The first widely accepted model for the atom was the 1913 Bohr model consisting of a positively charged nucleus being orbited by negatively charged electrons. The Bohr model was soon converted into the Orbital Nuclear Atomic Model (ONAM) with the nucleus represented by a cluster of protons and neutrons, and the electrons, acting more like electromagnetic waves than particles, are represented by weirdly shaped probability distributions around the nucleus.
Currently the 2 main ONAM areas of research are the Standard Model (SM) and Quantum Mechanics (QM). But within these areas there is dissatisfaction and divided opinion with at least 30 alternative theories listed in Wikipedia. Some alternatives have unsuccessfully attempted to reconcile the various approaches, such as Stephen Hawking’s Theory of Everything (TOE) and the Grand Unified Theory (GUT).
The mathematics associated with SM and QM research has increasingly become more complex, specialised and seemingly divorced from reality. As Nikola Tesla unkindly put it “Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality”. In the past 50 years or so, apart from identifying new transient exotic particles, very little real progress has been made by either SM or QM in spite of tremendous advances in technology and huge taxpayer-funded spends on such research over the same time period. Hence the question, has Atomic Physics lost its way?
A review of the ONAM development timeline reveals that ONAM may have lost its way quite early on. It would seem that in the early 1900’s, well before the discovery of the positron, the Science community focused too soon on the one approach, which involved a re-vamping of the Bohr model, without stepping back to check out other possibilities. This is comparable to a crime investigation, where early focus on the one person of interest to the exclusion of other potential suspects that can lead to a gross miscarriage of justice. The purpose of this book is to introduce another person of interest in the form of the Spin Torus Energy Model (STEM), and explores how well it fits the circumstantial evidence associated with the atom.
STEM is an energy-centric preon-based model. Preons are considered to be sub-components of quarks, and the main preon based atomic theory is the 1979 Rishon model; but it failed to gain much traction or support. In the light of the technological explosion that has taken place over the 40 years since 1979, and the apparent lack of progress by SM and QM in that time, a re-examination and re-working of the preon model approach is well overdue.
This book is the first of a 3-part series that presents a practical, pragmatic, descriptive model without the complex mathematics associated with SM and QM. You do not need to be a Physicist or a mathematician to follow the subject material. This book introduces STEM, and applies it to explain electricity and the relationship between magnetic and electric fields.
The part 2 book extends the STEM electron model to the preon. It develops an atomic model that explains the bonding geometry and valency preferences of chemical compounds and the allotropic forms assumed by many elements. It also provides an explanation for the phenomena of electron capture and beta decay.
The part 3 book provides a STEM explanation for the particle-wave nature of EMR, spectral line emission and absorption, the photo-electric and Compton effects, P-N semiconductors, electron pair generation and annihilation, plasma behaviour, and Gravity.
If you have an interest in Science matters then you owe it to yourself to read this 3 part series.