Fixing Modern Physics

By David L Johnson

‘Classical’ or Newtonian Physics is quite well grounded, explains things in the world around us in a reasonably logical and complete manner, and provides useful equations that, in most instances, allow outcomes to be predicted or explained. However, this is not the case for particle Physics, which forms the basis of modern Physics. With the introduction of the Standard Model (SM), General Relativity (GR), Special Relativity (SR), Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), modern Physics has become complicated, esoteric and lacks practical application.

Central to particle Physics is the Orbital Nuclear Atomic Model (ONAM). It has evolved from the planet-like Bohr atomic model, which is now over 100 years old, and has been extended by the inclusion of the wave equations of QM. With an emphasis on purely mathematical models, long gone are any incentives for Physicists to develop cogent realistic physical models that can explain observed phenomena work and be of assistance to the applied Science areas.

Modern Physics now appears to be very confused and confusing: it selectively refers to two types of electron orbitals (Bohr shells and ‘spdf’ orbitals); electrons have been defined to be point particles that have intrinsic angular momentum; light may consist of particles or waves (sometimes as both); uses tailored orbitals (via a specious process called orbital hybridisation) are used to match chemical bonding patterns; the nucleus is considered to have no structural form despite nucleons having structure in terms of quarks; and there is the lack of a realistic positive charge carrier to explain electric current within semiconductors. As revealed in this e-book, these are just the tip of the iceberg: Modern Physics has a growing list of systemic problems, questionable practices and weird counter-intuitive concepts.

Particularly over the past 30 years, there has been much disquiet regarding the problems, inadequacies and counter-intuitive nature of the SM/QM based ONAM approach. The main sticking points relate to the ‘spdf’ electron orbitals as defined by the wave equations of QM, and to the adoption of the controversial Copenhagen interpretation which established the ground rules for QM and opened the door to the normalisation of quantum weirdness and related concepts. In response to the perceived problems of ONAM, several individuals and groups have opted to independently develop alternative approaches.

Briefly overviewed are six of the more significant ‘alternative’ atomic models that have been largely overlooked or ignored by mainstream particle Physics. These ‘alternative’ atomic models offer new perspectives to a range of observed phenomena that are poorly or not explained by ONAM; and, as a bonus, they are well align well with ‘classical’ Physics. In the context of the current problems of modern particle Physics, some of these new theories might just provide the missing link that will tweak ONAM back into reality and allow it to move forward; or to identify some fundamental flaws with ONAM and provide some feasible solutions.

Addressed topics include the structure of atoms and molecules, the nature of electromagnetism, beta decay, electricity and light. Some topics are detailed and technical in nature, but ‘plain’ English explanations have been provided and supported by lots of diagrams, which means that you do not have to be a Science geek or particularly Science-savvy to read the book. However, it is a book that will challenge what you think you know about Physics, and it will introduce you to a lot of new Physics-related concepts that you can follow up using the provided links.

Although the e-book may not ‘Fix Modern Physics’, it does identify many of its current problems and constructively points out some potential solutions. It also suggests the direction that modern particle Physics needs to take in order to once again become useful, and to re-gain credibility and rel

• Language: English
• Publisher: David L Johnson
• Release date: Oct 5, 2022
• ISBN: 9781005760847

David L Johnson

I graduated many years ago from the University of Sydney with a B.Sc. majoring in Geology, Geophysics and Pure Mathematics. My first full-time job was as a Rock Mechanic Engineer for the New Broken Hill Consolidated mine (now defunct) in the western part of NSW. I loved anything Science related and, through work, I subscribed to as many science journals that I could.I picked up the FORTRAN programming language from a textbook so that I could write and modify stress analysis programs for the Rock Mechanics section of NBHC. With newly gained programming skills I moved to Adelaide to become involved in computer-based ore reserve estimation and mine planning. I also gained post-graduate computing qualifications from the University of Adelaide and picked up a couple more programming languages. After working a consulting role for about 10 years, I changed from the mining area to the teaching computer programming, database design and application development within TAFE (a post-secondary training part of the Education Department) in Perth for over 30 years.With talk of topics such as worm-holes, space-time, the String Theory multiverses and excursions into the fourth-dimension, I started to feel that, over recent years, particle Physics and Astrophysics theory have become increasingly weird . The new mathematics that underpins Quantum Mechanics and the theories of Relativity were becoming more complex and specialized, accompanied by interpretations that were increasingly becoming more divorced from reality and void of practical application.Upon retirement, as I had more time on my hands, I rekindled my infatuation with Science by dabbling in Particle Physics, initially concentrating on the models and research related to the nature of electrons, which escalated and eventually led to the development of the Spin Torus Energy Model (STEM). STEM is an energy-centric approach to Particle Physics that is underpinned by the simple hypothesis that ‘there is only one type of energy’. It has undergone several major re-vamps and name changes before ending up in its current form.The first discussion paper published, ‘The Duplicit Electron’, related to the nature of the electron, electricity and electromagnetic fields. The journey leading to 'The Duplicit Electron' took about 4 years, and involved a lot of research and a steep learning curve to come to grips with the latest trends related to particle Physics. It also led to discussion papers and models for atomic structure and the nature of light, which took about another four years to fully sort out.Feedback related to these STEM discussion papers has led to them acquiring position paper status, and led to the formation of the STEM Development Group (SDG), which now manages the three position papers and continues to update them.The e-book ‘Fixing Modern Physics’ provides an overview of the six main ‘alternative’ Particle Physics theories since the 1990’s, including STEM, and addresses what is wrong with Modern Physics, and what cultural changes are required to make it more practical and relevant.

Book preview

Fixing Modern Physics

By David L Johnson

Copyright 2022 David L Johnson

Smashwords Edition, License Notes:

Thank you for downloading this eBook. You are welcome to share it with your friends. This book may be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, provided the book remains in its complete original form.

Table of Contents

Modern Physics

The Evolution of Atomic Models

Exploring a Physical Atomic Model

The Nature and Structure of Fundamental Particles

Components and Structure of an Atomic Nucleus

Atomic Bonding

Hydrogen

The Oxygen and the Water Molecules

Carbon

Polymorphism and Embedded Forms

Nucleon Type Conversion and Beta Decay

Gravity

The Nature of Electric Currents

Electrical Charge and Fields

Other Aspects related to Electromagnetism and Electricity

Photons and EMR Generation

The Refractive Index and the Speed of Light

Light Refraction, Reflection and Polarisation

Light Dispersion

Circular and Elliptically Polarised Light

Optic Vortex Light

Constructive and Destructive Interference of Light

Concentration-Related Characteristics of Energen

Overview of the STEM Approach

Modern Physics: What Needs Fixing?

Concluding Remarks

Modern Physics

Do you understand modern Physics? If so, congratulations; you would be one of the few that do. In days gone by, when ‘classical’ or Newtonian Physics was king, most people that had a reasonable high school education behind them had a pretty good chance of coming to grips with Physics. It seemed to be quite well reconciled with the world around us, explained things in a reasonably logical manner, and was supported by some quite useful equations that, in most instances, allowed outcomes to be predicted or explained.

However all this changed with the introduction of concepts associated the Standard Model (SM), General Relativity (GR), Special Relativity (SR), Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). Relentlessly over the past 90 years or so, Physics has become increasingly more challenging and counter-intuitive; it is now dominated by complex mathematical equations, a host of seemingly meaningless constants, parameters and specialised jargon, plus a lot of implausible concepts. So, if you feel confused and somewhat overwhelmed, and seemingly know less and less about more and more related to Modern Physics, then you are not alone.

Physicists fall into two broad categories: experimental physicists that specialize in the observation of natural phenomena and the development and analysis of related experiments; and theoretical physicists, who specialize in mathematical modelling of physical systems. For physicists, mathematics is a pre-requisite skill, as they all need and use mathematical modelling to quantify and interpret their observations and theories.

The modern-day atomic physicist has to be a specialist simply to keep up with their often quite narrow and technically intensive field. As a specialist, by definition, they know more and more about less and less, and have very little time or inclination to look at alternatives that do not fit their personal professional area of expertise. When combined with a penchant for explaining everything in terms of mathematics, Physics concepts and explanations have become more abstract, obtuse and mathematically driven; they quite often don’t make much sense and fail a simple reality check. As that down-to-earth TV personality Judge Judy often states, ‘if it doesn’t make sense, then it is likely to be untrue’; and increasingly much of modern atomic Physics doesn’t make much sense at all.

Modern atomic Physics (sometimes referred to as particle Physics) is built around the Orbital Nuclear Atomic Model (ONAM), which has evolved from the 1913 planet-like Bohr atomic model (e.g. the diagram above and its animated gif). It now spans the theories and research areas of the Standard Model (SM), Quantum Mechanics (QM), Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Quantum Chromo-Dynamics (QCD). Over the past 30 years in particular, development breakthroughs have been rare, with most current atomic research appearing to have become fixated upon the shoring up the electron orbital concept central to ONAM, and studying the exotic bi-products of high energy plasma and collider studies.

The reasons for such a distinct lack of progress in atomic Physics, despite quite significant funding budgets and associated research effort, have been summed up quite well by Chris Search in John Horgan’s Scientific American opinion article titled ‘What’s Wrong with Physics’ (January 27, 2020):

‘Everyone jumps into the field all doing more or less the same stuff because that is where the funding is and that is the easiest way to publish papers. In my opinion, this trendiness leads to a massive amount of invested effort but with very few significant results because what everyone is doing is so similar and overlapping. I suppose it is a form of the law of diminishing returns. The big breakthroughs that fundamentally change our understanding come from the people who follow their own path even when everyone else is running in the other direction. Unfortunately, physics like other academic fields usually doesn’t give much support to those who don’t want to play follow-the-leader.’

With the emphasis on purely mathematical models, long gone are the incentives to develop cogent physical models that can explain the ways that observed phenomena work, or to explore new possibilities beyond the immediate expertise of the physicists or their immediate research focus. Under the auspices of SM, QM and QED, particle Physics has increasingly become overly complicated, esoteric and mathematically driven, with the theory lacking practical application and seemingly raising more questions than it answers.

These are sentiments reiterated variously by S Hossenfelder in her book ‘Lost In Math’ and her more recent Guard Opinion article ‘No One in Physics Dares Say So, but the Race to Invent New Particles is Pointless’; by L Smolin in his book ‘The Trouble With Physics’; and by J Baggott in his book ‘Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth’. Then there are a range of articles with the recurring theme related to the fanciful mathematically driven theories proposed by particle Physicists.

Modern Physics has many skeletons hidden in its closets; problems that undermine it and need to be fixed but, instead, have been compartmentalised, drowned in techno-speak, or simply have been swept under the carpet. So, how can we go about fixing Modern Physics? What is the solution to the current state of play and what will allow us to head towards a more realistic, useful and practical type of theory? How can things be changed so that the ‘follow-the-leader’ mentality of particle Physics is not so wasteful of valuable resources?

A possible start is to have a look at some of the more cogent ‘alternative’ physical atomic models suggested by individuals and groups that have ‘followed their own path’; to find out what Physics problems they want fixed and have a look at some of their suggested fixes. Can they provide insight and sensible feasible alternatives to the problems of Modern Physics? Can they provide more consistent and realistic explanations related to the world around us? We will never know unless we look.

The Evolution of Atomic Models

Around 400 BC, the Greek philosopher Democritus suggested that atoms of all kinds of matter were alike. In the early 1800s, John Dalton noted that chemical