Theory of Everything.

Typo correction:
Orion68 said:
The evidence is (yet again) written down in the article. A short answer would be that the real character of the proton and the neutron are described. They both consists out of quarks . In the article the mechanism of the decay of the neutron and the PROTON are explained. Evidence for this proces is later on obtained in two experiments, that of Jeff Steinhauer on Hawking radiation, and in the positron imaging tomography (PET). Both of these phenoma show data that correlaties 100% with the theorized decay of protons and neutrons.
Click to expand...
 
Hello Orion68,

You say you have a replacement for quantum physics. That's interesting.

Can you perhaps show us how you can predict the emission spectrum of the hydrogen atom using your new theory, or would that take too long to post here? Can I find that derivation in your paper?
 
James R said:
Hello Orion68,

You say you have a replacement for quantum physics. That's interesting.

Can you perhaps show us how you can predict the emission spectrum of the hydrogen atom using your new theory, or would that take too long to post here? Can I find that derivation in your paper?
Click to expand...
The article is only forty pages, not describing every known phenomenon. The same goes for this pheonemenon.
After all that's been said in this thread I'm hesitating in asking you to read the article and understand what's been written and hopefully come up with an explanation yourself based on the theory. In fact, that would be great. One person only knows that much and/or has limited time.
My first thought on this would be to calculate the movements of all the internal zero-point particles of the hydrogen atom. It should become obvious which orbitals are stable and which are not. Since hydrogen has only one electron this should be a relatieve simpele calculation in this case. The fact of a spectrum of emission hints to a huge multitude of stable configurations for the hydrogen, which can be demonstrated by heating up the atom, releasing specific photons due to the conversion of low energy particles (traditional heatwaves) into higher energy particles (the observed photons). Hope this makes any sense, the terrain in this aspect in uncharted theory for me, but somehow deducable from the theory.
That's why I want to share this theory, it is only a foundation for a new understanding, not already the immediate answer to all observed phenomena. I hope that physicists who give the theory the benefit of the doubt will think/experiment further on what's been laid down by me and my co-thinker/writer. I'm in no way in the position to explain every phenomenon observed yet.
 
Orion68 said:
I'm in no way in the position to explain every phenomenon observed yet.
Click to expand...
In the same way I am not able to explain my theory of unicorn poop is good for skin rejuvenation when mixed with homeopathic water

Have hard time finding
  • unicorns and
  • test subjects
I will continue though because this is a much neglected area of science research and ripe for Earth shattering Nobel Prize award in the mystical beast category

Please link to my PDF at
nonexistentmysticalbeastandhowtousetheirpoop.com

:)
 
Orion68 said:
In fact, I do. It is described in the article. What it comes down to is that quarks consists out of three interacting zero-point particles. Those quarks form protons and neutrons, just as observed.
Two zero-point particles make up an electron. When the precise position and movement of the zero-point particles are known the whole internal working of a nucleus and the surrounding electron(s) can be calculated. So one can determine the precise location and speed at the same time of for example an electron around a proton, something impossible to calculatie within quantum mechanics where only the chance that a particle is on a specific place can be calculated.

Hope this is enough of an answer (for now).
Click to expand...
Not quite.

Speaking as a chemist, what I am interested in is how in your non-QM model, you account for what we currently regard as "shells" (orbitals) within the atom, which are filled successively as atomic number increases, due to the constraints of the Pauli Exclusion Principle (in other words the Aufbauprinzip, which is the QM basis for understanding the Periodic Table).

If you have done away with the wave nature of matter, which is what gives rise to these orbitals in QM, how do you arrive at an equivalent result?
 
Michael 345 said:
In the same way I am not able to explain my theory of unicorn poop is good for skin rejuvenation when mixed with homeopathic water

Have hard time finding
  • unicorns and
  • test subjects
I will continue though because this is a much neglected area of science research and ripe for Earth shattering Nobel Prize award in the mystical beast category

Please link to my PDF at
nonexistentmysticalbeastandhowtousetheirpoop.com

:)
Click to expand...

Please go spread your humor in another thread. I like to seriously discuss the theory. No offense taken...
 
exchemist said:
Not quite.

Speaking as a chemist, what I am interested in is how in your non-QM model, you account for what we currently regard as "shells" (orbitals) within the atom, which are filled successively as atomic number increases, due to the constraints of the Pauli Exclusion Principle (in other words the Aufbauprinzip, which is the QM basis for understanding the Periodic Table).

If you have done away with the wave nature of matter, which is what gives rise to these orbitals in QM, how do you arrive at an equivalent result?
Click to expand...

The orbitals are caused by the curvatures of spacetime surrounding the zero-point particles. For an outside observer those spacetime curvatures will bend the straight movements paths of the zero-point particles. One can imagine that a proton on itself gives an electron a lot of degrees of moving around the nucleus. The combined curvatures of the zero-point particles curve the spacetime around them in a specific way and a straight moving electron will follow the these combined curvatures.
A more complex nucleus will bend spacetime in a much more complex way. The electron will follow these combined curvatures. A complex particle gives a complex imprint on spacetime thus allowing only specific movements tracks which are stable. The stable orbitals are the place in spacetime where the electron will follow a path that is dictated by the form of the nucleus and its imprint on spacetime curvature. The more complex a nucleus, the more 'imprints' on spacetime surrounding the nucleus. This leading to a situation where only specific curvatures around a nucleus can make the electron follow a stable path around the nucleus.
 
Michael 345 said:
No offense intended but I think my idea has a better chance of being peer reviewed

:)
Click to expand...
I understand. You are of the team that in the past would have refuted the idea of the earth circling the sun because all the other scientists say so.
 
Orion68 said:
The orbitals are caused by the curvatures of spacetime surrounding the zero-point particles. For an outside observer those spacetime curvatures will bend the straight movements paths of the zero-point particles. One can imagine that a proton on itself gives an electron a lot of degrees of moving around the nucleus. The combined curvatures of the zero-point particles curve the spacetime around them in a specific way and a straight moving electron will follow the these combined curvatures.
A more complex nucleus will bend spacetime in a much more complex way. The electron will follow these combined curvatures. A complex particle gives a complex imprint on spacetime thus allowing only specific movements tracks which are stable. The stable orbitals are the place in spacetime where the electron will follow a path that is dictated by the form of the nucleus and its imprint on spacetime curvature. The more complex a nucleus, the more 'imprints' on spacetime surrounding the nucleus. This leading to a situation where only specific curvatures around a nucleus can make the electron follow a stable path around the nucleus.
Click to expand...
Ah, so there are still electrons in orbitals, then. Good, I see.

But I'm intrigued by the idea that it is the complexity or lack of it that causes the configurations of the orbitals. So, if we take the hydrogen atom, with just one proton as its nucleus, what orbital pattern does that create? Just the one orbital, for the one electron?
 
Orion68 said:
I understand. You are of the team that in the past would have refuted the idea of the earth circling the sun because all the other scientists say so.
Click to expand...
Noooooooo I am of the individual who would listen to the evidence and made my own mind up based on evidence

:)
 
Orion68 said:
I understand. You are of the team that in the past would have refuted the idea of the earth circling the sun because all the other scientists say so.
Click to expand...
This never happened, by the way.

It was the Church, not other scientists, that took issue with Galileo's interpretation of the Copernican model. (Copernicus, who developed it, was actually commended by the church for his work, I seem to recall.)
 
exchemist said:
Ah, so there are still electrons in orbitals, then. Good, I see.

But I'm intrigued by the idea that it is the complexity or lack of it that causes the configurations of the orbitals. So, if we take the hydrogen atom, with just one proton as its nucleus, what orbital pattern does that create? Just the one orbital, for the one electron?
Click to expand...
exchemist said:
Ah, so there are still electrons in orbitals, then. Good, I see.

But I'm intrigued by the idea that it is the complexity or lack of it that causes the configurations of the orbitals. So, if we take the hydrogen atom, with just one proton as its nucleus, what orbital pattern does that create? Just the one orbital, for the one electron?
Click to expand...

Already an orbital for a single proton is extremely complex. The best I've done so far is calculating the internal movements of a quark. I don't have a working model which allows me to see how nine zero-point particles interact, a proton, subclustered in quarks that is. Though the principle is very simple, the equations are enormously complex. I don't have a model that calculates dynamically all those interactions, but I made a start in developing two models to calculate the reality and character of the zero-point particles. Hopefully others will go further than I did.

What even makes the matter more complex is when neutrons are involved, why don't they influence the amount of electrons a nucleus can hold?

So, there are still a lot of open pieces of the puzzle, but I think I'm on the right track. But it's just too much for me alone to solve this big puzzle. And since I do not have a sparring partner anymore I'll probably leave the theory as far for what it is and hope someone will pick it up and lift it to an even higher level of precise knowledge.
 
Michael 345 said:
No offense intended but I think my idea has a better chance of being peer reviewed
Click to expand...
I'm impressed that you have the physics/math chops to analyze the theory sufficiently well that you can poke fun at it. o_O

I know I sure don't. I'd feel like I'm on the foothills of Everest - pointing at the guy who's half way to the top - and making fun of his climbing skills.
 
Orion68 said:
Already an orbital for a single proton is extremely complex. The best I've done so far is calculating the internal movements of a quark. I don't have a working model which allows me to see how nine zero-point particles interact, a proton, subclustered in quarks that is. Though the principle is very simple, the equations are enormously complex. I don't have a model that calculates dynamically all those interactions, but I made a start in developing two models to calculate the reality and character of the zero-point particles. Hopefully others will go further than I did.

What even makes the matter more complex is when neutrons are involved, why don't they influence the amount of electrons a nucleus can hold?

So, there are still a lot of open pieces of the puzzle, but I think I'm on the right track. But it's just too much for me alone to solve this big puzzle. And since I do not have a sparring partner anymore I'll probably leave the theory as far for what it is and hope someone will pick it up and lift it to an even higher level of precise knowledge.
Click to expand...
Your remark about neutrons is interesting.

In the QM picture, electrons are confined to the orbital by the electrostatic attraction between them and the protons. So the QM model predicts (successfully) that the number of neutrons in the nucleus has no effect on electronic structure.

Does your model do away with electrostatic charge as well, then? What confines the electron, if not charge?
 
exchemist said:
Your remark about neutrons is interesting.

In the QM picture, electrons are confined to the orbital by the electrostatic attraction between them and the protons. So the QM model predicts (successfully) that the number of neutrons in the nucleus has no effect on electronic structure.
Does your model do away with electrostatic charge as well, then? What confines the electron, if not charge?
Click to expand...

I do not deny the results of quantum mechanics, in my opinion the QM model is roughly correct, I just offer another viewpoint on how to look at matter at the smallest scale. Quantum mechanics is a good tool to meta-calculate the interactions between the zero-point particles. It does however not offer a view under Heisenberg's boundary, the zero point particles are below that level and thus our theory is a more detailed description of reality. When two or more zero point particles interact they can be observed.

The model does give an an explanation for (electro)magnetic fields.

The electron is in a mechanical orbit around the proton because it moves over a curvature track surrounding the proton. What confines the moon to the earth?
 
Orion68 said:
The electron is in a mechanical orbit around the proton because it moves over a curvature track surrounding the proton. What confines the moon to the earth?
Click to expand...
That would be gravity.
We're going back to a planetary model of the atom?
 
Orion68 said:
I do not deny the results of quantum mechanics, in my opinion the QM model is roughly correct, I just offer another viewpoint on how to look at matter at the smallest scale. Quantum mechanics is a good tool to meta-calculate the interactions between the zero-point particles. It does however not offer a view under Heisenberg's boundary, the zero point particles are below that level and thus our theory is a more detailed description of reality. When two or more zero point particles interact they can be observed.

The model does give an an explanation for (electro)magnetic fields.

The electron is in a mechanical orbit around the proton because it moves over a curvature track surrounding the proton. What confines the moon to the earth?
Click to expand...
But spacetime curvature is due to gravitation in GR and is a function of mass, whereas in QM the electron is confined by electrostatic attraction and is a function of charge.

So presumably you must have some - wholly new- way of modelling electrostatic attraction (and repulsion) in terms of spacetime curvature of a different sort. Right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top