Reciprocal System Research Society

Hi Nehru,

I've been going over your "Particle in a Box" series, and reading the links provided. I will say that the math and concepts are still a little bit over my head, but I'm catching on (I think!).

I have a question for you: what level of "confidence" to you have in these "quantum numbers" being a correct and valid model of the atom? I have found many mistakes in legacy science's measurements and procedures. What is it about this that gives it credence?

In regards to the Schrodinger equations, isn't "hydrogen" a poor choice to evaluate these on, being a compound structure, rather than a true atom? The "observed" hydrogen is a proton, electron neutrino, and most likely a captured electron, which they take as a single atom. Which part(s) of hydrogen are the spectral lines and quantum numbers applicable to?

I think that the two angles referred to in your "hyperphysics" site may actually refer to the net motion of each particle composing hydrogen -- the proton as one angle, and the electron neutrino as the other (since they do not know about the electron neutrino being part of hydrogen), and the "orbiting" electron as the projection of the captured electron in the atom.

I have been building a model based on the last concepts I related to you, with "turns" and a "shift" represented as a shear vector between the double-rotations, and have had limited success. It works just about perfectly up to Helium, then I run into a problem with the recursive nature of the "turn". I have a logic error somewhere in my geometry subroutines, but I haven't found it yet.

Another consequence of the model was that "speed" in the time region may not be 1/t^2, as Larson indicates. What I am coming up with is a complex speed (as you suggest in your wavenumber equations), where speed = (s + ti), and equiv. space, s=1/t, so TR speed = 1/t + ti. The interactive effects outside the time region being the integral, as Larson shows in BPOM. Integrating the "spatial" aspect, 1/t gives ln(t), as in the inter-atomic distance, and integrating the "temporal" aspect, ti, gives -t^2/2, indicating that 4th power relationship between atoms, and the "1/2mv^2" relationships that show up in the energy equations. What do you think, is this possible as a time region speed?

I'm going to search the Internet to see if I can find the analogous wavefunctions and spectra for helium, which may be an easier place for me to start, since there is no electric motion to contend with, and it is a "true" atom. If you know of any sites with such info (as you related on hydrogen and your Particle in a Box documents), please send me a link.

Thanks,

Bruce

Dear Bruce

Please see the Attached file.

Nehru

Hi Nehru,

I believe I found the problem with my simulation, and I'm starting to get some interesting results. Here is a summary of what I derive from the model:

1) There doesn't seem to be a need for a "material electron". The rotational motion that works best as an "electron" we identify as the cosmic positron. There are problems with Larson's electron model that are corrected when using a c-positron (I won't go into details now).

2) The "sub-shells" seem to be directly related to the 4 speed ranges of the time region. s = i1-x, p = i2-x, d = i3-x, f = i4-x. The "shells" are related to the "turn" structure of angular speed in the time region.

3) The quantum numbers give the location of a facet in the polyhedral reprentations of these speed ranges (which look like the wrappings of skin on an onion). Each facet equates to 1 unit of temporal displacement, and can thus capture 1 c-positron.

I am currently using Larson's inter-atomic distance formulas to place the polyhedral "shells" in the time-space region, which then gives the onion-shape, well outside unit boundary for the larger atoms. It looks just like an layered "electron cloud" about a nucleus.

4) Time Region zones:

4a) Nuclear Zone: contains only the magnetic rotations (planar or double-rotations, of which there are 4). This zone extends inward from the unit boundary. It appears that none of the 4 double-rotations are independent; they each influence the other, and when that influence is not in speed and phase, shear is generated.

4b) Atomic Zone: for material atoms, exists in the SPACE region, as the "shear rotation" (single rotation) that occurs when the magnetic rotations are not in perfect phase. This zone is centered at "-1" in your non-locality diagram, and can extend into either the time or space regions. This makes the "shear" appear as a material electron motion --shear displacement is in the space region, just as it is for the cosmic positron. (If you are unfamiliar with shear rotations, think of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter -- it is a shear rotation caused by oppositely moving atmospheric layers--it only exists while those layers are moving).

(My current "particle identification" has the positron as the simplest motion, having a speed of [2,1,1,1] and a displacement of [1,0,0,0] -- the first increment above unit speed. A speed of "2" is tantamount to moving from pi to 2pi, so the positron has maximum shear value, and thus has a double-rotation in the nuclear zone, and a single-shear-rotation in the atomic zone; the shear occurs against unit motion).

5) The electric shear rotation will have a quanta of energy associated with it, which appears as orbital angular momentum (as there is no primary motion present to create intrinsic angular momentum). The only intrinsic angular momentum will be associated with the magnetic double-rotations involved.

6) It is likely that the observed atoms have a c-positron captured in each polyhedral facet, which accounts for the intrinsic momentum observed at that point.

(I may have the momentum backwards, as I'm not sure I understand the quantum number relationships with this model. All I know is that momentum is present in both cases (5 & 6), and appears to be a different type. The shear momentum is a fixed constant; it never changes unless the structure of the atom changes, but since it is created by an interaction of primary motions, it has no double-rotation of its own as an electron would, so I am assuming it appears as orbital angular momentum).

The chemical interaction between two atoms becomes interesting, but I believe is primarily based on the shear, not the electrons present. (I've not yet been able to simulate this). However, the spectra associated with changes in energy levels, and the emitted photons, appear to be based on the c-positrons, not the shear.

So we may have two different systems to explore if these initial findings are valid, which are lumped under the same quantum theory in legacy science.

I'm currently researching something called "Slater's Determinants" (1929) that Doug gave me a pointer to. It appears he uses a matrix model to represent the quantum states. I hope it will give more insight.

Bruce

Dear Bruce

Please see the Attached file.

Nehru

Dear Nehru,

Please see attached.

Bruce

Dear Bruce

Please see the Attached file. I have compiled this from some of our recent dialogs. Can you possibly post it to the 'isus-discuss' as an Attachment, so that the Tables etc. could be displayed?

Could you find "Slater's Determinants" useful?

Also can you please explore if any 'electronic energy levels' are listed in the link:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=119270

Nehru

Hi Nehru,

I'll get to work on converting it. I see you already posted some of it. Do you have access to a tool such as Microsoft FrontPage, or an HTML editor? Many people don't have Microsoft Word, and Word documents do not convert well to HTML for web pages. It would be easier if you could produce native HTML, so things would not get altered in the conversion.

> Could you find "Slater's Determinants" useful?

Unfortunately, no. They are only using the logistics of homogeneous coordinates, and not actually using the transforms, themselves.

Bruce

> Also can you please explore if any 'electronic energy

> levels' are listed in the link:

> http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=119270

That's a "pay site", and I'm not a member. They want $60 a year for access.

But I did run across this, which might be of use: the Atomic Spectra Database:

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/AtData/main_asd

Bruce

Dear Bruce

Please see the Attached file.

Nehru

Hi Nehru,

See attached file.

Bruce