SAM - The Structured Atom model - Edo Kael

Edo welcome to the club. Science is a joke today. It’s transformed into a religion. I fully support your work with an open mind. Hint, the more resistance you face the closer you are getting to the truth.

In real science when you have competitive hypotheses, the standard scientific response is to design an experiment that can support or falsify the null hypothesis.

Unfortunately, more and more these days censorship is the method used for denying alternative models that the truth gatekeepers disagree with.

Quote from Edo

We (SAM team) tried to submit a paper and it was rejected because SAM (Structured Atom Model) does not use "point particles" but actual dimensions for Protons etc. Also the whole model is based on the numbers, data, observations the scientific community has established, but "we do not follow the laws of nature".

So I am really curious now....

How many here believe the neutron to be a fundamental particle? And how many believe that this 'fundamental' particle is still more massive in the nucleus? since the mass defect increases with the number of neutrons going down the PTE (more n, more mass defect...).

How many here use point particles and thus ignore reality?

You have a point! (That things are not points)

Speaking of which, I've heard ideas like the following : all fundamental particles are actually infinitesimal points of dielectric mass and charge, having no space dimension, but are manifest in space as volumetric size of magnetism, ie, 'field', or put in another way, torsions of the aether.

I only say this because views like the above may be conciliatory between the point versus the physical structure models.

Quote from Mark U

I've heard ideas like the following : all fundamental particles are actually infinitesimal points of dielectric mass and charge, having no space dimension, but are manifest in space as volumetric size of magnetism, ie, 'field', or put in another way, torsions of the aether.

Must have visited a mad house...

Quote from Daniel_G

Unfortunately, more and more these days censorship is the method used for denying alternative models that the truth gatekeepers disagree with.

Don't recall where i read it, the view that our modern day 'cancel culture' has its roots in certain American academics placed in certain elitist universities in the post WWII era. So, spreading together down from these universities (to places of influence such as education, politics and the corporate world) are both certain ideologies and methods to ensure competition to them is minimized. In this way alternative views are considered as almost morally offensive, as unacceptable, as politically incorrect, as uncertified and unsanctified by those deemed worthy to judge.

Here's an early example of cancel culture at work in science, I believe it would be the 1950s.

Excerpted from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03793-2

David Bohm argued that particles in quantum systems existed whether observed or not, and that they have predictable positions and motions determined by pilot waves. John Bell then showed that Einstein’s concerns about locality and incompleteness in the Copenhagen interpretation were valid. It was he who refuted von Neumann’s proof by revealing that it ruled out only a narrow class of hidden-variables theories.

The scientific community greeted Bohm’s ideas coolly. A former mentor, J. Robert Oppenheimer, said: “if we cannot disprove Bohm, then we must agree to ignore him”. And, as Becker shows, Bohm’s leftist views led to an appearance before the House Un-American Activities Committee, and subsequent ostracization.

Quote from Edo

We (SAM team) tried to submit a paper and it was rejected because SAM (Structured Atom Model) does not use "point particles" but actual dimensions for Protons etc. Also the whole model is based on the numbers, data, observations the scientific community has established, but "we do not follow the laws of nature". ...

Edo

Why do you need to actual dimensions? Why can't you use points connected on a string? For example quantum field theory can be modeled as points on a string.

Quote from Drgenek

Why do you need to actual dimensions? Why can't you use points connected on a string? For example quantum field theory can be modeled as points on a string.

Once we adopt an actual size for the nucleons, the issue of how they are organized comes up. SAM explored that avenue and shows how this structure is directly connected to all kinds of physical phenomenon, such as Nuclear fission, Binding energy, or how the PTE is build up as it is. there is much more. But ignoring these facts, and you end up with mathematical concepts based on mathematical concepts such as the "point or dot" > So I argue that current named "Quantum field something" is just that, math and does not reflect reality....

It means that we do not need (Shocking news flash)
- anti-matter
- neutrino's
- no dreadful unintelligible mathematical calculations

SAM method
- a clear simple concept that one can visualize and model

- explain all elements and isotopes
- explain the number of "neutrons" in the elements (SAM concepts are that the neutron is a proton-electron-proton building block)
- Show each and every nuclear reaction correctly related to the given structure of the nucleus.
- explains the periodic nature of the Table of the Elements

- Why nuclear fission yields energy and why fusion yields energy
- etc

If there is no dimension in fundamental building blocks, then how can we get our dimensions?

I would like this debate to happen, and i will defend this position that the nucleus is structured and what we call QM is the study of the behavior of those nucleons in relation to each other (nuclear physics). I will also defend this position or model because it is (I believe) of great importance and a contribution to physics and science in general.. Therefore i have to conclude that we need to redo our collective homework and redevelop QM in a way, because some principles or postulations are, in my mind, simply and plainly wrong. Point particles are the best example I reckon.

Another example where math tries to supersede empirical evidence in modern “science”

Which is why I can resolve all relativity problems by modifying Einstein and Sternglass's equation to E=mc^n!

Quote from Edo

If there is no dimension in fundamental building blocks, then how can we get our dimensions? ...

Therefore i have to conclude that we need to redo our collective homework and redevelop QM in a way, because some principles or postulations are, in my mind, simply and plainly wrong. Point particles are the best example I reckon.

There is an equation used to calculate the radius of a target and projectile atom. Those radii are used to calculate the magnitude of the coulomb barrier. R= 1.4 A1/3 fermi. Where A is the nuclear mass number. Are the individual nucleons in your model are all spheres of similar dimension as calculated with the above equation? How do you calculate the magnitude of the coulomb barrier in your model? How do you calculate the volume of the nucleus?

The generation of negative muons by using appropriate catalysis (Holmlid) removes any limitation of a Coulomb Barrier, just as in the sun gravity holds the fusion reactions together!

Quote from Wyttenbach

A new model must be predictive. Just look up where it explains the gamma spectrum of an nucleus...

Actually, we do not talk about that, because we are not ready. However let me state this already, that the energy levels of gamma rays are totally connected to the specific structural components. we can see that already, we are working on the clear cut nitty gritty of it all, so that we have something to show for before we actually make that claim. Right now all I can say it looks nicely promising and in concept very simple.

Quote from Drgenek

There is an equation used to calculate the radius of a target and projectile atom. Those radii are used to calculate the magnitude of the coulomb barrier. R= 1.4 A1/3 fermi. Where A is the nuclear mass number. Are the individual nucleons in your model are all spheres of similar dimension as calculated with the above equation? How do you calculate the magnitude of the coulomb barrier in your model? How do you calculate the volume of the nucleus?

We use the concept of the protons as the only nucleon with the neutron being a state of an inner electron bound between protons. All the logic is explained in the book and on videos and presentations as support.
All protons are obviously.. the same, meaning same size, same charge same whatever. They are identical. This means the actual size does not matter (...) in relation to the organization between them.
When the diameter for example starts to play a role, for example comparing the electron with the proton we use the given values that one can find, in reality it comes down to (forgive me the proper values are given elsewhere) the proton being about 0.8 fm and the electron about 3 times larger of about 2.8 fm.
Yes one can argue the actual size, but again for the organization between them it does not matter.

It also is important when we measure start to take the densest packing into account that "fights' with the actual 'binary tree' that the nucleus is shaped in. This we see when the average binding energy starts to drop off above Iron.

Also important if we calculate the actual size of the nucleus, We are about 15% smaller than is now assumed. It is about 7-8 protons in diameter. It is also somewhat elongated for the heavier elements due to that 'binary tree' form.

Hope i have given a proper answer here.

He's right about the organization being paramount. When I modeled the proton by putting the negative quark at the center and hanging the positive charges at the corners of a tetrahedron, I found that the force holding it together was always 11 times the force of repulsion with no charge at the center irrespective of the separation of the charges. The geometry of the tetrahedron imposes that relationship. I also proposed that the tetrahedral geometry plays a role in the alpha particle. In that regard I would be interested in his model for the alpha particle.

Quote from GRMattson

He's right about the organization being paramount. When I modeled the proton by putting the negative quark at the center and hanging the positive charges at the corners of a tetrahedron, I found that the force holding it together was always 11 times the force of repulsion with no charge at the center irrespective of the separation of the charges. The geometry of the tetrahedron imposes that relationship. I also proposed that the tetrahedral geometry plays a role in the alpha particle. In that regard I would be interested in his model for the alpha particle.

This brings us to a specific topic or two..
The anomalous high BE of He4 and the fact that the neutron is accepted as a fundamental particle.

The neutron is not fundamental and our intention is to show this is the case through clear logic and numbers and calculations. All based on what is accepted as observations such as the energy level of a gamma ray or the mass of C12 or the elementary charge. The free neutron is a real thing, just not fundamental.
The acceptance of the neutron with 0.78 MeV or so of "self-binding" energy is the mistake because it leads to two values for total binding energy of elements. For Deuterium we have 1.442 and 2.225 MeV. Which is it?
If we accept the neutron not fundamental and the reintroduce the electron in the nucleus with only protons as the other particle, we end up with the explanation that the inner or nuclear electron is real and it costs energy to place it in the inner bound state.
And yes, all calculations show that the electron in a position between protons is very viable and strong enough to keep the protons together.

Also,
He4 has way higher BE than any other element (at least relatively).
In the SAM model we show that this is a very specific case, due to the close proximity of two inner electrons that both overlap the touching points or connection 'lines' between them (6 in total in a tetrahedron). SAM logic dictates that each line of connection has the Deuteron 2.225 MeV value in principle. Double that for the 2 electrons overlapping the 6 connections and we reach MeV 26.70 for He4 and the lit. value is 26.716419467 MeV. This leaves us with the only conclusion possible that the inner electrons are responsible for the binding of the protons and it directly reflects the actual binding energy of any atom.... Only He4, D and T have this anomalous overlapping effect, all other elements do not have this doubling effect.


These are things we learn through this model thinking, a clean slate approach and in concept very simple. It greatly improved our understanding of the nuclear field. meaning we do not feel lost anymore in all the noise, details, math, misconceptions, and the many many issues and enigma's science still has. We do not claim to know all, far from it, we see how little we know and how wrong we sometimes are. We are simply exploring and in the process things become much clearer. I invite everyone to join in this quest.

Quote from Edo

The acceptance of the neutron with 0.78 MeV or so of "self-binding" energy is the mistake because it leads to two values for total binding energy of elements. For Deuterium we have 1.442 and 2.225 MeV. Which is it?

As SO(4) physics shows Deuterium owns a neutron structure but 4-He has no neutron structure. This also explains why most nuclei only contain a few neutrons that can be located inside the loosely bound peripheral substructures.

The core of any higher Z nuclei is tightly bound by a so called alpha wave structure that follows the torus 7:4 law of mass reduction given from changing the orbit. The alpha wave also explains the width of an isotopes gamma spectrum as usually the alpha wave cannot take part as a primary resonance without cracking the nucleus.

But how is all that structured?

And how can there be no "neutrons" ne He4? it would be a different element then.

Edo, as for implications for CF, then what is the net result of moving an electron to the nucleus in terms of heat energy produced?

Quote from Edo

And how can there be no "neutrons" ne He4? it would be a different element then.

No all nuclear bonds are induced by topological charge. So far no experiment did show a neutron inside 4-He. You have to add > 20 MeV to 4-He to fragment it, then the neutron structure can be rebuilt.

Anyway. Standard model physics is silly Kindergarten LEGO brick work bare of any logic. A neutron is a temporary unstable structure. It is only stable inside a nuclear bond if you provide an SO(4) conform charge structure as seen in Deuterium.

Quote from Edo

This brings us to a specific topic or two..
The anomalous high BE of He4 . ...

In the SAM model we show that this is a very specific case, due to the close proximity of two inner electrons that both overlap the touching points or connection 'lines' between them (6 in total in a tetrahedron). SAM logic dictates that each line of connection has the Deuteron 2.225 MeV value in principle. Double that for the 2 electrons overlapping the 6 connections and we reach MeV 26.70 for He4 and the lit. value is 26.716419467 MeV. This leaves us with the only conclusion possible that the inner electrons are responsible for the binding of the protons and it directly reflects the actual binding energy of any atom.... Only He4, D and T have this anomalous overlapping effect, all other elements do not have this doubling effect.

Interesting.

Do you have a general explanation of decay that produces a positron and that relates to structure? What predictions can you provide for decay products based on structure?

Quote from Wyttenbach

No all nuclear bonds are induced by topological charge. So far no experiment did show a neutron inside 4-He. You have to add > 20 MeV to 4-He to fragment it, then the neutron structure can be rebuilt.

Anyway. Standard model physics is silly Kindergarten LEGO brick work bare of any logic. A neutron is a temporary unstable structure. It is only stable inside a nuclear bond if you provide an SO(4) conform charge structure as seen in Deuterium.

We are in agreement that it is a short lived stressed thing