The Simplest Hypothesis Possible

InnerSpace

Registered Member
Although talking about ‘the Simplest Hypothesis Possible’, this 8-page paper on Atomic Physics is far from simple. See what you think. It also contains an interesting quote from Albert Einstein thatImagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution, which seems quite appropriate to those interested in Alternative Theories.
 
Although talking about ‘the Simplest Hypothesis Possible’, this 8-page paper on Atomic Physics is far from simple. See what you think. It also contains an interesting quote from Albert Einstein thatImagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution, which seems quite appropriate to those interested in Alternative Theories.
Yes, cranks all over the world absolutely love that Einstein quote. They use it to justify all manner of nonsense. I burst out laughing reading it. :biggrin:

The thing is, he never meant you didn't need any knowledge, just that knowledge is not sufficient if you want to innovate.

But if you want to discuss the contents of this paper you need to post a précis of it here on forum. Requiring us to go offsite to an unknown link is bad form.
 
It's Davy Johnson from down under, pedaling more woo. Still working on those orbital energy fields?
 
Albert Einstein thatImagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein had a physics degree, was top of his school and obtained a doctorate by the time he was publishing.
He also read the available published literature of that time.
 
It also contains an interesting quote from Albert Einstein thatImagination is more important than knowledge.
I have this image in my mind of me talking into this old teapot with short lengths of copper wire sticking out of it. I also imagine there’s a reply
talking back to me, and that someone is telling me their 20 miles from me.
Can anyone here tell me why my imaginary cell phone, when constructed in the real world, doesn't work, what am I lacking?
 
Last edited:
Albert Einstein had a physics degree, was top of his school and obtained a doctorate by the time he was publishing.
He also read the available published literature of that time.
So do a lot of people who bring forth new theories that are first rejected by the present paradigm of the time.
 
There’s the junk filter test… Predictions of the ‘new’ model confirmed by observation.
 
No indication that an of the current respondents have taken the trouble to read the paper. Perhaps 8 pages is beyond their intellectual capacity.
 
No indication that an of the current respondents have taken the trouble to read the paper. Perhaps 8 pages is beyond their intellectual capacity.
What arrogance to think readers will go offsite to read 8pages of what may just be crank nonsense, without any hint of why it might be worth our while.

The forum requires material for discussion to be posted here. If you post a summary here we may read that and ask about it.

What insights do you have to offer? What problems in physics does this address? What advantages does this have over conventional physics?

Why should we spend time trying to understand your ideas? Nobody owes you their attention. You have to earn it.
 
Well let me in my arrogance list six aspects about which conventional Science and STEM both agree upon:

1. All aspects of Newtonian Physics.

2. That electron and positron behaviour is well described by the QM wave equations.

3. Nucleons consist of three Up/Down quarks: protons = UDU and neutrons = DUD

4. Atoms consist of a nucleus and orbital electrons; and the nucleus consists of protons and neutrons.

5. Neutrons can convert into protons and vice versa.

6. Charge movement (electric current) generates a circular magnetic field and wire movement through (or of) magnetic fields can generate electric current.

That should be a start.
 
Well let me in my arrogance list six aspects about which conventional Science and STEM both agree upon:

1. All aspects of Newtonian Physics.

2. That electron and positron behaviour is well described by the QM wave equations.

3. Nucleons consist of three Up/Down quarks: protons = UDU and neutrons = DUD

4. Atoms consist of a nucleus and orbital electrons; and the nucleus consists of protons and neutrons.

5. Neutrons can convert into protons and vice versa.

6. Charge movement (electric current) generates a circular magnetic field and wire movement through (or of) magnetic fields can generate electric current.

That should be a start.
What do you mean by "STEM?"
 
STEM is an energy-centric approach to atomic theory that is underpinned by the hypothesis is that ‘there is only one type of energy-generating material’, with that material being electromagnetic in nature. The acronym STEM stands for stands for the Spin Torus Energy Model.
 
It's Davy Johnson from down under, pedaling more woo. Still working on those orbital energy fields?
Spot-on! I've just looked up Spin Torus Energy Model and I get a SCIRP paper (SCIRP being one of the predatory pay-to-publish outfits on Beale's List) by one David Johnson, a retired Australian IT lecturer. Seems he's been hawking this around since 2019 at least. He's even resorted to posting on the LENR (Cold Fusion) forum.
 
Well let me in my arrogance list six aspects about which conventional Science and STEM both agree upon:

1. All aspects of Newtonian Physics.

2. That electron and positron behaviour is well described by the QM wave equations.

3. Nucleons consist of three Up/Down quarks: protons = UDU and neutrons = DUD

4. Atoms consist of a nucleus and orbital electrons; and the nucleus consists of protons and neutrons.

5. Neutrons can convert into protons and vice versa.

6. Charge movement (electric current) generates a circular magnetic field and wire movement through (or of) magnetic fields can generate electric current.

That should be a start.
Well if it agrees, that's not much reason to take an interest. What is important for a new model is that it should predict, at least in principle, observations that distinguish the new model from the current one, thus showing its superiority. Or else that it solves an apparent problem with current theory while still be able to account for all the phenomena the current model successfully explains.

In other words, what's the advantage of STEM and how can it be put to the test?

P.S. I see in fact you posted about STEM, under the handle "pivot", on the .net forum in 2022, where I asked you the same thing:

"A good start for you would be to summarise the advantages you claim for your new model of the atom. What hitherto unexplained observations does it account for? Or how is it simpler in accounting for observations than the electron/nucléon QM model? And, most crucially, what predictions does it make that would show its superiority?"

.....at which point you gave up the discussion. Have you an answer now?
 
Last edited:
STEM provides a re-assuring consistency across many Physics-related phenomena and disciplines, and has the potential develop predictive interactive computer-simulation software for Physics and Chemistry essentially based upon Newtonian Physics equations. And although many aspects of STEM are quite different to Conventional Science (CS), there is the tantalizing possibility that many of its claims could be on the money or, at very least, might suggest worthwhile new directions for CS-based Physics research.

Should providing consistency across many Physics-related phenomena and disciplines be not good enough for you, then one example of that might show superiority (your words, not mine) relates to the positron. CS cannot and does not support the existence of positrons within matter because the only source of positive charge within matter is the proton, and certainly has trouble explaining how or why they are generated from material by high impact bombardment processes (e.g. in a collider or via high energy laser pulses). However, STEM, on the other hand, claims that aptron electrons (CS positrons) exist within electrical conductors, with aptrons rather than ‘positive holes’ moving in the opposite direction to electrons as an electric current. There is strong supportive evidence of the STEM explanation in terms of fractal wood burning and DCPE (Direct Current Positive Electrode) welding, which can only be explained by the presence of aptron electrons.

Then there is the explanation of electromagnetic fields, man-made micro and radio waves, electo-motor force etc etc

And in regards to LENR, it is one of the many CS and alternative sites that I browse and sporadically interact with to consider a wide range of views rather than keeping my head stuck in the sand.
 
STEM provides a re-assuring consistency across many Physics-related phenomena and disciplines, and has the potential develop predictive interactive computer-simulation software for Physics and Chemistry essentially based upon Newtonian Physics equations. And although many aspects of STEM are quite different to Conventional Science (CS), there is the tantalizing possibility that many of its claims could be on the money or, at very least, might suggest worthwhile new directions for CS-based Physics research.

Should providing consistency across many Physics-related phenomena and disciplines be not good enough for you, then one example of that might show superiority (your words, not mine) relates to the positron. CS cannot and does not support the existence of positrons within matter because the only source of positive charge within matter is the proton, and certainly has trouble explaining how or why they are generated from material by high impact bombardment processes (e.g. in a collider or via high energy laser pulses). However, STEM, on the other hand, claims that aptron electrons (CS positrons) exist within electrical conductors, with aptrons rather than ‘positive holes’ moving in the opposite direction to electrons as an electric current. There is strong supportive evidence of the STEM explanation in terms of fractal wood burning and DCPE (Direct Current Positive Electrode) welding, which can only be explained by the presence of aptron electrons.

Then there is the explanation of electromagnetic fields, man-made micro and radio waves, electo-motor force etc etc

And in regards to LENR, it is one of the many CS and alternative sites that I browse and sporadically interact with to consider a wide range of views rather than keeping my head stuck in the sand.
As current physics generally seems to provide excellent consistency across disciplines already, one would need to focus on specific inconsistencies that are resolved by your STEM model.

- You mention a supposed difficulty with positron emission from atoms. But I don't see what the difficulty is. A proton, typically in a proton-rich nucleus, changes to a neutron, thereby bringing the numbers of protons and neutrons closer to parity, and a positron is emitted. What is the problem?

- You would need to explain why you think fractal wood burning and DCPE welding can't be explained by conventional physics.

- The theory of EM fields and EM radiation seems to work fine and integrates seamlessly into quantum theory. You would need to explain what you consider defective in the model.
 
What you have described is with β+ decay, which would change, which changes the atomic number of the targeted atom. This is not the case for bombardment. The ways are...
  1. Pair Production: When high-energy photons (gamma rays) interact with a strong electromagnetic field, they can produce an electron-positron pair. This typically requires the photon to have energy exceeding 1.022 MeV (the combined rest mass energy of the electron and positron).
  2. Beta Plus Decay: In certain types of radioactive decay known as beta plus (β+) decay, a proton in an unstable nucleus is transformed into a neutron, emitting a positron and a neutrino. This process occurs in isotopes such as carbon-11 and potassium-40.
  3. Particle Colliders: High-energy particle accelerators can collide particles at significant energies, leading to conditions where pair production can occur. When protons or heavy ions collide at high speeds, they can produce various particle-antiparticle pairs, including positrons.
  4. Cosmic Ray Interactions: Positrons are also generated in the atmosphere when cosmic rays (high-energy particles from space) collide with atoms in the air, resulting in various particle interactions.
  5. Certain Nuclear Reactions: Some nuclear reactions, particularly those involving proton-rich isotopes, can also produce positrons as a byproduct.
For arc welding the welding rod may be attached to the positive or the negative terminal of a DC power supply, or to an AC power source. The arcs are created by CC jumping from the tip of the welding rod across the gap to complete the electric circuit, so generating enough heat (up to 6500OF) to cause a partial melt of the target and the weld rod. Electrode-negative (DC- or straight) polarity involves the attachment of the welding rod to the negative terminal of DC power and, for electrode-positive (DC+ or reverse or DCEP) polarity, it is attached to positive terminal. Should DC current be due to the one-way movement of cetron electrons then DC- welding is easily explained by cetron electrons from the rod causing the arc, but DC+ welding would not be possible unless cetron electrons jump from the weld-target to the welding rod, or should protons jump from the welding rod to the target, which they don’t.

The characteristics of DC+ and DC- are different: DC- polarity has a faster melt-off of the electrode, faster deposition rates, and involves less power usage. Also, due to the higher work function of aptron electrons that create the arc, a DC+ welding rod heats up more than a DC- rod, and because the aptron electrons have to be more energised (i.e. acquire more kinetic energy) to exit the welding rod, a deeper weld results. However, the heating aspect of the DC+ rod is useful to melt welding flux and provide a seal to the new weld, which is most useful in many situations (e.g. underwater welding). Because it involves the alternating use of cetron and aptron electrons, sinusoidal AC welding characteristics fall somewhere between those of DC- and DC+.

Fractal (or Lichtenberg) wood burning involves the use of high voltage (in the order of 2,000 volts) DC electricity to generate stunning and unique Lichtenberg figures that spread outwards through the wood from each electrode. It is really worth viewing wood burning in action as demonstrated in these 3 samples: video 1, video 2 and video 3.

As can be seen in all fractal wood burning videos, the Lichtenberg figures develop simultaneously from both the positive and negative electrodes as the electric current follows leader lines within the wood that represent the pathways of least resistance. Due to the high resistance of the wood, it heats up and burns to form carbon, which is a good conductor, and which allows the burning to move outwards from the electrodes. Multiple burn paths quickly develop and simultaneously expand from each electrode to produce quite stunning and unique Lichtenberg figures.

The fact that, for fractal wood burning, Lichtenberg figures develop simultaneously from both electrodes, cannot be explained by just cetron electrons moving away from a negative electrode towards a positive electrode, which is conventional Science’s definition of DC electricity.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by "STEM?"
More commonly known as Science Technology Engineering Mathematics, our friend David here believes there are no such thing as particles, but instead rotating energy fields... Spin Torus Energy Monkeys.
 
Spot-on! I've just looked up Spin Torus Energy Model and I get a SCIRP paper (SCIRP being one of the predatory pay-to-publish outfits on Beale's List) by one David Johnson, a retired Australian IT lecturer. Seems he's been hawking this around since 2019 at least. He's even resorted to posting on the LENR (Cold Fusion) forum.
David already has a thread here posted a couple years ago...

 
Oh your friend David does believe in particles and the need for a feasible structure for those particles. And STEM is also an acronym for Science Technology Engineering Mathematics: well spotted.
 
Back
Top