A Semi-Classical View of an Electron in Hydrogen Orbit

Salvatore Gerard Micheal, Natural Philosophy Alliance, 21/MAR/2009

Many within NPA won’t understand or appreciate this model because of a lack of interest
or appreciation of engineering perspectives. Most conventional physicists will dismiss it
for standard reasons which don’t need to be rehashed here. This general neglect is
unfortunate because here we have an idea that has been ‘lurking in the wings’ for many
years but dismissed for various reasons by various groups and individuals because of
their own delusional rationalizations. This idea has the potential to resolve, once and for
all, the electron orbital question and more. Not only is this a model of hydrogen but
implicit is a model of all atoms and molecules. In addition, implicit in the model is a
nuclear model and model of improperly named space-time (better called Time and space).

A wonderfully intelligent computer scientist turned her attention toward physics in the
last years of her life; her name was Caroline H. Thompson. Her work in physics
culminated with the result that, in layman’s terms, locality is not dead. Her work basically
indicated that non-locality is not the exclusive and ultimate truth of our existence. Please
study her research if you doubt my words.

Over the years, I have developed my own view of time and space culminating in a
construct I refer to as Iam space (with obvious spiritual connotations). Essentially, I have
borrowed concepts from engineering, importing them into my study of physics, and
adapting them to the study of elementary particles. When I say elementary particles, I’m
very restrictive in my phrasing: I mean only proton, electron, neutrino, and photon. These
are the only truly stable particles and no direct evidence indicates otherwise.

When we smash beams of particles together in the ‘heart’ of a synchrotron, such as the
LHC or Tevatron, what are we doing? We are creating short-lived particles and trying to
understand speculated constituents. Quark theory and QED (quantum electrodynamics)
are amazingly successful at predicting the outcome of these experiments. But that in itself
does not make the Standard Model correct or even desirable. Many conventional
physicists have expressed their displeasure with the Standard Model calling it ugly or
other appropriate colorful adjective. Unfortunately, machines such as the LHC are very
expensive toys for the elites of convention to play with. Unfortunately, the public ‘paying
the bill’ has been led astray by jargon and fancy theories which appear comprehensive
and rational but are actually delusional and ego-reinforcing for the aforementioned elites.

This essay is not about the history of how we have been led astray. It is about this model
that has been around for many years disregarded and dismissed by convention and more
recently – even so-called dissident groups such as NPA. The model occurred to me after
studying models of orbital electrons created by: Bruce Harvey, David Bergman, and
Markus Lazar. Whatever their affiliations or religious beliefs, these are practical men.
They essentially employ engineering perspectives in their approach toward the atom.
They inspired me. So if any accolades are forthcoming, it is they who should receive.
(It should be noted that David Bergman is not the originator of his ring model of atomic
structure just as John Koza is not the originator of genetic programming. However, they
are both good examples of academics popularizing neglected useful concepts. In this
respect, they both deserve mention.)

One more final remark and I will dive into the model with you. Richard Feynman was
perhaps the greatest physicist of all time. He did more for quantum mechanics, the
Standard Model, and physics in general than any other human in history. I am like a
flickering candle next to his enduring beacon. I’m very serious here. This man deserves
our ultimate praise and respect. However (and I’m sure you anticipated this), he was
restricted by conventional motif. He simply could not think outside the box; his brilliance
was confined. His particulate theory was so successful because it is a self-interacting
theory mirroring a more accurate picture of reality: Time and space.

This is the core of the model and deserves some explanation. In this view, space is
somewhat secondary and is simply a ‘playground’ for electromagnetic/mechanical events.
Space is strictly Euclidean and has no properties other than dimensionality. Space is flat
and no speculation is offered regarding any proposed ‘containing space’ such as a hyper-
Mobius loop or hyper-sphere.

Time, on the other hand, is perhaps the most important quality of our Universe. Time may
be complex (in the sense of Minkowski). But it may have more features than convention
supposes. It may contain the quality typically called ‘impedance of space’ (or simply
impedance). It may also possess elasticity. Combining these two qualities mathematically
is somewhat straightforward if we adopt engineering approaches. The simplest construct
embodying both qualities is Iam space: (x,y,z,Zit,C) where (x,y,z) is a point in Euclidean
space, Zit is the factor encoding the impedance of media at (x,y,z), and C represents
temporal curvature at (x,y,z). These are developed and explained in other papers and
booklets available at scribd.com/sam_micheal

For simplicity, let c=1. This is fairly standard in the study of elementary particles. I won’t
go further in simplification because I need to show how the fundamental constants
display themselves within the atom. Bohr was right about the size of hydrogen. And this
essay is not about why. Simply, I’m not God; I didn’t design the Universe; I don’t know
why the ‘fundamental constants’ are exactly the values they are. But I can tell you how
the constants fit together ‘in the big picture’ such as the relationship between elasticity
and impedance (the ‘core equation’ in N and Omega).

In hydrogen, the electron is spinning at speed 1. It has angular momentum h-bar/2. Think
of it as a donut or torus. The Compton diameter comes into play and directly relates h-
bar/2 and mass (which is actually temporal curvature). As Lazar has pointed out, there is
a one-to-one correspondence between regularized vortex and screw dislocation (toroidal
surface charge = temporal elastic deformation (different manifestations of the same
energy)). There is an insidious spin-factor which relates the two. This model is complex
and presumed dynamic but preferable to the hideous Standard Model.
So the electron-donut is an example of the only perfect ‘perpetual motion machine’ in the
Universe. As it moves, it ‘reinvents’ itself. It’s like a smoke ring you can blow (if you’re a
smoker). Or a bubble-ring you can blow (if you’re a diver). Except for the fact the ring
never changes size nor dissipates. I propose the speed of ‘donut turning’ (point on inner
torus surface moves to point on outer torus surface) is alpha, the fine structure constant.
This is also the orbital speed.

This has no relationship to spin whatsoever and is arbitrary. (And so a beam of electrons
can have any speed desired less than 1.) The so-called ‘speed of light’ is dependent on
media impedance = permeability = 1/permittivity. Here, mass = energy and curvature wrt
Planck-time = energy wrt Planck’s constant. So Planck is fundamental.

The donut orbiting a proton may have a slightly distorted shape and be larger on the
outside than on the inside (however, a beam of electrons should be symmetrical). This
may be a way of testing the theory wrt donut shape.

Of course, there is interaction between magnetic moments. Of course, there is spin-orbit

‘interaction’ (hyperfine splitting). But this paper is not about those concerns. This essay is
about a deterministic and fully local view of an electron in hydrogen orbit.

It is proposed an electron exists in definite position, shape, and geometry wrt to central
proton. That much heavier (greater temporal distortion) particle has the same basic shape
as an electron but different geometry (size) or perhaps similar size with different wave
number inside a Planck-sphere – these are issues that need resolving. So the theory needs
resolution – not fleshing out. These issues are presented more fully in N and Omega.

They say electrons behave as point-masses but protons do not. This says nothing about
the charge distribution of each. Bergman proposes some interesting models of atomic
structures but .. I hesitate to adopt his view for several reasons: he has no desire to
integrate theories with me, he’s a creationist and bound by those values, and I cannot
commit to a theory which may contradict mine on certain levels. There is also the issue
of: if proton and electron have same (but opposite) charge (and by all accounts, we
presume they do), then why do they have differing mass? If I state above that energy in
surface charge = energy in temporal distortion, why is it different for electrons and
protons? This is something that I attempt to address in N and Omega, but without
satisfactory resolution.

This does not mean the basis for the theory is wrong. It simply means I have missed
something critical in my analysis of the situation. That is another ‘beautiful’ aspect of the
theory: a brilliant theorist with clever insights may complete this theory ‘in one whack’. I
present it to the public not only asking for consideration but also assistance. My
‘flickering candle’ may be getting brighter (with your help).