The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 9c

The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics
Modified June 6, 2009, October 29, 2009
John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
Section 9c

johnreed take 25
The Atom as a Compacted Electromagnetic Field Structure - Part 3
Modified September 30, 2008, October 29, 2009

Significant Indicators
Heisenberg gave us the limits that our "object-space" charged
particles in equilibrium view of atomic structure, set for us. The
Uncertainty Principle tells us that we cannot show that the electron
exists as a charged particle inside the atom.  All we can get inside
the atom, is the collapse of the wave function which, when taken more
literally, seeks its own regeneration and manifests as charge, where
the momentum and location of the emitted or absorbed electron depends
on where the wave orbital collapses or where it is regenerated. Where
in the photoelectric effect, although the atom always releases its
standard packet of energy (the electron), the momentum of the packet
can vary to accommodate the collapse point on the orbital plane where
the electron exits the atom (the integrity of the orbital plane is
maintained by the mutual repulsion between the planes), and/or, to
accommodate the release of excess energy that is not sufficient to
cause a standard electron packet to be emitted by the atom.

In the compacted electromagnetic model for atomic structure that I
propose, both the location and the momentum of the electron are
defined precisely by its point of exit or entry on the rigidly
constricted orbital planes, and less precisely on the most external
orbital plane. So we are reduced to probabilities that are consistent
with the electromagnetic atomic field structure dimensions, partially
defined by frequency and wavelength. We convert this into our object-
space classical quantities, by redefining the electromagnetic
controlling properties consistent with units, that represent orbitals
that are  multiples of Planck's constant. Here we are essentially
converting natural phenomena currency in the wrong direction.

A wave interpretation for atomic structure had previously been
directly approached. "Schrodinger insisted that a particle was not a
tiny billiard ball but a tightly gathered packet of waves that created
the illusion of a discrete object. Everything. fundamentally, came
down to waves. There would be an underlying continuum. with no
discontinuities, no discrete entities. There would be no quantum
jumps. But instead smooth transformations from one state to another
[restricted by the object-space idea for an internal orbiting
electron]. None of this followed directly from Schrodingers equation.
It was what he hoped his wave equation would lead to." "Uncertainty",
2007, David Lindley. (text in brackets added by johnreed.)

The idea that an external radiation field existed was put forward by
John C. Slater and picked up by Bohr and Kramers. The collusion
between the three became known as the BKS paper. The initial idea was
that an external field interacted with atoms internally, governing the
way the atom absorbed and emitted energy. This was later modified to
include the idea that the atom acted internally as though it consisted
of a group of "virtual oscillators".  The physics for oscillations was
successfully used to explain the spectral lines of the atom, absent
any attempt to describe the structural aspect in detail. This idea for
virtual oscillators is a forerunner of what is now called string
theory.

"We will assume that a given atom in a certain stationary state will
communicate continually with other atoms through a time-spatial
mechanism which is virtually equivalent with the field of radiation
which on the classical theory would originate from the virtual
harmonic oscillators corresponding with the various possible
transitions to other stationary states." BKS Paper, 1923 as quoted in
"Uncertainty", 2007, David Lindley.

Translating the above, it states that an atom is composed of
oscillators that match aspects of the external radiation field such
that an interchange between the two occurs, that is sufficient to
explain the observed "emission and absorption" spectra. This
complementary radiation field served to replace the idea for light
quanta.  If Bohr had articulated these ideas more precisely he might
have stumbled upon (as I did) the electromagnetic field structure for
the atom.  Which provides a controlling meter for the emission and
absorption of discrete quantities of energy in terms of frequency and
wavelength alone. No impacting photons required. An oscillating (or
rotating) electromagnetic atomic field, wave orbital, would be
selective with regard to the frequency and wavelength of the radiation
it could absorb and emit,  as a partitioned revolving door limits the
rate at which each person and the number of persons can enter and exit
in the course of one complete revolution.

For reasons I will not entertain here, by 1925 Bohr abandoned the BKS
paper. The idea was continued by Kramers who rigorously demonstrated
that the atom's absorption and emission of energy at a certain
frequency could be precisely matched to the spectra data if the atom
contained a specific set of "virtual" oscillators. On the face this is
a major clue that supports an atomic electromagnetic field structure.
But Kramers still considered the idea merely as a mathematically
convenient tool for calculation.  The oscillator idea described the
measured spectra properties attendant to atoms, without speaking to
any conceptually clear internal structure. As a consequence perhaps,
the overtly recognized idea for discrete charged electrons in orbit
was soon to be quasi-abandoned and permanently enshrined in our
conceptual scientific view. Replaced by the statistical probability of
finding that object-space pre-existing charged electron at a
particular location and at a specific momentum, inside the atom.
Which demonstrably shows that we will tend to build the universe after
our own a priori image in spirit, if not in fact, by devising a least
action consistent mathematical scheme that reduces that image to a
quantifiable mathematical statement.

Where a sum of all possible histories as a set of givens, will always
provide a most probable, or least action solution.  How important is
it that we obtain a correct conceptual understanding of natural
phenomena, before we blindly incorporate mathematical methods that
lock us into bogus notions that function solely from a statistical
consistency with least action events?  My next post titled  "johnreed
Take 25A - Radioactive Half Life", will show this importance in terms
of the many formerly closed doors that have been opened by a mere
change in perspective. In my opinion, the BKS work provided the best
(although there are many more) clues for a coherent, conceptual,
mathematically verifiable, compacted electromagnetic field
interpretation, for atomic structure.

When we base statistics on our inability to locate an imaginary
quantity like an orbiting electron in the name of uncertainty we open
a Pandora’s box of virtual particles with which we can momentarily
fill any pothole we stumble into that we did not anticipate. Contrary
to current practice the UP follows from the field structure and
function of the atom and not from our inability to locate a
nonexistent entity within the confines of its supposed containing
theater. Consequently the UP does not give us a blank check to justify
any thing that fits into our object-space erroneous view of the
universe. This does not detract from the statistical probability
approach which is a least action approach in all its guises. However,
least action approaches provide no valid foundation for the pure
fantasy ideas popularized by Brian Greene Michio Kaku, and others.
Again, this does not make the statistical approach void of useful
insights. In an electromagnetic oscillating atomic field that creates
and absorbs electron packets on the fly the statistical approach still
offers a most probable or least action solution with regard to the
emitted or absorbed electron.  The uncertainty is tied to the
electromagnetic atomic structure and function itself, rather than to
our inability to locate a non existing entity.

We have two structures in physics that "jump" out at us. The planet
orbits and the electromagnetic field structures.  We have assumed that
atomic structure consists of discrete charged particles in
equilibrium, akin to our object-space classical gravitational model,
where the pure data reflects a composition that consists of
electromagnetic field structures. If we build the atom from these
electromagnetic fields it turns out that atomic structure does indeed
follow from Schrodinger's wave mechanics. It also follows from
Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in a more precise manner. To see this we
must "truly" abandon our object-space "particles in equilibrium" view
of atomic structure and build the atom from compacted and "massaged"
electromagnetic fields [3]. This construct will be consistent with our
scattering experiments from Compton [4] to 2005.

Inside the atom, the wave function, as opposed to Heisenberg, more
closely describes conceptually what is happening. For example: The
collapse of the wave function occurs when we cause it to collapse. We
can view this as a result of our interference or as a property of the
atom, or as both. In either case, it is the wave function itself that
fundamentally pre-exists and its collapse creates the particle and its
regeneration absorbs the particle. Consequently we must build the atom
structurally consistent with wavelike quantities. A compacted
electromagnetic field structure rather than an electromagnetic field
generated by a cobbled together object-space construction representing
charged particles in equilibrium. Our conundrums are then greatly
alleviated and a clarity falls out of quantum mechanics that can be
visualized.

Author's Afternote
The questions we ask today to provide answers for the future, are
based on the conclusions of the present. The conclusions of the
present rest on our a priori assumptive foundations, and an attendant
supporting least action consistent mathematics. As long as our
assumptive foundations operate within least action principles
anonymously, the applied mathematics will predict the relevant
experimental results. Not because the mathematics is a crystal ball on
the universe, but because stable systems are least action systems and
the mathematics represents least action well. Consequently we can have
similar least action systems where the comparative dynamics are not
necessarily proportional with respect to time and space (3). This, in
addition to our least action consistent quantum mechanical models that
solely represent statistical probabilities for least action events.

The math reflects the least action characteristics of the stable
universe. The quantities that operate within this least action
universe are considered fundamental if they are conserved. The
property of being conserved within a least action universe means that
they operate within the least action parameters without effect (except
as we might sense [quantify] their existence. This does not make them
causal outside of our interaction with them.)
For several centuries we assumed that the universe is the "object-
space" mass driven world, as subjectively [3] quantified by Isaac
Newton. This was consistent with the world we perceived and measured
and quantitatively interacted with, as planet surface inertial
objects. We sought the nature of this universe in terms of components
of planet surface matter, quantified in terms of resistance (mass)
within a field of space. An "object-space" view of the universe where
a notion for time direction developed from the time lines of our
lives. We are born. We live. We die. We "durate" in a direction
beginning at birth and ending at death. We applied this subjective
sense of duration as an arrow of time, to our least action consistent
classical gravitational view of the universe in terms of the big bang,
entropy, and beginnings and endings. Where in an electromagnetically
controlled universe the dissipation of energy becomes a cyclic
phenomenon. And in fact the objective primary physical measured
counterpart of time is repetitive duration. This cyclic controlling
aspect of time, with regard to stable system action, was obscured by
our subjective notion for a direction in time, and to our
quantitative, but nonetheless subjective notion for planet surface
mass generated gravity. The time-space connection was virtually
amalgamated with our coordinated Cartesian construct for dimension
direction, as a fourth so called space-time dimension by Einstein and
peers. In a least action universe space and time, and mass and force,
will reflect or operate within the least action principles, where a
subjective interpretation of these quantities can easily ensue.
Einstein attached great significance to our subjective view, but that
is the focus of another post.
Endnotes
[1],[2],[3] If the reader wishes to review my earlier posts on atomic
structure, gravity, the measure of light speed, dark matter, etc.,
etc., and etc., she/he can do a Google.group search on "johnreed
take".  Then sort by date to avoid my many earlier even more primitive
attempts to succinctly articulate these connecting ideas.
[3] Also see the paper by Andre Michaud at:
http://www.wbabin.net/science/michaud1.pdf
[4] Here you must read the small print accompanying Compton's
experimental results. Which I am not able to locate in my notes at
this time. It is mentioned, but glossed over in many introductory
physics texts.
johnreed, October 29, 2009
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
Antworten

Sandcastle (31.10.2009 14:49)
johnlawrencereedjr (10.11.2009 22:11)