And the book which has all the evidence we gathered in it, very scientific and all that.
https://curtis-press.com/produ…he-structured-atom-model/
it is cheaper than most papers, so buy the book, read it and try to break it down please.
Can you explain double beta decay steps?
Can you explain the uneven fission or Uranium?
Can you explain how the PTE is formed?
We can, thorough and detailed even in a logical manner.
Display More
There are many things I, and you, cannot explain. I can however say that models contrary to experiment don't cut it.
So, below, I state how the model in this book is directly contrary to experiment at its most fundamental level in two respects.
This book is the result of an international research team pursuing the intuitive notion that the atomic nucleus should have structural properties. Starting with a few logical assumptions, they discovered that many properties of the atom and the nucleus can be explained rationally without resorting to quantum mechanics or the limiting dogmas about the nucleus that dominate current physics. Using feedback from known experimental data, they identified several organizational principles that nature appears to use for constructing the elements, sometimes in unexpected ways. There are two assumptions underlying the Structured Atom Model (SAM). First, by replacing the neutron with a proton-electron pair, an electrostatic attractive force is reintroduced into the nucleus. The electrons acting as "glue" between the protons. Second, that "spherical dense packing" gives the nucleus its fractal shape--one of several organizational drivers in the buildup of the nucleus; other drivers being recurring substructures called "endings" and "nuclets." A SAM nucleus is constructed using these substructures in various combinations. The result is a new periodic table that hints at several missing elements most of which are suspected to be unstable, but probably not all. What emerges is nothing less than a new paradigm for thinking about the nucleus and physics. In SAM, several known nuclear phenomena follow directly from the structural configuration of the nucleus, including nuclear instability, radioactivity/radioactive decay, the asymmetrical breakup of fission products, and the various nuclear decay schemes. In addition, the team discovered an unrecognized store of energy that may very well be responsible for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR).
There are various things here:
(1) Looking phenomenologically at patterns in isotopes is fine. Indeed some combinations of charge and mass in a nucleus are more stable than others, and those patterns can be simple - at least in approximation. We see this in many areas of science. Sometimes the emergent patterns do have some indirect basis in a more complex underlying theory, sometimes they directly indicate the theory. I have nothing against this book as that. It then over-reaches - as below.
(2) A theory of subatomic physics needs to explain (or at least be compatible) with everything about nuclear reactions, and all known data about particle physics (e.g. what do you see when you crash two or more particles together at varying energies).
(3) (a) In this case neutrons are not proton-electron pairs (from experiment). They contain particles with charges of +2/3, -1/3 which have a size of < 10-4 that of a proton (it is assumed they are point particles, but we cannot be sure of course). We know this because we have photos of them (sort of) from deep inelastic scattering data. (b) The possibility of an electron being localised to a neutron size is just not possible - it would have too much momentum. That directly contradicts this model. See (4). for more detail.
(4) But in any case this model is phenomenological - it cannot say why things happen because it does not use quantum mechanics - which explains in exquisite detail the undeniable quantitative spookiness of almost everything. So whatever theory you want to add, it needs to include quantum mechanics (QM is really just a building block which matches experiment - like Clifford algebra). To replace QM you'd need to explain and predict all that spooky QM experimental stuff. Including entanglement over long distances. Which this model also does not do: and once you introduce QM the electron becomes impossible to localise to a nucleus from HUP (or rather, from the deeper QM math that underlies HUP - itself an approximation - and various other such principles). The simple explanation is that if you squeeze an electron down to nuclear size its wave packet frequency must be very high, which means its momentum is similarly high - too high for it to stay in the nucleus.
So, models are fine. Even this model is fine, though misleading. It is inaccurate if you want a deeper description of nuclear physics - however bad current models are, on the fundamental issue of "what is inside a neutron" - this model does not correspond to experiment directly looking at that, whereas quark-based models do.
It does not mean quark-based models are the last thing, or the most fundamental model. But any better model must follow them at the level of "what does the nucleus look like".
There is lots we do not know. And current models are not definite. But, you can't put forward a model that directly contradicts very many quantitative, replicable, certain, experiments and claim it is better than current models just because it does not "resort to quantum mechanics or the limiting dogmas about the nucleus that dominate current physics". Which phrase itself is arrogant and unsubstantiated (and is one cause of this rather long rebuttal).
It is monumental arrogance and hubris to ignore experimental evidence, as my namesake said:
“Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads or you shall learn nothing.”