Oscillator/Substance Model View of Elements and the Periodic Chart

By Dean L. Sinclair

Atoms are conventionally considered as being made up of a nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons surrounded by an "electron cloud." These atoms can be arranged in groups known as elements and these elements can be arranged into a "Periodic Table." This way of considering things in considered basic to chemistry.

A new model of reality suggests, however, that useful as those concepts have been, they may be somewhat in error. This model, called the "Oscillator/Substance Model considers all of existence to be within a "substance" made up of oscillators and/or controlled by oscillators

If the Oscillator/Substance concept of what are electrons and protons is valid, and electrons and protons are actually spinning vortices, with the size of the protons and their interactions accounting for the "nuclei" of the nuclear atom, then it is necessary to do a complete re-examination of the concepts of atoms, elements and the basis of the Periodic Chart of the Elements. A new reason/rationale need be developed for the apparent presence of "isotopes" which are conventionally explained by the presence of neutrons in atomic nuclei. If there be no neutrons per se in the nuclei, then, what are the electron-proton interactions which explain a situation which will make it appear that there are stable neutron type associations?

Conventional wisdom says that there is a pairing of electrons such that their "spins" will cancel. O/S would agree that a partial cancellation of the vortex motions would take place if two vortices were "paired, upside down to one another." The conventional literature, however, does not continue to apply the same idea to protons, nor does it seem to realize that an up-down-up-down chain or circle can be extended. It should be useful to consider the first few known proton-electron associations.

The simplest units which may be considered as proton-electron associations are the neutron and the Hydrogen atom, H1. The neutron may possibly be [or--at least, can be thought of] a tightly coupled dual oscillator of an electron and proton, or proto-electron/proto-proton. And, when it "falls out of sync" it collapses into an electron and a proton. These two can reunite into another unit which can synchronize in unlimited --or, nearly unlimited--- spatial dimension. Hence, it cannot be "knocked out of sync" in the manner of its more restricted isomer, the neutron. This unit is, of course, the H-1 atom.

Perhaps the next easiest set of units to consider is what one might call "Iso-set--2,2," the set of units made up of two electrons and two protons. This would have also two members, the Deuterium Atom, "D," or, "H2," and the Hydrogen molecule, H:H. The Hydrogen molecule is known to have two forms known as "ortho-Hydrogen" and "para-Hydrogen" wherein the Hydrogen nuclei, i.e., the protons are "matched spin" or "paired-spins." In other words, the protons are moving in exactly the same orientation in one case and are "upside down to each other" in the more stable orientation. The Hydrogen molecule would be expected to be an ovoid. It is probable that the Deuterium atom could be considered as a condensed version of the "para-Hydrogen" molecule, containing much less vibration energy.

The close-coupling of the two protons in the nucleus and their probable containment, at any given instant within an electron, give the illusion of a "nucleus" consisting of a proton and a neutron. It can be considered that the vibration motions of the electron and the protons would be such that for very short periods, the proton/electron interactions would be such as to be identical to those of a neutron, however, the neutron as such would not exist.

The three electron | three proton set, "Iso-3 | 3-set" has two well-known, atomic members, Tritium, "H3," and Helium 3, "He3." Tritium is "radioactive," spinning off an electron to form a cation which as it regains an electron becomes the isomeric He3. Tritium does not have a magnetic moment; therefore, it is not a "spinning neutral unit." This implies an internal symmetry when the nucleus is composed of an inverting tetrahedral array. This is represented by three units inverting as if they were at corners of a tetrahedron; this unit then would on the average have no polarization, no "dipole", even though the internal units have inherent dipoles. It appears from the chemistry of this unit that, at any given instant, the central array or the "atomic nucleus" is encased within a set of two coupled electrons with a third electron more loosely coupled.

The "stable" He3 unit is a totally different configuration. With a definite magnetic moment in the same sense as that of the neutron only larger, it is a spinning "neutral" atom with a definite dipole dominated by the spinning protons. It would thus appear to be in a trigonal array corresponding on the atomic scale to the "resonance-stabilized" trigonals that are known in molecular chemistry. These three appear at any given instant to be tightly encased in the vibration pattern of one electron and more loosely in the vibrations of two others. This gives rise to the conventional idea of one neutron in the nucleus. Evanescent, transient states which would be identical to states of neutrons, would exist in both the Tritium and Helium3 units, as well as in all atoms, giving rise to the illusion of stable neutrons in the nuclei.

In the "Iso-4 | 4-set," it interesting to compare the molecular unit, Deuterium molecule, D:D, and its atomic isomer, the He4 atom. This has been covered in some detail in another short paper, "O/S Theory and the Deuterium to Helium4 Transform." In that paper it is noted that the Deuterium Atom nucleus consists of two, "coupled-up-down" protons (in the most stable state) and the Deuterium Molecule would be two sets in what could be called a "stretched tetrahedral array" or possibly a "stretched square planar array" or, an arrangement combining these two ideas. This set of "nuclei" would be surrounded literally within and without by an array of 4 electrons. The overall result is an ovoid with two distinct centers of motion.

The He4 nucleus would be composed of the same eight basic units. However, in this case, the ovoid of two distinct centers of motion is compressed into a spheroid having but one center. It is possible that this spheroid would have a tetrahedral configuration of protons again surrounded within and without by a tetrahedral arrangement of electrons.

The Alpha particle would not be a He4 nucleus, but a square-planar (actually, circular) array of 4 coupled protons surrounded again, "within and without" by two electrons. The coupling of the protons gives the unit a very strong, clockwise spin.

This imagery makes sense if one looks at the oscillator limits of the proton and the electron and the reversed spin/inversion senses which give rise to the "positive" and "negative" charges.

The electron and the proton by Oscillator/Substance logic have the same "average" mass and radius. Nonetheless, they have very different oscillation limits, with the electron limits approximately "ten to the third" times those of the proton. Hence, both have the same rotational/inversion velocity of "c"; the proton completes many inversion/rotations for each one of those pertaining to the electron. The electron is therefore "heavier and lighter" and "larger and smaller" than the proton.

The reader is also referred to the web-page:

One may observe that the analysis of the entire periodic chart and corresponding molecular isomers would constitute a difficult if not impossible task. It appears that Nature is such that certain patterns arise as of electron-proton interactions which lead to the Periodic Chart pattern with the use of "neutrons in the nucleus" as a convenient bookkeeping tool. This must be kept in mind if one feels that the O/S insights are valid. The "neutrons in the nucleus' should be considered illusional and it can obscure other patterns of value. Some of these can be found in the use of the Iso-set | Iso-A concepts covered to some extent in a previous paper: "Iso-sets, a Key to Radioactivity." That paper may be found on SCiScoop, and as a web-page on the Google Group, Oscillator/Substance Theory.

©2010 Copyrighted by Dean L. Sinclair. All rights reserved.

A Constant’s Secrets. A Different Look at Planck’s Constant

Physics Monday, November 17, 2008

For the last hundred years, in plain sight, there has been hidden within a Constant of Nature, important information about the Universe within which we live.

Planck’s Constant was discovered in the early 1900 by Max Planck. In all the time since, however, it appears that no one has taken the time to ask some logical questions about the Constant. Some of these questions are the following: The constant applies to the relationship between Energy and frequency of electromagnetic radiation, so what is it operating on to connect Energy and frequency of radiation? Why does it have the dimensions of “Action” or “Angular Momentum?” It is logical to ask, ” On what is the action occurring? What has the angular momentum?”

Running these questions around brings to mind the thought that if this factor, Planck’s Constant were an average amount of action in any direction, or the average angular momentum in any direction–apparently the same– of units making up reality, then that average unit would appear as a constant.

Planck’s Constant is used at the speed of light, another Constant of Nature. Could the thought that perhaps Planck’s Constant is an average value of a characteristic of some unit of existence also apply to the speed of light? Could the Speed of Light also be connected to something related to rotating units as Planck’s Constant may well be?

This last speculation fits in very well. The Speed of Light is the maximum velocity of information transfer. Information transfer in any direction from a point has a maximum–and in practice, unattainable–velocity of the average velocity in eny given direction of the velocity of the “packet carriers” whether these packet carriers be Pony Express Riders, Sound Waves or Electromagnetic Radiation. The Speed of Light would make sense as the average velocity in any direction at any time of the units, rotors(?), acted upon by Planck’s Constant.

Acting on these ideas, Planck’s Constant is an average angular momentum and the Speed of Light an average velocity in any direction, we can try some mathematical analysis.

Let us set Planck’s Constant, (h), as the constant value into the form equation, K=xyz. In this case, let Planck’s Constant be “K”, “x” will be an instantaneous mass, “m,” rotating at a distance, “r.” from the center of rotation, and the third unknown be an instantaneous velocity, “v” measured at that distance, “The Tangential Velocity.” We write, “h=mvr.” Since “h” appears to be necessarily valid only at the speed of light, “c,” we evaluate h=mvc. Since “c” itself is a constant, the ratio of “h” and “c” is a constant so mr=h/c.This two unknown equation can be said to define not only a variable area but also anything which varies in this manner. One such is the Law of Levers in Physics. The numerical values of ”m ” and “v ” can be interchanged, hence this little equation could describe something moving back and forth between two limits or two “states.” Such motion is called “oscillation” and something acting in such a way is called an oscillator. We can say that the equation, ”mr=h/c describes a family of oscillators. Since the values of m and r can be switched, they can also be equal to define an “average” oscillator when m=r=(h/v)^0.5. That is when the numerical value of the mass equals the numerical value of the radius and each equals the square root of the ratio of Planck’s Constant to the Speed of Light. Inserting the value of 6.63 x 10^-27 erg. sec. for Planck’s Constant and 3 x 10^10 cm./sec for the Speed of Light we get a value of approximately 4.7 x 10^-19 cm. (and 4.7 x 10^-19 grams) for the “dimensions” of the average oscillator defined by the “(h/c)^0.5 Constant.”

It is interesting that this value, 4.7 x 10^-19 cm. as a radius is almost exactly one half of the diameter at which the Strings of String Theory are said to disappear into a “10 dimension hole.” Also, Quantum Mechanics is said to fail at below the same distance.

At this point we suggest that the basic units of our existence are tiny oscillators half of whose existence is unknown and unexplored as it lies below the “threshold” of (h/c)^0.5.

Perhaps we should close this little essay at this point and hope that the reader’s curiosity has been aroused enough to follow up. There is much more that can be said and there has been much more written elsewhere.

An Internet Group, Google Group, Oscillator/Substance Theory has been set up to explore, develop, publicize, or refute, the “Theory of Everything” which arises from the foregoing and related topics. It is open to anyone, and anyone would undoubtedly be able to contribute. The URL is as follows: Hope to see you there!

Dean L. Sinclair, Aberdeen, SD Nov. 2008
©2010 Copyrighted by Dean L. Sinclair. All rights reserved.

see more essays:

Eski's Oscillator/Substance Group 2008-2011
compiled by: Dean L(eRoy) Sinclair
Book VI part 1.pdf
Book VI part 2.pdf
Book VI part 3.pdf
Book Vi part 4.pdf

A Framework for a Fundamental Theory?
Dean L. Sinclair+

Home Books Forum Links Author