryant ,

    This was a good video I have to copy/paste your comment.

    Happy Easter/ We don't know how lucky we are,(John Clarke in memoriam)

    Maybe we could get him out with an easter egg. We should be addressing theory and how it does or does not work.

    Rossi has boiled these eggs. The video made good points.

    Anyway I chased down your link on zillions of quarks in the Prof-Matt article, someone named DaveS. explained it in the comments.

    Maybe we could discuss this video someday.


  • The video mentions a

    Gianfranco Cerofolini 1992reference


    Can Binuclear Atoms Be Formed in Head-on Atomic Impacts at Moderate Energy?"

    about what kind of elements could form binuclear atoms from a ballpark theoretical standpoint.

    Gianfranco concluded that only for Z<3, i.e Hydrogen and Helium had the possibility to form metastable states in the kiloelectronvolt range

    But Gianfranco used conventional assumptions about electrons and protons

    For a hydrogen binuclear atom (i.e one with two protons) if one were to incorporate Mills hydrino thinking with sub-n=1 states

    it is conceivable that if n= 1/2,1/3,1/4 electrons were closer to the two protons

    than this might stabilise

    a diproton hydrogen atom and reduce the energy level of the metastable state. How far below the kEV level.???

    Some have postulated that the deuterinos have a high probabilty of fusing ,

    e,g Itzhak Shechtman 15 years ago


    Mills developed equations ( which took into account the forces due to the electrons' spin) for the hydrogen molecule

    which give amazing agreement with experimental parameters.

    These were first published in Mills, Phys. Essays 17, 342 2004.

    but were summarised in 2010 in…ntationPt2-web-032017.pdf.

    The same approach for molecules made from two hydrinos will likely calculate more stable configurations

    of the ( dihydrino) molecule with protons closer together than in the normal hydrogen molecule.

    However as far as I am aware Mills is not

    focussed on the fusion possibility, as he seems to be comfortable with the more controllable predictable energy release

    as the individual hydrino atoms are shrunk smaller and smaller.