A Physical Model For Atoms and Nuclei

A Physical Model for Atoms and NucleiPart 1
Joseph Lucas and Charles W. Lucas, Jr.

Abstract. A physical geometrical packing model for the
structure of the atom is developed based on the physical
toroidal ring model of elementary particles proposed by
Bergman.[1] From the physical characteristics of real electrons
from experiments by Compton [2,3,4] this work derives, using
combinatorial geometry, the number of electrons that will pack
into the various physical shells about the nucleus in agreement
with the observed structure of the Periodic Table of the
Elements.
The constraints used in the combinatorial geometry derivation
are based upon Josephs simple but fundamental ring dipole
magnet experiments and spherical symmetry.
From a
magnetic basis the model explains the physical origin of the
valence electrons for chemical binding and the reason why the
periodic table has only seven periods.
The same geometrical packing model is extended to describe
the physical geometrical packing of protons and neutrons in the
physical shells of the nucleus. It accurately predicts the nuclear
magic numbers indicative of nuclear shell structure as well as
suggesting the physical origin of the nuclide spin and the liquiddrop features of nuclides.
Introduction
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory form the foundation upon which modern
physics rests. Yet some philosophers and scientists object to these very successful
theories, because they involve assumptions known to be false and because they are
mathematics theories that fail to give a physical understanding of the processes occurring.
Both Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory are
based on the assumption of point-like particles.
However, electron scattering experiments, for which
Robert Hofstadter [5] received the Nobel Prize in
1961, have shown that neutrons, protons, and other
elementary particles have a measurable finite size, an
internal charge distribution (indicative of internal
structure), and elastically deform in interactions (See
Figure 1). The size and shape of the electron was
measured by Compton [2, 3, 4] and refined more
Figure 1.
Charge Density of Proton and Neutron
Most of this paper first appeared IN GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS, Volume 7, Number 1,

January/February 1996, and is reprinted by permission.
Foundations of Science
Reprint/Internet Article
Page 1
February 2002
http://CommonSenseScience.org
completely by Bostick [6, 7], his last graduate student. The finite size, internal particle
structure, and elastic deformation of shape are ignored by both Quantum Mechanics and
Relativity Theory.
In modern relativistic quantum theories of the atom and nucleus, it is postulated that the
charged electrons and protons move in their respective shell orbits with specific angular
momentum about the center of the nucleus without continuously radiating
electromagnetic energy. These postulates violate both Amperes and Faradays laws of
electrodynamics from which Larmors formula for total power P radiation from a
moving charge is derived, i.e.,
P=
2e 2 dv
3c 3 dt
(1)
Larmors formula agrees with all the macroscopic experiments with accelerating charges.
It requires all accelerated charged particles to emit radiation continuously while being
accelerated. However, radiation from the orbiting electrons and protons in the atom
postulated by quantum theory is not observed and violates energy conservation.
Quantum models of the atom are unable to show that the forces in the atom are in
dynamical equilibrium for S states with zero angular momentum. Normally some
angular momentum is needed to give rise to a centrifugal force to balance the electrical
Coulomb force attracting the negatively charged electron toward the positively charged
nucleus. Otherwise, the Coulomb force causes the electron to fall into the nucleus and
annihilate itself with a proton.
For S states, quantum mechanics postulates that the negative electron vibrates back and
forth through the nucleus without interacting with the positively charged protons. This
postulate violates electrodynamics laws without any physical justification.
In quantum mechanics the self-field of finite-size elementary particles and their changes
due to deformation are ignored. These are real physical and experimentally measurable
effects.
Quantum theories lead to a 100 percent random basis for events of the physical universe.
This is in disagreement with common sense experience and the notion that all effects are
produced by some cause.
Despite the shortcomings of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory, they have
persisted as pillars of modern physics. Their status is due in part to the fact that they
yield mathematical formulas that accurately predict many phenomena. Also, no better
alternative theories have yet been identified and accepted.
This situation has been changed by three events. The first event occurred in 1915 when
Ewald and Oseen [8, 9] discovered the extinction effect in electrodynamics.
Experimentally they found that when light passes through any media, even the best manmade vacuum, it is absorbed by atoms and re-emitted in such a way that it moves with the
Page 2
February 2002
speed of light plus the velocity of the atoms on which it was absorbed. In 1963 Fox [10,
11, and 12] realized that this experimental evidence allowed the famous MichelsonMorley modified Fizeau experiment of 1886 to be explained by classical electrodynamics
using the Galilean transformation instead of relativity theory. Basically the extinction
effect invalidated the second postulate of Relativity Theory that the speed of light was c
in all reference frames.
The second event occurred in 1978 when Barnes [13] published his remarkable proof
from electrodynamics showing that all the known results predicted by Special Theory of
Relativity (STR), i.e. the change in mass of elementary particles with velocity, the change
in electromagnetic fields of elementary particles with velocity, and the change in decay
half-life with velocity could be predicted exactly from classical electrodynamics of finitesize elastically deformable elementary particles.
Once this proof was published, scientists began to realize that Relativity Theory cannot
be applied to real physical finite-size elastically deformable elementary particles without
always obtaining a bad result. This is due to the fact that electrodynamics is sufficient by
itself without help from another theory.
The third event occurred in 1990 when Bergman [1] called attention to a successful
physical model for the electron, proton, and other
elementary particles based on a spinning toroidal
ring of continuous charge. This model depicts the
electron and the proton as thin rings of charge
circulating at the speed of light. The continuous
charge in the ring is repulsive to itself due to the
Coulomb interaction. This force is exactly balanced
by the magnetic pinch effect due to the current in the
Figure 2
ring. The balance of electric coulomb and magnetic
Spinning Ring Model of
Lorentz forces determines R, the radius of the ring
Elementary Particles
(See Figure 2). The half-thickness of the ring r is
extremely small.
Bergman speculates that the electric and magnetic forces on the ring must in general be
unequal with the electrical repulsive forces predominating at small radii and the magnetic
pinch effect predominating at large radii. Bergman suggests that there are special values
of the radius for which the electric and magnetic forces are equal, but no explicit proof of
this has been given. Furthermore, Bergman notes that the dynamic radius of an electron
closely bound to a proton in a neutron would be significantly smaller than the radius of an
electron weakly bound to a distant proton in the hydrogen atom due to the elasticity of the
toroidal ring model.
Three features of the spinning charged ring model of electrons and protons are especially
important to the structure of the atom. The dominating characteristics provided by the
ring model are first, the physical size of each particle; second, the magnetic dipole
exhibited by each particle; and third, the property that a charged spinning ring, which is
surrounded by static electric and magnetic fields, does not radiate continuously.
Page 3
February 2002
Plancks constant h, the fundamental constant of quantum mechanics, is derived by

Bergman [1] to be
h=
e2
8R
ln
2 o c r
(2)
The value of h is determined from the ring structure by the balance of electric and
magnetic forces. Since Bergmans model is a physical model, it allows one to predict
from first principles Plancks constant h, spin, magnetic moment, mass, and other
physical properties of elementary particles.
According to the rules of logic employed in science, whenever one theory is able to
predict the value of the fundamental constant of another theory and give a physical
explanation of it, that theory is automatically superior. Thus Bergmans physical model
of elementary particles is superior to and more fundamental than all quantum models.
Due to the objections mentioned above to the theories of Quantum Mechanics and
Relativity plus the three events also described above, it seemed appropriate that new
work be undertaken to develop a new theory of the atom and nucleus based on real
physical electrons, protons, and neutrons that have finite size, ring charge structure, and
are elastically deformable.
The New Model of the Atom
The scattering experiments performed by Rutherford showed that the atom consists of a
tiny massive nucleus with containing protons and neutrons with the less massive
electrons on the outer surface. Amperes law and Faradays law require that the electrons
radiate electromagnetic energy continuously if they move in an orbit about the nucleus.
Since continuous radiation of the proper frequency for the electron to be orbiting the
nucleus is not observed, it is logical to assume from
classical electrodynamics that the electrons do not
orbit the nucleus.
If electrons in the atom do not orbit the nucleus, but
rather come to some stable equilibrium distance from
it due to the balance of electric and magnetic forces,
then it should be possible to predict the way the
electrons pack themselves in layers or shells about the
nucleus. Finding the structure of the atom should be a
problem of geometry.
There is a field of geometry, called Combinatorial
Geometry that concerns itself with relations among
members of finite systems of geometric figures
subject to various conditions and constraints. Two of
the important topics addressed by Combinatorial
Page 4
Figure 3
Classic Problem in
Combinatorial Geometry
February 2002
Geometry are packing and covering. An example of packing is the number of equal sized
disks in a plane about a central disk. It is easily seen that six equal circular disks may be
placed around another disk of the same size, subject to the constraints that the central disk
is touched by all the others and that no two disks overlap (see Figure 3).
In the three dimensional case it is possible to place twelve balls (solid spheres) around a
given ball, subject to the constraints that all the balls touch the central ball and no two
balls overlap.
Now in the case of the atom, consisting of a
central nucleus with finite size electrons
packed about it in layers or shells, one can
also use Combinatorial Geometry. In this
case, there are additional constraints. The
balls or electron rings have a magnetic
moment and an electrical attraction to the
nucleus or central shell.
Shell
Size
Total
Electrons
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
1 great circle of 2 electrons

2 great circles of 4 electrons
2
8
18
32
50
From observation and general symmetry

Table 1
Shell
Sizes
that Satisfy
principles, one assumes that each layer or
Packing Constraints
shell of the atom must be constructed in such
a way that the total magnetic moment in each
shell sums to zero and the cancellation of the magnetic moments is perfectly spherical,
i.e. all great circles that pass through the arrangement of electrons must have the same
number of electrons and no magnetic moment.
In order to learn more about the magnetic constraints, ceramic ring magnets of 9/8 inch
diameter, 1/4 inch thickness, and a 5/16 inch center hole were obtained from Radio Shack
for performing key experiments. The north pole of each magnet was painted white. The
magnets were then hung by string in a circular ring to determine the equilibrium
arrangement. Only a circular ring with an even number of magnets was found to come to
equilibrium in a circular arrangement. When the arrangement of magnets with an even
number of magnets came to equilibrium, the magnets were
oriented such that they precisely alternated the north-south
orientation as one proceeded around the ring (see Figure 4).
Spherical symmetry implies that no matter which great
circles of electrons are packed in a shell, the same precise
pattern of alternation of magnetic orientation should exist.
This constraint along with the one requiring an even number
of magnets in each great circle is sufficient to determine the
sizes of each of the packing shells of electrons about the
nucleus. Using the method of enumeration, i.e. examining
each possible shell size one by one, one finds that the
successive shells that satisfy the packing constraints are
described by Table 1.
Page 5
Figure 4
Equilibrium Position of Ring
Magnets in a Circle
February 2002
An illustration of shell #2 is provided by Figure 5,

which shows a filled shell of eight electrons
consisting of two groups of four rings each. The
principle magnetic flux line for each group is also
shown. The spinning charged ring electrons shown
in Figure 5 are all located on two great circles
(which are not shown).
A larger shell of 18 electrons, shell #3 of Table 1, is
illustrated by Figure 6. In this arrangement, three
groups of six electrons form the filled shell. All the
ring electrons are located on three great circles.
Figure 5
In order to study the relative magnetic binding
Filled Shell of 8 Electrons
strengths of each of these great circle shell sizes, an
apparatus was constructed consisting of a wooden
board with circular arrangements of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10,... wooden pegs spaced such that ring
magnets could be mounted on the pegs while comfortably touching one another in a
circular pattern. One of the pegs was removed
from each great circle of magnets, and the force to
remove the associated ring magnet was measured.
In order to eliminate the effect of friction, the
board was held on edge, and the weight on the
magnet needed to pull it away from the great
circle was measured (including its own weight).
Figure 7 illustrates the experimental apparatus.
The results of these magnet experiments are

shown in Graph 1. The graph shows the relative
binding strengths of the various great circle
Figure 6
configurations of ring magnets. Note that great
Fixed Shell of 18 Electrons
circles of four ring magnets are most tightly
bound. This suggests that in atoms, the shells of
two great circles of four electrons will be strongly
bound, giving rise to valence like effects observed
in chemical bonding. Also note that great circle
arrangements of ten or more ring magnets show no
more inclination to bind in a circular shape than an
odd number of ring magnets. From this result, one
does not expect shells of 50 electrons or more to be
found to exist in the atomic electron shells. Thus
the atom should have only 4 electron shell sizes, i.e.
Graph 1
2, 8, 18 and 32 electrons.
Binding Force per Magnet by Ring Size
(Experiment with Board and Magnets)
Page 6
February 2002
Additional magnet experiments were performed to obtain a crude measure of the relative
binding strength of whole shells. This was done by using two layers of ring magnets for
shell size #2, three layers of ring magnets for shell size #3, etc., and measuring the force
necessary to remove one stack of ring magnets. The results are shown in Graph 2. The
magnet experiments suggest that shells of 18 electrons are most tightly bound and that
shells of 32 electrons are slightly less bound than shells of eight.
Wood Board
Magnets
South Pole Up
Plastic
Weight
Container
String
Weights
Wood
Pegs
Magnets
North Pole Up
Weights
Weights
Weights
Weights
Figure 7. Experimental Apparatus
Additional ring magnet experiments were done to determine how many shells with the
same number of electrons might be stable when packed about the nucleus.
This is done by forming a great circle of magnets for each shell and arranging them in a
concentric manner on a very smooth flat surface. The configuration of two rings is found
to be stable when the outer ring has the opposite magnetic orientation of the inner ring
next to it. When three or more concentric rings of the same number of magnets are
constructed, the configuration is found to be unstable with rings rearranging to form other
sizes. Thus the ring magnets like to be oriented in pairs in all directions. This causes two
concentric rings of the identical number of magnets
to be stable.
From an analysis of the electrical forces of
attraction or each electron shell with the nucleus
and the total binding strength for each shell, the
order of the shells is determined by the
configuration with minimum energy. For example,
the electrical attraction of each magnetic shell with
the positively charged nucleus increases with shell
size. As a result, a larger shell can displace a
smaller shell with fewer charges, provided that the
Page 7
Graph 2
Binding Force per Magnet by Shell Size
(Experiments with Board and Magnets)
February 2002
space it occupies is large enough to hold the larger shell. This constraint allows larger
shells to displace the second shell of a pair of smaller shells.
Taking this into account and noting that the first shell size is paired with the nucleus
itself, one obtains the following shell structure for the atom:
Total
electrons
Shell
Nucleus
electrons at center
2
10
18
36
54
86
118
2
8
8
18
18
32
32
N
U
C
L
E
U
S
K
shell
L
shell
M
shell
N
shell
O
shell
P
shell
Q
shell
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
18
18
18
18
8
18
32
32
8
18
32
8
18
Table 2
Distribution of Electrons in Packing Shells
Note the arrows indicating the opposite orientation of the magnetic moments of the
electrons in one shell with those of another. The structure shown in Table 2 is identical
with that given in the Periodic Table of the Elements. Table 3 shows in detail how the
fourth shell displaces the third shell.
Conclusions
The geometrical packing model presented for the atom is very successful in describing
some atomic data. The approach taken here is more fundamental and straightforward
than the methods used by quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity. The
new model does not incorporate the philosophically objectionable assumptions of
quantum mechanics. It replaces features of quantum models that are known to be
inconsistent or in violation of proven laws. Unlike the quantum models, the geometrical
packing model is not simply mathematical, but it is a physical model with boundaries,
sizes, and structures. In this sense the model satisfies a major goal of physics which is,
after all, to describe matter of the physical universe.
Although the framework of a new theory of matter has been presented, the basic
approach needs to be extended to give successful descriptions of black body radiation, the
photoelectric effect, and the energy levels of the atom before it can fully displace the
quantum models. (Please note that this work has been successfully completed and
published [14]. It will be featured in a future issue.)
Page 8
February 2002
Electron
Shells
Atomic
Atomic
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Symbol
Number
Shell
Shell
Shell
Shell
Ar
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Ge
As
Se
Br
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
10
11
13
13
14
15
16
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Kr
36
18
Table 3
Step by Step Buildup of the Fourth Shell
References
1.
Bergman, D. L., and Wesley, J. P., Spinning Charged Ring Model of

Electron
Yielding
Anomalous
Magnetic
Moment,
Galilean
Electrodynamics, Vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 63-67 (Sept/Oct 1990).
2.
Compton, Arthur H., American Physical Society address December 1917,

Physical Review Series II, p. 330 (1918).
3.
Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV No. 1, pp. 20-43
(1919).
4.
Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV No. 3, pp. 247259 (1919).
5.
Hofstadter, R., Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 28, p. 213 (1956).
6.
Bostick, Winston H., Physics of Fluids, Vol. 9, p.2079 (1966).
7.
Bostick, Winston H., Mass, Charge, and Current: The Essence and
Morphology, Physics Essays, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 45-49 (1991).
Page 9
February 2002
8.
Ewald-Oseen, Annealed der Physic (1915).
9.
Born and Wolf, Principles of Optics 6th Edition, pp. 71, 101-104 (1955).
10. Fox, J. G., American Journal of Physics, Vol. 30, p. 297 (1962).
11. Fox, J. G., American Journal of Physics, Vol. 33, p. 1 (1965).
12. Fox, J. G., J. Optical Society of America, Vol. 57, p. 967 (1967).
13. Barnes, T. G., Alternatives to Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity,
Physics of the Future, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, pp.
88-94 (1983).
14. Lucas, Jr., Charles W. and Lucas, Joseph C., A New foundation for Modern
Science, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Creationism (Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA ) pp. 379394 (1988).
Page 10
February 2002

Abstract. A physical Geometrical Packing Model for the
structure of the atom is developed based on the physical
toroidal ring model of elementary particles proposed by
Bergman [1].
From the physical characteristics of real
electrons from experiments by Compton [2, 3, 4] this work
derives, using combinatorial geometry, the number of electrons
that will pack into the various physical shells about the nucleus
in agreement with the observed structure of the Periodic Table
of the Elements.
The constraints used in the combinatorial geometry derivation
are based upon Josephs simple but fundamental ring dipole
magnet experiments and spherical symmetry.
From a
magnetic basis the model explains the physical origin of the
valence electrons for chemical binding and the reason why the
periodic table has only seven periods.
The same Geometrical Packing Model is extended to describe
the physical geometrical packing of protons and neutrons in the
physical shells of the nucleus. It accurately predicts the nuclear
magic numbers indicative of nuclear shell structure as well as
suggesting the physical origin of the nuclide spin and the liquiddrop features of nuclides.
New Model of the Nucleus

In the first part of this paper a new model of the atom, based on ring electrons, was
presented in terms of physical geometrical packing under the constraints of spherical
symmetry and some experimental results for ring dipole magnets. Due to the success of
this model over competing models, such as the Quantum Model, it seems only natural to
attempt to apply it to the packing of nucleons in the nucleus. Bergmans Spinning
Charged Ring Model for elementary particles indicates that the structure of the proton is
also a toroid like that of the electron, except that it has a much smaller radius in free
space and the charge is of opposite sign.
According to traditional physics, the nucleus contains two types of particles: protons and
neutrons. Outside of the free nucleus, the neutron is unstable and decays into an electron
and a proton with a half-life of about 13 minutes. According to Bergmans model, the
neutron is not a legitimate elementary particle; rather it is really a bound combination of
an electron and proton. Thus, in extending the physical packing model to the nucleus, it
will be necessary to take into account the Z protons per nuclide, plus the N neutrons
Most of this paper first appeared IN GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS, Volume 7, Number 1,

January/February 1996, and is revised and reprinted by permission.
which consist of N protons

and N electrons. One should
note that the elastic ring
electrons have a much
smaller equilibrium size
when intimately bound with
a proton in a neutron
configuration, than when
loosely bound to a proton in
a
hydrogen
molecular
configuration.
One might expect that the
number of protons in each
type of nuclear packing
shell should be exactly the
same as for electrons in the
Graph 2
atomic case. Conversely,
one might expect some
difference due to the presence of two types of particles in the nucleus and the fact that
there is no central charge binding all the nucleons to the center of the nucleus.
If one looks at the nuclear magic
numbers 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126 (the
sums of complete shell sizes) which
represent the size of the various
nuclear shells as seen in many types
of periodic nuclear data, one soon
realizes that something is different
about the nucleus. The packing
appears, at first, to be quite different
from the atomic magic numbers of 2,
10, 18, 36, 54, 86, 118the total
number of electrons when interior
atomic shells are filled. (This is one
reason why modern science has a
theory for the nucleus that is different
and separate from atomic theory.)
Graph 3
Nuclear Density for Various Nuclides [6]
An examination of the experimentally measured nuclear density shapes in Graph 3 gives

an important clue as to what is happening. From Graph 3, one sees that the density of
nuclides at the center decreases with increasing size or mass of the nucleus. In the atomic
case, the electron density at a particular radius always increases with more massive atoms
until the shell at that radius is filled. After that the density stays constant at that radius
with more massive atoms. The nuclear density data seems to indicate that the proton and
neutron shells do not remain in a stable configuration once they are filled and additional
nucleons are added to make heavier nuclides. Rather, at some point, the balance of
electric and magnetic forces in the nucleus is such that the smaller interior shells
rearrange into larger shells that are more strongly bound. Thus, the average nuclear
density near the center of the nucleus drops, because the small innermost shells are
missing.
This observation has been confirmed by a ring magnet experiment in which the strength
of binding of the shell was measured versus shell size (see Graph 2). Using the notion
that smaller shells may come apart and rearrange themselves into larger more stable shell
configurations, the nuclear magic shell numbers can be explained in terms of the
combinatorial geometry packing shells as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Nuclear Shells
____________ Combinatorial Geometry Shells __________
Total Number of Nucleons
2
8
20
28
50
82
126
2
2
18
18
32
18
32
32
32
32
50
50
8
2
2
18
18
18
18
50
50
From Table 4 one sees that the notion of shells rearranging into larger more stable shells,
due to the lack of an attracting nuclear center, seems capable of explaining the magic
number shell-like features of the nuclides. But what about the nuclides in between the
magic number shells?
The nuclides between the magic number nuclides have a number of physical properties
which the physical Geometrical Packing Model should explain. One of these properties
is the spin or magnetic moment of the nuclides. Magic number nuclides have no spin or
magnetic moment, because they consist of only completed (full) shells which are
spherically symmetric. Nuclides with an even number of neutrons and protons also have
no net spin.
In the nuclear shell model for which Maria Goeppert Mayer received the Nobel Prize in
1963, [7, 8, 9, 10] the odd unpaired nucleons in shells give rise to the net spin and
magnetic moment of the nucleus. The spin of a nucleon is a combination of its intrinsic
spin plus its orbital angular momentum (from assumed orbiting motion). The Quantum
Nuclear Shell Model is a planetary type model in that the nucleons move in orbits about
the center of the nucleus and possess orbital angular momentum about the center of the
nucleus. The orbital model fails to predict correct spins for nuclides in 114 out of 339
cases in the 44 page version of Table 5 (see the first page of Table 5 at the end of this
article.)
In the physical Geometrical Packing Model, the nucleons do not normally orbit about the
center of the nucleus. Amperes Law and Faradays Law in electrodynamics require that
charged nucleons radiate energy continuously if they orbit the nucleus. This radiation
would cause the nucleus to collapse and never be stable. In the Geometrical Packing
Model the balance of electric and magnetic forces on the finite-size charged electrons
and proton rings in the nucleus causes them to come to a balanced equilibrium position
some distance from the center of the nucleus without having to orbit the center of the
nucleus. The spin of a nuclide is assumed to be due to the odd, unpaired nucleons in the
partially filled shells. Using the rule that odd numbers of neutrons and/or protons in a
shell link together like ring dipole magnets in a line to form the nuclear spin or magnetic
moment by merely adding their intrinsic nucleon spins or moments together allows the
spin of all known nuclides (stable or unstable) to be predicted (see the first page of Table
5 at the end of this article).
In order to complete the shell structure for all the nuclides that have been observed, the
balance of electric and magnetic forces in the shells must be taken into account. The
mathematics for handling large numbers of toroidal rings spatially distributed and
allowed to deform is very complicated, so this was done systematically in a crude way
through a series of assumed rules obtained by an analysis of nuclide data as follows:
Rule 1.
Inside the nucleus, neutrons polarize into electrons and protons which
participate in the formation of packing shells.
Rule 2.
Neutrons cause protons to be more tightly bound in packing shells by

forming a triplet of shells, i.e. p-e-p, with an electron shell in the middle
binding the proton shells by Coulomb attraction.
Rule 3.
Due to the binding effect of the

neutrons, shells of 50 protons are now
bound, whereas atomic shells of 50
electrons are not.
Rule 4.
Most stable nuclides have protons only

in the outermost shells.
Rule 5.
The balance of electric and magnetic

forces in the nucleus causes the
innermost shells of nucleons to break
up to form larger, more stable shells.
Rule 6.
The balance of electric and magnetic

Figure 8
forces in the nucleus causes the
Arrangement of O16 Nucleus
nucleons to rearrange to form a
minimum number of shells.
When there are an odd number of
neutrons and/or protons in a shell, the magnetic fields or spins of the odd
Rule 7.
nucleons add.
Rule 8.
The number of neutrons and protons in a partially filled shell cannot differ
by more than 25 percent.
Rule 9.
The number of neutrons and protons in a shell cannot exceed the shells
maximum number for each.
Rule 10.
When the number of neutrons and protons must differ by two or more in a
shell, the difference occurs in the most weakly bound shells first.
Rule 11.
When one shell can be partially filled, or a second more strongly bound
shell completely filled and the first shell partially filled, the latter occurs.
Rule 12.
Two shells will combine to form a larger shell when they can populate at
least 75 percent of the shell.
Table 5 shows how these very reasonable rules work out for some of the observed stable
Graph 4
Number of nuclear shell model failures to predict nuclide spin by nucleon number
and unstable nuclides. (The entire 44 page table is available from the authors.) Figure 8
illustrates the arrangement of electrons and protons in the nucleus of the oxygen O16
atom. One filled shell of eight electrons is surrounded by two shells of protons, forming
a proton-electron triplet. The eight large rings represent electrons, and the sixteen small
rings represent protons, although no attempt has been made to show the ring diameters in
scale. The electron could be the same size as the proton in the nucleus due to its
elasticity.
Note that the Geometrical Packing Model approach is more successful than the Quantum
Nuclear Shell Model. The full 44 page version of Table 5 reveals that quantum models
are unable to predict the correct spin for two-thirds of the odd N and/or Z nuclides,
indicating serious deficiencies in the Quantum Nuclear Shell Model. Graph 4 shows the
failures of the Quantum Nuclear Shell Model by N and Z. Note that the quantum model
is best close to magic number shells.
Liquid Drop Properties of the Nucleus
There are some nuclear properties, such as the
binding energy per nucleon and certain nuclear
properties such as spontaneous nuclear fission,
that the Quantum Nuclear Shell Model has been
unable to adequately describe. However, these
things can be satisfactorily described by the
Liquid Drop Model of the nucleus.
The
Quantum Nuclear Shell Model and the Liquid
Drop Model are incompatible in that the surface
of the nucleus in shell models should not act like
a liquid surface. In the Geometrical Packing
Model, however, there is a physical basis for the
Liquid Drop Model. This can be seen from
Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12. For these figures, the
structure of the spherical shells has been
Figure 9
symbolically represented by a slice cross section
through the center of the nucleus such that each spherical shell shows up as a circle or
ring. Each proton shell is shown explicitly. Each neutron shell is depicted as an electron
shell plus a proton shell, i.e. the neutrons polarize in such a way that the neutron shell
appears to be an electron shell plus a proton shell.
Figure 10
Shell Structure of CA-40
Note that in each of Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12

that in the innermost part of the nucleus,
electron and proton shells alternate as one
proceeds from the center of the nucleus
outward. This alternating sandwich effect
keeps them tightly bound together. However, at
three shells in from the outermost shell, there
are always two proton shells in a row for the
larger nuclides. This causes the last three
alternating sandwich of bound shells to be
repulsed by the inner nucleus. Thus, they are
only weakly bound to the inner nucleus.
This weak binding allows the outermost triplet

of shells to have liquid-like properties and
forms the proper justification for a Liquid
Drop Model of the nucleus. Such an effect
does not exist in quantum shell models of the
nucleus, because they are based on a central
force potential instead of allowing a dynamic
rearrangement of shells to minimize the
binding energy of the nucleus.
Another quantity the physical Geometrical
Packing Model should be able to predict is the
mass of each nuclide (stable or unstable) or an
Figure 11
equivalent quantity known as the binding
Shell Structure of Sn-118
energy W per nucleon A, i.e., W/A. The
Liquid Drop Model of the nucleus has been
the most successful of all previous nuclear models in predicting the binding energy per
nucleon using the semi-empirical mass formula with each term determined by leastsquare fitting to the nuclide data. However, the semi-empirical mass formula of the
Liquid Drop Model that is used in the leastsquare fitting is ill-conditioned, making the
results obtained from least-square fitting a
function of the initial guess for each of the
parameters in the formula. This is indicative of
a formula whose terms do not uniquely describe
the binding of the nucleons. One set of initial
guesses for the parameters in the semiempirical mass formula leads to a good fit of
the light nuclei. Another set of initial guesses
leads to a good fit of the heavy nuclei.
However, no set of initial guesses for the leastsquare analysis leads to a good fit of both light
and heavy nuclei.
In the Geometrical Packing Model, a somewhat
different formula is used for the binding energy
per nucleon (W/ A). The terms represent similar
effects, but the terms are dependent on the
physical shell structures as shown below and
are not ill-conditioned.
Figure 12
Shell Structure of Pb-208
W/ A = K1
K2 (# Neutrons + # Protons in outermost shell) / A
K3 Z (Z 1) A 4 / 3
K4 (# paired Neutrons # paired Protons)2 / A
K5 (# unpaired Protons + # unpaired Neutrons) / A
The first term, K1, represents a constant energy density for nuclear binding. From the
assumption of constant energy density within the nucleus, the Geometrical Packing
Model has the same first term as the semi-empirical mass formula with all the other terms
being of opposite sign and corrections to this assumption.
The second term takes into account the effect of the surface in reducing the binding
energy. In the Geometrical Packing Model, the exact count of the number of neutrons
and protons in the outermost shell is used, instead of an approximation to that number.
The third term corrects for the effect of Coulomb repulsion of protons on the binding
energy. This is the same as in the Liquid Drop Model.
The fourth term represents the magnetic tendency to have equal numbers of proton and
neutron magnets paired in the nucleus as a whole. This term is proportional to the actual
difference between the number of paired neutrons and protons, instead of an
approximation to that number employed by the Liquid Drop Model.
The last term takes
into account the
odd number of
neutron
and/or
protons in a shell
that are not paired
up. These values
were taken from
the
complete
version of Table 5.
Graph 5 shows an
excellent
leastsquare fit of the
formula to all
Graph 5
known stable and
Nuclear Binding Energy per Nucleon
unstable nuclide
binding energies.
The Geometrical
Packing Model is able to predict the binding energy per nucleon to four significant
figures for the average nuclide. This is better than the Liquid Drop Model which can
only fit well either the light stable nuclei or the heavy stable nuclei [11]. The Geometrical
Packing Model can fit both light and heavy stable nuclei simultaneously as well as the
unstable nuclei with one set of parameters.
Summary
A simple physical Geometrical Packing Model has
been presented to describe the packing of electrons
about the nucleus in layers or shells as well as the
packing of neutrons and protons in the nucleus
itself. An example of this packing scheme is shown
in Figure 13 for the Ne20 atom. The arrangement of
electrons for the neon atom was determined by
hanging ten ring dipole magnets by strings in the
symmetrical pattern of the appropriate shells. Of all
the possible configurations the one that
experimentally achieves stability is shown in Figure
13. This configuration minimizes the sum of
magnetic moments for each shell and achieves
symmetry by locating the electrons of each shell on
a great circle.
Figure 13
The packing model is completely electromagnetic in Approximate Arrangement of Ne20 Atom

origin. It is based upon the 1917 experiments of
Compton [2, 3, 4] in which he showed that the size
and shape of the electron could be determined by analysis of hard X-ray and gamma ray
scattering to be thin flexible rings of charge. One of Comptons last graduate students,
Winston Bostick, proposed in 1966 [12, 13] that the closed string or fiber of charge that
makes up the electron has the configuration of a helical spring that is connected end-toend to form a deformable ring or toroid. The size and structure of the neutron and proton
is based upon the electron scattering experiments of Nobel Laureate Robert Hofstadter
[14]. The shape and structure of the packing shells comes from our ring magnet
experiments and the work of David Bergman [1].
This new Geometrical Packing Model for the atom does not incorporate the objectionable
assumptions of Quantum Mechanics for the atom that (1) electrons move in orbits about
the nucleus with definite angular momentum, (2) electrons are point-like particles with no
size or structure, and (3) electron orbits with no angular momentum are in stable
mechanical equilibrium with the nucleus with no known physical basis. The first
assumption violates Amperes Law and Faradays Law in electrodynamics which require
that electrons in orbit about the nucleus must radiate energy continuously. The second
assumption is false, because it disagrees with the experiments of Compton, Bostick, and
Hofstadter and it requires an infinite density concentration of energy. The third
assumption violates mechanical conditions for stability.
The new physical packing model successfully predicts all the known properties of the
Periodic Table of the Elements, including the reason why there are only seven periods
due to the geometrical properties of the nucleons magnetic fields. The quantum models
cannot show why there are only seven periods.
The new packing model explains the physical origin of the structure of nuclear shells in
agreement with the observed charge density of nuclides. The Quantum Nuclear Shell
Model l, which is based upon a central force potential, cannot explain the observed
decrease of central nuclide density with increasing number of nucleons.
The new model explains the physical origin of nuclear spin in agreement with practically
all observed nuclei, whether stable or unstable (of the 339 nuclei listed in the full version
of Table 5, even Hg-204 was correctly predictedalthough the reported datum was in
error). Quantum Nuclear Shell Models cannot do this with so few assumptions.
The Geometrical Packing Model gives a physical basis for why the outer surface of the
nucleus has liquid-like properties. Thus, the Liquid Drop Model of the nucleus is
physically compatible with the Geometrical Packing Model, but not with any quantum
shell model of the nucleus based upon a central force potential.
The Geometrical Packing Model is capable of improving upon the Liquid Drop Model of
the nucleus in that it gives rise to a better defined semi-empirical mass formula that is not
ill-conditioned for least-square fitting. This allows the least-square fitting process to
produce a better fit to the nuclear binding energy per nucleon over the entire range of
nuclides.
Conclusions
The Geometrical Packing Model presented for the atom and nucleus is very successful in
describing some atomic and nuclear data. The approach taken is more fundamental and
straightforward than the methods used by Quantum Mechanics. The new model does not
incorporate any of the objectionable assumptions of Quantum Mechanics and replaces
those features of the quantum models that are known to be inconsistent or in violation of
proven laws. Unlike the quantum models, the Geometrical Packing Model for ring
particles is not simply mathematical, but it is a physical model with boundaries, sizes and
detailed structure. Thus it satisfies one of the major goals of physics which is to
physically describe the matter of the physical universe.
Although the framework of a new theory of matter has been presented, the basic
approach needs to be extended to give successful descriptions of blackbody radiation, the
photoelectric effect, and the energy levels of the atom giving rise to absorption and
emission spectra before it can more fully qualify to displace the quantum models[15].
Also, the Geometrical Packing Model needs to be extended to develop a new,
comprehensive theory of elementary particles that can displace the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, the Supersymmetric String Model, and Quantum Mechanics on all
size scales. This work is currently under way and promises to be just as successful as the
Geometrical Packing Model.
References
1. Bergman, D. L. and Wesley, J. P., Spinning Charged Ring Model of Electron
Yielding Anomalous Magnetic Moment, Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 1, No. 5,
pp. 63-67 (Sept/Oct 1990).
2. Compton, Arthur H., American Physical Society address December 1917, Physical
Review Series II, p. 330 (1918).
3. Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV, No. 1, pp. 20-43 (1919).
4. Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV, No. 3, pp. 247-259
(1919).
5. Lucas, J., and Lucas, Jr., C. W., A Physical Model for Atoms and NucleiPart 1,
Foundations of Science, Vol. 5, No. 1 (May 2002).
6. Eisberg, R. M., Fundamentals of Modern Physics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York & London, p. 571 (1961); Hofstadter, R. Annual Review of Nuclear Science,
Vol. 7, Annual Reviews, Stanford (1957).
7. Mayer, M. G., Physical Review, Vol. 74, p. 235 (1948).
8. Mayer, M. G., Physical Review, Vol. 75, p. 1969 (1949).
9. Mayer, M. G., Physical Review, Vol. 78, pp.
10. Mayer, M. G., and Jensen, J. H. D., Elementary Theory of Nuclear Shell Structure,
John Wiley & Sons, New York (1955).
11. Howard, Robert A., Nuclear Physics, Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, CA
(1963) pp. 304-313.
12. Bostick, Winston H., Physics of Fluids, Vol. 9, p. 2079 (1966).
13. Bostick, Winston H., Mass, Charge and Current: The Essence and Morphology,
Physics Essays, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 45-49 (1991).
14. Hofstadter, R., Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 28, p. 213 (1956).
15. Please note that this work has already been successfully completed in the authors
1994-1995 science fair project A New Classical Basis for Quantum Physics which
was awarded a Grand Prize at the 1995 International Science and Engineering Fair in
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
16. Lide, D. R., editor, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 73rd Edition, CRC
Press, Ann Arbor (1993).
TABLE 5
TABLE OF NUCLIDE DATA [16]
ATOMIC
SYMBOL
n
H
H
H
H
He
He
He
He
He
He
He
He
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
Be
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
1
1
2
3
4
3
4
5
6
10
7
8
9
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
13
14
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
8
9
10
Z P1 N1 P2 N2 P3 N3 P4 N4 P5 N5 P6 N6 P7 N7 P8 N8 ACTUAL
RING
MEASURED MODEL
SPIN
SPIN
SHELL
MODEL
SPIN
HALFLIFE
ABUNDANCE
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
1/2
1/2
1,0
1/2
2,1
1/2
0
3/2
0
0
3/2
0
5/2
2,1
3/2
3,0
3/2
3,0
3/2
4,1
3/2
0
3/2
0
3/2
0
1/2
0
5/2
1/2
0
1/2
2,1
3/2
3,0
3/2
2,1
3/2
4,1
3/2
4,1
3/2
4,1
3/2
0
3/2
0
13. m
0.000
99.985
0.015
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.500
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
18.700
81.300
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
8
3
6
6
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
4
3
4
5
8
3
2
3
4
6
6
4
8
2
1
2
3
4
6
2
3
8
3
4
5
4
2
3
4
5
6
3
4
4
6
8
8
8
8
1/2
1/2
1
1/2
2
1/2
0
3/2
0
0
(3/2)
0
(1/2)
2
3/2
1
3/2
2
3/2
?
3/2
0
3/2
0
3/2
0
1/2
0
(5/2)
(1/2)
0
(3/2)
2
3/2
3
3/2
1
3/2
2
?
0
(3/2)
?
?
0
(3/2)
0
1/2
1/2
1,0
1/2
2,1
1/2
0
3/2
0
0
3/2
0
1/2
2,1
3/2
1,0
3/2
2,1
3/2
4,1
3/2
0
3/2
0
3/2
0
1/2
0
5/2
1/2
0
3/2
2,1
3/2
3,0
3/2
1,0
3/2
2,1
3/2
3,0
3/2
4,1
3/2
0
3/2
0
12.26 y
13.7 s
Notes for Table 5:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The complete 44 page table is available from the authors for $3.00 postage and handling in U.S.
Z is the number of protons per nuclide. N is the number of neutrons per nuclide. A = Z + N is the nuclides atomic number.
P1, P2, etc., give the number of protons in that nuclear shell.
N1, N2, etc., give the number of neutrons in that nuclear shell. (Each neutron shell consists of one proton and one electron shell.)
Actual Measured Spin is the experimentally measured nuclide spin. A parenthesis around the spin value means that the spin is
inferred but not actually measured.
6. Half-life gives time in seconds (s), minutes (m), hours (h), days (d) or years (y).
7. Abundance gives the relative abundance of the nuclide for the element.

29045 Livingston Drive
Mechanicsville, MD 20659 USA
Abstract. A physical Geometrical Packing Model for the structure of the atom is
developed based on the physical toroidal Ring Model of elementary particles proposed by Bergman [1]. From the physical characteristics of real electrons from
experiments by Compton [2,3,4] this work derives, using combinatorial geometry,
the number of electrons that will pack into the various physical shells about the
nucleus in agreement with the observed structure of the Periodic Table of the
Elements. The constraints used in the combinatorial geometry derivation are
based upon simple but fundamental ring dipole magnet experiments and spherical symmetry. From a magnetic basis the model explains the physical origin of
the valence electrons for chemical binding and the reason why the Periodic Table
has only seven periods. The Toroidal Model is extended in this article to describe
the emission spectra of hydrogen and other atoms. Use is made of some of the
authors standing wave experiments in large toroidal springs. The resulting model
accurately predicts the same emission spectral lines as the Quantum Model
including the fine structure and hyperfine structure. Moreover it goes beyond the
Dirac Quantum Model of the atom to predict 64 new lines or transitions in the
extreme ultraviolet emission spectra of hydrogen that have been confirmed by the
Extreme Ultraviolet Physics Laboratory at Berkeley from its NASA rocket experiment data [5].
Extension of New Model of the Atom. The Geometrical Packing Model presented for the
atom and nucleus in parts 1 [6,7] and 2 [7,8] based on the Toroidal Particle Model were
very successful in describing some atomic and nuclear data. The physical approach
(based on experiment) taken in these papers is more fundamental and straightforward than
the mathematical methods (based on unproven postulates) used by Quantum Mechanics.
The new model does not incorporate any of the objectionable assumptions and postulates
of Quantum Mechanics and replaces those features of the Quantum Models that are
known to be inconsistent or in violation of proven laws. Unlike the Quantum Models, the
Geometrical Packing Model for ring particles is not simply mathematical, but it is a physical model with boundaries, sizes and detailed structure that can be verified experimentally. Thus it satisfies one of the major goals of physics which is to physically describe
the matter of the physical universe.
Although the framework of a new theory of matter has been presented, the basic approach
needs to be extended to give successful descriptions of blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the energy levels of the atom giving rise to absorption and emission
spectra before it can more fully qualify to displace the Quantum Models. (Please note that
this work was initially completed in Josephs 1994-1995 science fair project A New
Classical Basis for Quantum Physics which was awarded a Grand Prize, sponsored by
NASA, at the 1995 International Science and Engineering Fair in Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada.) The purpose of this third article in the series is to extend the application of the
Ring Model to the emission spectra of atoms.
History of Modern Atomic Data and Theory. When experimenters of the past examined
the emitted spectra from hot solids and gases, they discovered that solids emit a continuous spectrum of electromagnetic radiation while monoatomic gases emit radiation concentrated at a number of discrete wavelengths. Each of these wavelength components is
called a line, because the
spectroscopes used to
record the spectra on film
employed slits with a prism
to separate the wavelengths
of light or different colored
images of the slit (see
Figure 1). These spectroscopes were only able to
measure those wavelengths
Figure 1
Apparatus for Atomic Spectroscopy
near the range of visible
[9, pp. 110-113]
light.
Experimenters observed patterns in the spectroscopic lines of monoatomic gases like
hydrogen (see Figure 2). In these patterns or series of lines the spacing between adjacent
lines of the spectrum continuously decreased with decreasing wavelength of the lines until
it converged at some limit.
A number of these series
were found for hydrogen
gas. About 1890 Rydberg
[9, pp. 110-113] found an
empirical formula, called
the Rydberg Formula, that
described these series of
wavelengths as shown in
Figure 2
Table 1.
Balmer Line Series for Hydrogen
[9, pp. 110-113]
In 1913, Bohr developed

his Quantum Model, called the Bohr Model, to describe the atom and predict the atomic
line series described so well by Rydbergs empirical formula. Bohrs model was based on
the following postulates [9, p. 114]:
1. An electron in an atom moves in a circular orbit about the nucleus under the
influence of the Coulomb attraction between the electron and the nucleus,
and obeying the laws of classical mechanics.
2. But, instead of the infinity of orbits which would be possible in classical
mechanics, it is only possible for an electron to move in an orbit for which its
angular momentum L is an integral multiple of Plancks constant h divided
by 2, i.e. L = nh/2.
3. Despite the fact that it is constantly accelerating, an electron moving in such

an allowed orbit does not radiate electromagnetic energy. Thus its total energy remains constant.
4. Electromagnetic energy is emitted if an electron, initially moving in an orbit
of total energy Ei, discontinuously changes its motion so that it moves in an
orbit of total energy E f . The frequency of the emitted radiation is equal to
the quantity (E i E f ) divided by Plancks constant h, i.e. = (E i - E f )/h.
Table 1. Hydrogen Spectral Line Series
Name
Lyman
Balmer
Paschen
Brackett
Pfund
Wavelength
Range ()
Rydberg Formula
Ultraviolet
Visible
Infrared
Infrared
Infrared
k
k
k
k
k
=
=
=
=
=
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
=
=
=
=
=
RH [1/(1)
RH [1/(2)2
RH [1/(3)2
RH [1/(4)2
RH [1/(5)2
1/(n)2]
1/(n)2]
1/(n)2]
1/(n)2]
1/(n)2]
n
n
n
n
n
=
=
=
=
=
2, 3, 4,...
3, 4, 5,...
4, 5, 6,...
5, 6, 7,...
6, 7, 8,...
-1
where RH = 109677.576 ! .012 cm is the Rydberg constant.
Bohrs postulates were very radical. They assumed that some electromagnetic laws, such
as Coulombs force law held on the microscopic scale, but not Amperes law or Faradays
law. Thus the laws of physics were assumed to be different on the microscopic scale than
on the macroscopic scale. Also, Bohr neglected the finite size of the electron.
The justification for Bohrs postulates was that they led to a model that produced a mathematical equation that predicted the atomic emission line spectra of one-electron atoms.
Logically, however, this type of justification is incomplete. One must also justify each of
the assumptions or postulates individually. This was never done.
The success of the Bohr theory was very striking, but the Bohr postulates were somewhat
mysterious. Also there was the question of the relation between Bohrs quantization of
the angular momentum of an electron moving in a circular orbit and Plancks quantization
of the total energy of an entity, such as an electron, executing simple harmonic motion
since both incorporated Plancks constant h.
In 1916 Wilson and Sommerfeld [9, pp. 128-131] postulated a set of rules for the quantization of any physical system for which the coordinates are periodic functions of time as
follows:
For any physical system in which the coordinates are periodic functions
of time, there exists a quantum condition of each coordinate. These quantum conditions are where q is one of the coordinates, pq is the momentum
associated with that coordinate, nq is the quantum number which takes

on integral values, and % means that the integration is taken over one
period of the coordinate q.
(19 )
n q h = p q dq
The application of the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantization rule to the coordinate where q

2
= and pq = L = mr d /dt yields

nq h = pq dq = Ld = L d = L
2
0
(20 )
d = 2 L
or
nh
= nh
2
L=
(21)
The application of the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantization rule to a particle of mass m executing simple harmonic motion with frequency yields
E
i .e. E = nh
(22)
Sommerfeld used the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantization rules to evaluate the size and
shape of the allowed elliptical orbits as well as the total energy of the electron moving in
such an orbit. Describing the motion in terms of the polar coordinates r and , he obtained
the quantum conditions
nh = p dx = m x 02 =
L d = n h L = n
h 2
p dr = n h L(a b 1) = n
r
(23 )
n = 1, 2, 3,...
h / 2
nr = 1, 2, 3,...
By requiring a condition for mechanical stability, i.e. the centripetal force is equal to the
electrical Coulomb force, a third equation is obtained. Solving them simultaneously he
obtained
n 2 (h 2 )
Ze 2
a=
b=a
n
n
(24 )
n = n + nr = 1, 2, 3,...
n = 1, 2, 3,...
E=
Z 2 e 4
2n 2 h 2
nr = 0,1, 2, 3,...
where n is called the principal quantum number, and n is called the azimuthal quantum
number. The second equation above gives the
shape of the orbit, i.e. the ratio of the semimajor to the semi-minor axes b/a. It is determined by the ratio of n to n. For n = n the
orbits are circles of radius a. Figure 3 shows to
scale the possible orbits corresponding to the
first three values of the principal quantum number. Note that for each value of the principal
quantum number n, there are n different
allowed orbits. One of these, the circular orbit,
is the orbit described by the original Bohr theory. The others are elliptical.
Figure 3
Standing Wave of Bohr Orbits
The third equation above indicates that all of

the different possible orbits for a given n have
the same total energy of the electron. The several orbits characterized by a common value
of n are said to be degenerate. Sommerfeld removed this degeneracy by treating the
problem using relativistic mechanics. In this approach the size of the relativistic correction depends on the average velocity of the electron which, in turn, depends on the ellipticity of the orbit. Sommerfelds derivation showed that the total energy of an electron in
an orbit characterized by the quantum numbers n and n is given by
E=
Z 2 e 4
2n (h / 2 )
2
2Z 2
1 +
n
1
3

n 4n
(25)
where = 2 e2/hc l 1/137 is called the fine structure constant.

Experimentally, it is observed that transitions only take place between orbitals for which
n i n f = 1
(26 )
This condition for orbital transitions is called a selection rule. It states that the change
in angular momentum of the electron orbital must be one unit of angular momentum for
emission and absorption of electromagnetic radiation. Conservation of angular momentum implies that electromagnetic radiation carries one unit of angular momentum.
This version of quantum theory had a number of notable shortcomings [9, pp. 136-137]:
1. The theory only treats systems which have periodic motion, but there
are many systems which are not periodic.
2. Although the theory allows one to calculate the energies of the allowed
states of a system and the frequency of the quanta emitted or absorbed

when the system makes a transition between allowed states, the theory
does not reveal how to calculate the rate at which transitions take place.
3. The theory is only really applicable to one-electron atoms. The alkali
elements (Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs) can be treated approximately, but only
because they are similar to a one-electron atom.
In 1924 de Broglie [9, pp. 139-141] introduced the idea that particles such as electrons,
alpha particles, billiard balls, etc. display properties characteristic of waves. De Broglie
postulated that the wavelength and the frequency of the waves associated with a particle of momentum p and total relativistic energy E are given by the equations
=h p
=E h
(27 )
The requirement that the waves associated with a particle undergoing any sort of periodic motion be a set of standing waves is equivalent to the requirement that the motion of
the particle satisfy the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantization rules. The time independent features of the standing waves associated with an electron in one of its allowed states in an
atom was used to explain why the motion described by the standing wave does not cause
the electron to emit electromagnetic radiation. (Note that the fundamental standing
wave in the charge density of charge fibers of the toroidal ring is exactly the de
Broglie wavelength. The so-called particle-wave duality is only a mystery for pointlike particles.)
The de Broglie postulate says that the motion of a particle is governed by the propagation
of its associated waves, but it does not tell the way in which these waves propagate. To
handle the case of a particle moving under the influence of forces, we need an equation
that tells how the waves propagate under these more general circumstances.
In 1925 Schrdinger [9, pp. 165-170] developed a propagation equation for matter waves,
called the Schrdinger equation. It was patterned after the wave equation for strings. He
denoted the waves by the mathematical wave function (x,t). Instead of using relativistic kinematics,
E = P 2 2mo + V + mo c 2
where m = mo
(28)
Schrdinger used the classical definition of total energy.

E=
P2
+V
2m
The three requirements that Schrdinger felt his equation must satisfy were:
1. It must be consistent with de Broglies postulate and conservation of
energy
2. The equation must be linear in the wave function (x,t) in order to pre-
(29)
dict the interference phenomena as observed in the Davisson-Germer

experiments
3. The potential energy may be a general function of x and t.
On the basis of these assumptions, Schrdinger postulated the full non-relativistic wave
equation to be
2
2
2 (x, t )+ V (x, t ) (x, t ) = ih (x, t )
t
2m x 2
(30)
The Schrdinger wave equation contains the imaginary number i. As a consequence its
solutions are complex (real and imaginary) functions of x and t, i.e. not real functions of
x and t. Thus the wave function cannot represent the real amplitude of the matter wave
that can be physically measured. The question of what is waving and in what medium can
not be answered!! The original wave equations for strings does not contain imaginary
terms, and the real wave function describes the amplitude of the matter wave in the string.
A relationship between the wavefunction (x,t) and the probability of finding the particle
at coordinate x was suggested by Born [10] in 1926 in the form of the following postulate:
P (x, t )dx = (x, t ) (x, t )dx
(31)
If, at the instant t, a measurement is made to locate the particle associated with the wave function(x,t), then the probability P(x,t ) dx that the
particle will be found at a coordinate between x and x + dx is
such that probability is conserved, i.e.
(x, t ) (x, t )dx = 1
(32)
One problem that the Schrdinger matter wave model has that the Bohr model did not
have is that it predicts the existence of l = 0 or
S states. Here the electron has no angular
momentum about the nucleus and no mechanism due to orbital motion to keep the
Coulomb force from pulling the electron into
the nucleus. Thus the Schrdinger matter
wave model denies the Coulomb force for Swave electrons, but not for l > 0 electrons.
This is a serious inconsistency in logic. The
relativistic version of the Schrdinger matter
wave equation, called the Dirac Matter Wave
Figure 4
Equation, also has this problem.
Mechanical Model of a Toroidal
Elementary Particle
New Experiments on Standing Waves in

a Ring. In order to learn more about
standing waves in mechanical rings, a
large metal spring 1.5 in diameter and
12 long (Slinky from James Industries,
Inc.
Beaver
Street
Extension
Hollidaysburg, PA 16648) was obtained
with the two ends fastened together to
form a ring. The ring was suspended by
100 thin strings 19 long to form a ring
with a diameter of 48 (see Figure 4).
When the ring was perturbed by a
Figure 5. Experimental Standing Waves
metronome pendulum at various frequenin Toroidal Spring
cies to form standing waves, the very lowenergy standing waves had = n(2 R)
and the high-energy standing waves had = (2 R)/n where R = 48 and n = 1, 2, 3, ...
and is the wavelength of the standing wave (see Figure 5).
New Classical Derivation of One Electron Atomic Energy Levels. The requirements that
the new classical approach to the energy levels of the atom must satisfy are as follows:
1. Must be based on the proven laws of physics instead of arbitrary postulates.
2. Must maintain the fundamental laws of physics to be the same on all size
scales.
3. Must conserve energy and momentum.
4. Must be consistent with de Broglies postulate.
5. Must have stable equilibrium states in agreement with observation.
6. Must be consistent with the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantization rules for standing waves or stationary states.
7. Must give rise to a real wave equation describing the current density in the
electron ring.
For a one-electron atom the equilibrium configuration
is shown in Figure 6.
Assuming that the mass m of the electron ring is associated with the charge of the ring, the condition for the
mechanical stability of the electron ring is from
Newtons laws and electrodynamics
Ze 2 mv 2
=
R
R2
(33)
Figure 6
One-Electron ring
where v is the velocity of the charge in the ring, R is the radius of the ring, and e is the
total charge of the ring.
Now the requirement that the waves associated with a particle undergoing any sort of periodic motion be a set of standing waves is equivalent to the requirement that the motion of
the particle satisfy the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantization rules. The angular momentum in
the plane of the ring for a free electron is given by Bergman [1,11]
e2
8R h
L = mevR = mcR =
loge
=
2
8 eo c
r 2
(34 )
where 2 R = o and me = mm = m /2.

For the atom there are standing waves with two or more wavelengths around the circumference of the ring. In this case
2R = n o
(35 )
n = 1, 2, 3,...
Also it is possible to have standing waves where the standing wave has a wavelength
equal to multiple times the circumference of the ring. In this case
2R = n o
(36)
n = 1, 1/ 2, 1/ 3,...
Thus the most general case is

2R = no
where
n = ...1 3, 1 2 , 1, 2, 3,...
L=n h
(37)
Equation (33) may be written

Ze 2 = mRv 2 = L2 mR = n 2
(h 2)2
mR
(38 )
So
n 2 (h 2)
n = ...1 3, 1 2 , 1, 2, 3,...
(39 )
R=
mZe 2
Now consider the total energy of an atomic electron. If we define the potential energy to
be zero when the electron is infinitely distant from the nucleus, then the potential energy
V at any finite distance r can be obtained by integrating the energy imparted to the electron by the Coulomb force acting from infinity to R, i.e.
2
Ze 2
Ze 2
V = 2 dr =
R
r
The potential energy is negative, because the Coulomb force is attractive.
(40)
The kinetic energy T of the electron can be evaluated from equation (33) to be
T =
mv 2 Ze 2
=
2
2R
(41)
The total energy E of the electron is then

E = T +V =
Ze 2 Ze 2 Ze 2
+
=
= T
R
2R
2R
(42)
From equation (39)

mZ 2 e 4
2h2
1
2
n
(43)
1 E
1
=
= RH Z 2 2
hc
n
(44 )
E=
From = c and E = h = hc/.
k
RH =
me4
= 109681 cm 1
3
4ch
Note that the condition for standing waves in the ring leads to a quantization of the total
energy of the electron bound to a nucleus of charge Ze.
EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF NEW MODEL OF ATOM
When Rydberg analyzed the hydrogen emission spectrum to obtain his empirical formula
in 1890, the line spectrum data was only available from the near ultraviolet, the visible
and the infrared spectrum. This situation continued through the time that Bohr (1913)
developed his model of the atom and Schrdinger (1925) and Dirac (1925) developed
their wave equations.
Then in 1991 Labov and Bowyer [5] at the University of California at Berkeley devised a
way to measure the extreme ultraviolet spectrum from 80-650 Angstrom (). They put a
grazing incidence spectrometer on a sounding rocket to get above the earths atmosphere.
Flying in the shadow of the earth and pointing away from the sun toward a dark area of
the universe, the spectrometer measured the spectrum from 80 to 650 . Presumably this
part of the universe consists primarily of hydrogen and helium gas. The spectrum
obtained is shown in Figure 7. There are a large number of spectral lines or peaks.
The Quantum Theory of the Atom does not predict that there are any spectral lines from
hydrogen or helium to be observed in this range. The new classical model of the atom
predicts 64 spectral lines and peaks for hydrogen in this range as shown in Table 2 (at the
end of this paper). All of the transition lines of Table 2 are found in the spectral data of
Numbered peaks correspond to hydrogen

spectral lines predicted by new Classical
Theory of the Atom but not Quantum
Mechanics (numbers are keyed to Table 2).
Figure 7 [5]
Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrum for Helium and Hydrogen
Labov and Bowyer [5]. Furthermore the predicted transitional data accounts for most of
the principal peaks of the observed spectrum as shown in Figure 7.
Multi-Electron Atoms. The procedures above only apply to one-electron atoms, especially hydrogen. In order to treat atoms with more than one electron, it is useful to review the
results of Amperes experiments for the forces between current loops [12].
1. The effect of a current is reversed when the direction of the current is
reversed.
2. The effect of a current flowing in a circuit twisted into small sinuosities is
the same as if the circuit were smoothed out.
3. The force exerted by a closed circuit on an element of another circuit is
at right angles to the latter.
4. The force between two elements of circuits is unaffected when all linear
dimensions are increased proportionately and the current strengths
remain unaltered.
The important point to note is that the forces between plain wire loops and wire loops with
small sinuosities is the same. Figure 8 shows the neon atom consisting of two complete
electron shells with the magnetic flux loops for each shell
drawn and the great circles on which they reside.
According to Amperes experimental law each magnetic
flux loop may be replaced by a circular wire. The three
resulting parallel circular loops may be replaced by one
circular loop with the nucleus at the center. The effective
radius may be different from that of the free electron.
Thus for closed shell atoms, the atom acts effectively as
if it had a single electron ring about the nucleus, just like
the Bohr model for a one-electron atom like hydrogen.
For the rest of the atoms the situation is not as neat. If the
last outermost electron shell has a number of electrons
divisible by four, the symmetry may reduce to an equivalent ring as above.
Figure 8. Neon Atom.

(Redrawn here to show
symmetrical placement of
inner shell of two electrons.)
For atoms with an odd number of electrons other than 1 and all other cases, the symmetry may not reduce to a single loop. Some sort of computer modeling program may be
needed in order to get precise values for the energy levels and absorption and emission
spectra. (Note that the Quantum Models have problems with these atoms also.)
Fine Structure and Hyperfine Structure in Atomic Spectra. In the past classical models of the atom, nucleus and elementary particles were unable to describe certain phenomena such as the atomic spectra fine structure due to electron spin-orbit coupling (quantum
interpretation) and the atomic spectra hyperfine structure due to nuclear-spin electronspin coupling, because there was no classical quantity known as the spin of the electron
or nucleon. In particular the electron was usually modeled as a sphere with a magnetic
moment due to the rotation of charge but no additional quantity called spin. This situation has been rectified by the refinement of the Bergmans [1] Toroidal Model and the
Bosticks [13,14] Charge Fiber Model of the electron and other elementary particles by
Lucas [15] into a full fledged Classical Electrodynamic Model of Elementary Particles.
According to the Lucas Model all elementary particles are composed of multiple intertwined primary charge fibers. These primary charge fibers may be complex and consist
of multiple intertwined secondary charge fibers. The secondary charge fibers may also be
complex and consist of multiple tertiary charge fibers.
In this model the electron is the simplest of all elementary particles. It consists of three
simple intertwined primary charge fibers in a toroidal shape. The figures 9, 10, 11,12, 13
below [16] show the n = 1 fundamental or ground state of the electron, the n = 2 first excited state or harmonic of the fundamental, the n = 3 second excited state or harmonic of the
fundamental. Also shown are the n = 1/2 and n = 1/3 sub-harmonics of the fundamental.
These latter states are characteristic of continuous rods or springs not discontinuous particles. No parallel exists for these latter n = 1/2, 1/3, etc. states in the quantum orbits of
the point electron about the nucleus of the atom.
The rotation of the three charge fibers about

the thickness of the toroidal ring produces
the spin s of the electron. The number of the
Electron n = 1
harmonic in the ring gives the orbital quantum number l. The total angular momentum
quantum number j = l + s is merely the total
angular momentum of the charge fibers in
Figure 9
the electron. The fine structure is due to the
Electron Fundamental or Ground State
spin-orbit coupling or the interaction of
the spin angular momentum about the cross section of the toroid with the angular momentum about the circumference of the toroid. The hyperfine structure is due to the interaction of the sum of the toroidal neutron and proton spins in the nucleus with the spin of the
toroidal electron.
Electron n = 2
Electron n = 3
Figure 10
Electron 1st Harmonic or Excited State
Figure 11
Electron 2nd Harmonic or Excited State
Electron n = 1/2
Figure 12
Electron 1st Subharmonic
Electron n = 1/3
Figure 13
Electron 2nd Subharmonic
The absorption and emission of light by the atomic electrons is explained by a combination of macroscopic string theory and macroscopic antenna theory. A stretched string in
a musical instrument is caused to change its vibration mode from the fundamental to the
first harmonic by plucking it or hitting it at the appropriate place to transfer additional
energy to the vibration. For the vibrating string this additional energy added to the string
is dissipated as heat and the string returns to the fundamental vibration. From macroscopic radio antenna theory the wavelength of the radiation emitted is a function of the physical length of the antenna. In this manner one gets radiation as harmonics of the fundamental length of the antenna and as sub-harmonics of the fundamental length. Thus this
Charge Fiber Model for Elementary Particles and the electron in particular gives a physical explanation of absorption and emission on finite size electrons in an atom that is superior to the non-physical explanation of Quantum Mechanics that has no analogy in the
macroscopic world.
Summary. A new foundation for modern science based upon classical electrodynamics
that has been expanded to allow particles to have finite size in the shape of a ring of charge
composed of charge fibers is presented. This version of electrodynamics satisfies the rules
of logic that undergird the scientific method. It is able to describe the emission spectra of
atoms in a logically superior way compared to the politically correct relativistic Quantum
Electrodynamics Theory as developed by Planck, Einstein, and Dirac. It is logically superior for the following reasons:
1.
A simpler approachonly electrodynamics, no Quantum or Relativity

theory needed
2.
Describes more dataespecially the extreme ultraviolet emission spectrum of hydrogen
3.
No obviously false assumptions or postulates like the point-particle

assumption
4.
Uses fewer postulates
5.
Allows the laws of mechanics to hold on all size scales as always

expected
6.
Allows the laws of electrodynamics to hold on all size scales as always

expected
7.
Describes the physical mechanism for absorption and emission of electromagnetic energy in terms of the harmonic and sub-harmonics of the
fundamental vibration/rotation of charge fibers analogous to the way
that macroscopic antennas work
8.
Eliminates the random chance statistical basis of Quantum Mechanics

in favor of a logical cause-and-effect basis
9.
Allows absolute reference frames for all physical phenomena
10. Describes the emission and absorption spectra of multi-electron atoms

This approach, based on logic, leads to an electrodynamic description of the physical universe based upon the logical laws of cause and effect. It is compatible with the Biblical
view of the universe created and sustained by God via electromagnetic means [17].
References.
1. Bergman, D. L. And Wesley, J. P., Spinning Charged Ring Model of Electron
Yielding Anomalous Magnetic Moment, Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 1, No. 5,
pp. 63-67 (Sept/Oct 1990).
5. Labov, Simon E. and Stuart Bowyer, Spectral Observations of the Extreme
Ultraviolet of Background, The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 371, p. 810 (1990).
6. Lucas, Joseph and Charles W. Lucas, Jr.,A Physical Model for Atoms and
NucleiPart 1, Foundations of Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-7 (2002).
7. Lucas, Joseph, A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei, Galilean Electrodynamics,
vol. 7, pp. 3-12(1996).
8. Lucas, Joseph, and Charles W. Lucas, Jr., A Physical Model for Atoms and
NucleiPart 2, Foundations of Science, vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 1-8 (2002).
9. Eisberg, Robert Martin, Fundamentals of Modern Physics (John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, 1961).
10. Born, Max, The Mechanics of the Atom, Bell, p. 95 (1927).
11. Bergman, David L., Spinning Charged Ring Model of Elementary Particles,
Galilean Electrodynamics, vol. 2, p. 30 (1991).
12. Ampere, Mem. De lAcad. VI, p. 175 (1825).
13. Bostick, Winston H., Physics of Fluids, Vol. 9, p. 2079 (1966).
14. Bostick, Winston H., Mass, Charge and Current: The Essence and Morphology,
Physics Essays, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 45-49 (1991).
15. Lucas, Jr., Charles W., A Classical Electromagnetic Theory of Elementary Particles,
to be published in the proceedings of the second Physics as a Science Workshop
held at Lanzarote in the Canary Islands June 30 through July 6, 2002 in the Journal of
New Energy.
16. These diagrams of the electron were initially drawn by Clayton Harrison, 2728 East
Franklin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406, with email clayton@oophda.com,
and then redrawn by David L. Bergman, Common Sense Science, P.O. Box 767306,
Roswell, Georgia 30076, in terms of a single fiber. Future work will relate multiple
split fibers to the unstable elementary particles.
17. Lucas, Jr., Charles W., A Physical Scientific Mechanism by Which God Created
According to the Scriptures and Science, Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Creationism, Vol. 1, pp. 127-136. The conference was held July 30 to
August 4, 1990 in Pittsburgh, PA and was published by Creation Science Fellowship,
Inc., 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15228.
TABLE 2 [5]
PREDICTED SPECTRAL LINES IN THE RANGE 80-650
PEAK
#
RING MODEL
TRANSITION
1 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/6)2 - 1/(1/5)2]
-1/ C
2 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/5)2 - 1/(1/4)2]
-1/ C
3 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/3)2 - 1/(4)2]
-1/ C
4 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/3)2 - 1/(3)2]
-1/ C
5 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/3)2 - 1/(2)2]
-1/ C
ORDER
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
PREDICTED
WAVELENGTH
()
OBSERVED
WAVELENGTH
()
82.9
85 ! 5
96.5
165.8
248.7
331.6
414.4
497.3
580.2
96 ! 5
165 ! 5
246 ! 5
332 ! 5
415 ! 5
498 ! 5
580 ! 5
101.3
101 ! 5
122.5
202.6
303.9
405.2
506.5
607.8
122
202
303
405
506
608
102.0
103 ! 5
123.6
204.0
305.9
407.9
509.9
615.4
124
204
303
408
510
615
102.6
103 ! 5
124.4
205.1
307.7
410.2
512.8
615.4
125
205
308
410
513
615
104.2
103 5
126.8
208.4
312.6
416.8
521.0
625.2
129 ! 5
209 ! 5
311 ! 5
417 ! 5
521 ! 5
625 ! 5
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/3)2 - 1/(1)2]
-1/ C
7 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/4)2 - 1/(1/3)2]
-1/ C
8 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/3)2 - 1/(1/2)2]
-1/ C
9 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/2)2 - 1/(4)2]
-1/ C
10 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/2)2 - 1/(3)2]
-1/ C
11 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/2)2 - 1/(2)2]
-1/ C
12 k = 1/ = RH [1/(1/2)2 - 1/(1)2]
-1/ C
13 k = 1/ C = Helium Resonance Scattered
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
3rd
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
1st
Compton He
Scattered
2nd
114.0
112 ! 5
141.6
227.9
341.9
455.9
569.9
140
228
342
458
570
130.3
129 ! 5
167.7
260.5
390.8
521.0
651.3
168
260
390
520
645
182.4
183 ! 5
265.1
364.7
547.1
265 ! 5
367 ! 5
547 ! 5
232.0
233 ! 5
384.7
464.0
385 ! 5
465 ! 5
234.4
233 ! 5
391.3
468.8
390 ! 5
470 ! 5
243.1
243 ! 5
416.2
486.3
415 ! 5
486 ! 5
303.9
303 ! 5
633.8
607.8
634 ! 5
603 ! 5
584.6
584 ! 5
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei Part 4

Blackbody Radiation and the Photoelectric Effect
Charles W. Lucas, Jr.
29045 Livingston Drive
Mechanicsville, MD 20659
Lucas001@netzero.net
Abstract. A physical geometrical packing model for the structure of the atom was
developed previously [1-8] based on the physical toroidal ring model of elementary
particles proposed by Bergman [9]. From the physical characteristics of real electrons
experimentally determined by Compton [10-12] this work derived, using combinatorial
geometry, the number of electrons that pack into the various physical shells about the
nucleus in agreement with the observed structure of the Periodic Table of the Elements.
The constraints used in the combinatorial geometry derivation were based upon simple
but fundamental ring dipole magnet experiments and spherical symmetry. From a
magnetic basis the model explained the physical origin of the valence electrons for
chemical binding and the reason why the Periodic Table has only seven periods.
The toroidal model was then extended to describe the emission spectra of hydrogen and
other atoms. Use was made of some of the authors standing-wave experiments with
large toroidal springs. The resulting model accurately predicted the same emission
spectral lines as the Quantum Model including the fine structure and hyperfine structure.
Moreover it went beyond the Dirac and Bohr quantum models of the atom to predict 64
new lines or transitions in the extreme ultraviolet emission spectra of hydrogen that have
been confirmed by the Extreme Ultraviolet Physics Lab at Berkeley from its NASA rocket
experiment data [13].
In this work blackbody radiation and
the photoelectric effect are explained
in terms of the Ring Model and
electromagnetic waves.
Here the
emphasis is on the atom consisting of
finite-size electrons acting as containers with quantized internal standingwave-type structures for absorbing
and emitting electromagnetic waves
in contrast to the notion of quantized
packaging of electromagnetic energy
into particles called photons.
Classical Explanation of Quantum

Phenomena. Historically the Theory of
Quantum Physics was invented to
explain three phenomena, i.e. blackbody
radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the
structure and energy levels of the atom.
In the first part of this research based on
Bergmans physical model of elementary
Absorption
Emission
Figure 1.
Absorption and Emission of Radiation
by Ring-Electrons.
Top (absorption) Energy is absorbed
from the incoming lightwave by the
electron (magnetic induction). Redistribution of charge is shown with electron in
a state of excited energy. The actual
distribution of charge is more complicated
than the drawing shows.
Bottom (emission) Electron releases
energy by radiation of a new wave and
another redistribution of charge (emission
in accordance with electric induction).
Page 1
August, 2003
particles [9], the structure of both the atom and the nucleus was predicted using
combinatorial geometry and electrodynamics [1-8]. In this part the research is extended
to explain the remaining phenomena that were foundational to Quantum Theory. One
outcome of this work is the conclusion that quantum effects are not due to the Quantum
Electrodynamics Theory of point-particles with a quantum of electromagnetic energy
called a photon, but rather to the internal structure of finite-size electro-dynamic particles.
This possibility has always been recognized, but not seriously considered because it was
not known how to explain some key experimental data such as the Photoelectric Effect
and Blackbody Radiation.
Blackbody Radiation [8]. In 1901 Max Planck [14] was able to find a mathematical
expression that fit the blackbody radiation data. His attempts to work backwards to find
the correct physical theory resulted in the birth of Quantum Physics. However, this
theory was never fully satisfactory. It was based on the notion that point-charges
undergoing simple harmonic motion in the blackbody were absorbing and emitting
radiation. This picture led to oscillations of point-electron charges that were too big to
remain in the lattice of the solid. Also, the empirical laws of electrodynamics were
violated by Plancks theory. Both Ampres Law and Faradays Law require continuous
emission and absorption of radiation for simple harmonic motion of point-electron
charges. Finally, the Quantum Theory of blackbody radiation was not compatible with
optical reflection, refraction, and diffraction phenomena due to its emission of radiation
that is discontinuous in time.
The problem with Plancks work which was to develop a proper scientific theory to
predict his mathematical expressions that described blackbody radiation was that he
had an inadequate model for charged elementary particles in nature. He had the notion
that elementary particles could be approximated as point-particles. This notion is still
found today in Quantum Theories and in Relativity Theory.
Bergmans toroidal ring model of elementary particles behaves quite differently with
absorption and emission of radiation than is the case for point-particles. Radiation may
be continuously absorbed by the ring structure. Since it is a continuous ring structure, the
laws of electrodynamics do not require it to immediately re-radiate the energy absorbed
[18].
When electromagnetic energy or light is absorbed by the ring, there is a disturbance of
the flow of charge around the ring, resulting in oscillations of the electric charge
distribution flowing around the ring at the speed of light. These oscillations reflect the
wavelength of the light being absorbed. The flow of charge around the ring may be
thought of as the superposition of the original continuous flow plus the oscillations of
charge resulting from the absorption of various lightwaves (see Figure 1).
The original state of the ring, i.e. the continuous flow of charge around the ring, is known
as a stationary state. No change can be detected over time. Additional stationary states
of the ring structure will occur when the oscillations of the charge produced by the
absorption of radiation produce standing-waves, i.e. the wavelength is exactly an integral
Page 2
August, 2003
number of circumferences of the ring, i.e. n(2 r) = , n = 1,2,3,... or the circumference

of the ring is exactly an integral number of wavelengths, i.e. (2 r) = n, n = 1,2,3,...
When a ring is in a stationary state, the distribution of charge is stable, and the
surrounding electromagnetic fields form a standing-wave with an integer number of
nodes.
The ring may retain the radiation energy indefinitely. The laws of electrodynamics do
not require it to emit any radiation. However, if the ring has a collision or significant
interaction with another moving ring, an additional oscillation of the charge density may
result making the ring unstable. The laws of electrodynamics now require the ring to
radiate. At this point one makes the reasonable assumption that radiation from ring
structures may only occur from one slightly excited stationary state to another stationary
state.
From Bergmans paper [9, equation 7 and equation 35]
En = n
e2
R
hc
log e 8 = n
= nh
2 o c R
r
(5 )
and n (2 r) = n, the energy of the stationary states is

En =
hc
=
2 R
hc
2
2 n
= nh
where = c
(6 )
Although this result is mathematically identical to Plancks result, it is fundamentally

different in the following ways:
1. It does not violate any known law of electrodynamics.
2. It does not use an unrealistic point-particle model for the electron,
which undergoes simple harmonic motion.
3. It does not require an amplitude of electron oscillation that is too large
for the electron to remain in the atom.
4. Simple harmonic motion of point charges is not the physical
mechanism involved in blackbody radiation.
Let us calculate T ( ), i.e. the energy density as a function of wavelength for a

specific temperature T, under the assumption above that the radiation from the ringelectrons only occurs during a transition from one stationary state to another stationary
state. The first step is the evaluation of the average energy contained in each standingwave of wavelength or frequency v = c/. According to Classical Physics, the particular
energy of some wave can have any value from zero to infinity. The actual value is
proportional to the square of its average amplitude, i.e.
Page 3
August, 2003
E2
4
(7)
However, if we have a system containing a large number of identical ring-electrons

which are in thermal equilibrium with each other at a temperature T, the classical theory
of statistical mechanics requires that the energies of the standing-waves be distributed
according to a definite probability distribution whose form is specified by T.
From the law of equipartition of energy the average kinetic energy of the standingwave in the rings is
KE
kT
2
(8 )
where k = 1.38 % 10-16 erg/deg is Boltzmanns constant. For an electromagnetic wave

where only the amplitude of the wave executes simple harmonic oscillations, the total
average energy is just twice the average kinetic energy, i.e.
= kT
nh e nh kT
n =0
nh kT
h
e
h kT
(9 )
n =0
And the Boltzmann probability of finding the wave in an energy state between and +
d for a system containing a large number of ring-electrons with waves is
(10 )
P( ) = A e kT
The average energy of a wave is given by
P( )d
=
P( )d
(11)
However under our assumption that radiation can only occur from rings with stationary
state charge distributions, we must recalculate by replacing all integrals over by
summations, i.e.
P( ) =0 A
n =0
n
P( )
n =0
e n n
Ae
n =0
kT
n kT
n
nh e
n =0
nh / kT
nh / kT
h
e
h / kT
(12 )
n =0
Now
Page 4
August, 2003
T ( ) d =
N ( ) d
where Vring
Vring
(13 )
(2 R ) r 2
where N() is the number of allowed frequencies in the frequency interval to + d. It

can be shown that N( )d is independent of the shape of the ring and depends only on its
volume V = 2 R( r 2 ), [15, p. 57] i.e.
( )
8 (2 R ) r 2 2 d
N ( ) d =
c3
(14)
( )
( )
(15 )
Thus
T ( )d =
h
e
h / kT
8 (2 R ) r 2 2 d 8 2
h
=
h / kT
2
3
3
(2 R ) r c
1
c
e
1
Transforming to the variable where v = c/, dv = -(c/2 )d, and T ()d = T ( )d
T ( ) d =
8 hc
d
e
hc kT
(16 )
This is mathematically the same as the blackbody

spectral distribution derived by Planck (see Figure
2).
However, it has a very different physical
interpretation, and it does not violate the laws of
electrodynamics.
Photoelectric Effect [8]. The photoelectric
effect in which electrons are emitted from the
surface of a metal was discovered by Hertz,
Figure 2.
Blackbody Spectrum
Hallwachs, Elstey and Geitel [16] in

1887. A modern form of their apparatus
is shown in Figure 3. The glass tube
contains a polished electrode, called the
photocathode, and a second electrode in
the form of a perforated metal plate. The
two electrodes are maintained at a
potential difference of a few volts with
the second electrode being positive with
respect to the photocathode.
When
Page 5
Figure 3.
Photoelectric Cell
August, 2003
ultraviolet light passes through the perforated second electrode and is incident upon the
inner surface of the photocathode, a current is observed to flow through the tube. This
phenomenon is called the photoelectric effect. The effect persists even when the tube is
evacuated to very low pressure, implying that gaseous ions are not the carriers of the
current.
In 1905 Einstein [17] announced a
Quantum Theory of the photoelectric
effect which was closely related to
Plancks
Quantum
Theory
of
blackbody radiation. He reasoned that
Plancks requirement that the energy
of the electromagnetic waves of
frequency in an ultraviolet light
source can only be 0, h, 2 h, ... nh
implies that in the process of going
from energy state nh to energy state
(n-1) h the source would emit a burst
of electromagnetic energy of h.
Figure 4.
Kinetic Energy of Photoelectrons
As a Function of Frequency
[15, pp. 79-81]
Einstein assumed that such a burst of emitted energy was initially localized in a small
volume of space; and that it remains localized as it moves away from the source with
velocity c, instead of spreading out in the manner characteristic of all observed moving
waves. He assumed that the energy of such a bundle or quantum of energy is related to
its frequency by the equation
(17)
= h
He also assumed that in the photoelectric process one of the quanta is completely
absorbed by a point-electron in the photocathode.
According to Einstein the absorption of a quantum by the electron gives it an additional
energy of h. If this energy is greater than the energy E which the electron must expend
in escaping from the atom to which it is bound inside the photocathode plus the energy W
required to reach the surface of the photocathode, then the electron escapes from the
photocathode. The kinetic energy of the electron after escaping from the photocathode
will be equal to E = h - E. For an electron originating at the surface E will just be
equal to W and E will have its maximum value where W is a constant that depends on the
type of atoms in the photocathode (see Figure 4).
E max = h W
(18 )
One of the weaknesses of Einsteins theory was that it could not physically describe the
absorption process in terms of physical changes in the internal structure of the electron.
The physical mechanism for absorption could not be explained. Only the mathematical
Page 6
August, 2003
equations describing the process could be motivated. This is the same problem that
Planck had with his theory of blackbody radiation.
In the Ring Model, when a free electron is captured by an ionized atom, it gives off light
as it approaches the ion and changes from one stationary state (standing-wave charge
configuration) to the next. The size and internal charge density is changing in agreement
with the balance of electric and magnetic forces. In order to free the electron from the
ion, it is necessary for the electron to absorb at least as much electromagnetic energy as it
radiated off when it was captured earlier. Although the electromagnetic energy was
radiated away from the electron in a series of long wavelength electromagnetic waves, it
cannot be freed by absorbing a series of low-energy long-wavelength electromagnetic
waves, because of the short lifetime and quick decay of these excited stationary states
back to the minimum energy bound state due to thermal excitation. Thus, for all practical
purposes, all the energy to unbind the electron must come by absorption of only one
wave-cycle. That is why there is a minimum value of the wave energy being absorbed to
free the electron. The absorption can not be a multi-step process.
In the physical Ring Model the absorption of radiation produces changes in the current
density in the ring such that it has Fourier components synchronous with the absorbed
electromagnetic wave (see Figure 1). For the same reason a ring-electron can only emit
radiation of such wavelengths as it has synchronous Fourier components in its current
distribution [16].
Before the finite-size Ring Model of the electron was developed with its strong magnetic
coupling in molecules and crystal lattices, the classical wave theory of light had a serious
problem in describing the short (10-9 sec) time required for a point-electron to absorb
enough energy to escape from the atom. If one assumed that the point-electron orbit was
on the order of the size of the atom (10-8 cm), and one calculated the incident energy on
the area of the orbit, one can obtain the time required for the photoelectron to absorb the
required 10-12 ergs from ultraviolet light. The time calculates to approximately 100
seconds. Experiments performed in 1928 by Lawrence and Beams using a very weak
ultraviolet light source set an upper limit on
the delay before electron emission of about
10-9 sec [15].
Now there is a big difference between the
model of the point-electron orbiting the
nucleus and the finite-size ring-electron
model. The ring-electron is close to the size
of the Bohr orbits of the point-electron.
However, the ring-electrons are strongly
coupled to one another in the atom, in the
molecule, and in the lattice. Figure 5 shows
a carbon-dioxide (CO2) molecule which is
illustrative of the strong magnetic coupling
of electrons in magnetic flux loops. All the
Page 7
Figure 5.
Carbon-Dioxide Molecule showing
Magnetic Coupling of Ring-electrons.
August, 2003
ring-electrons on the top and bottom of the cubic structure are bound together with a
single flux loop (one for the top and one for the bottom)
The photoelectric effect is only observed in metals. Metals have macroscopic crystal
lattice domains. In these lattice domains large numbers of electrons are strongly coupled
in large magnetic flux loops. The number of coupled electrons is close to the order of
Avogadros number about 1023 molecules/gm-molecular weight. These strongly
coupled electrons form a linear array antenna that has little trouble capturing enough
energy to free some electrons in 10-9 sec. Thus the finite-size ring-electron model with
strong magnetic properties is able to explain all the experimental data that the classical
point electron model failed to explain.
Conclusions. The classical electrodynamics ring model of the electron allows a superior
explanation of the emission spectra of atoms, blackbody radiation, and the photoelectric
effect. It is superior because
1. It explains the 64 observed extreme ultraviolet spectral lines of hydrogen
which are unexplainable in terms of the Dirac quantum theory of the
atom.
2. It explains blackbody radiation without violating Faradays law and
Ampres law requiring oscillating point-particles to continuously radiate
energy.
3. It is compatible with optical reflection, refraction, and diffraction
phenomena since its emission of radiation is continuous while Quantum
Theory is discontinuous.
4. It explains the Photoelectric Effect and Blackbody Radiation in terms of a
physical model of absorption and emission of radiation that is completely
missing in Quantum Theories of point-particles.
For these reasons the classical electro-dynamic ring model of the electron and its
resulting theories of the atom and nucleus are superior to the Quantum Theory.
Quantization occurs in the container of the finite-size electron due to its internal structure.
There is no elementary particle or quantum packages of energy called the photon. The
quantum explanations of atomic emission spectra, blackbody radiation, and the
photoelectric effect are all defective. If the logical rules undergirding the scientific
method since the days of the ancient Greeks had been followed by the scientific
community [19-21], quantum theories would have never been recognized as valid
scientific theories.
Page 8
August, 2003
References.
1. Lucas, Joseph C. and Charles W. Lucas, Jr., The Origin of Atomic Structure,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Creation edited by R. E. Walsh
(Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1994) pp. 305-315.
2. Lucas, Joseph C, A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei, Galilean
Electrodynamics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3-12 (1996).
3. Lucas, Charles W. Jr. and Joseph Lucas, A New Foundation for Modern Science,
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism - edited by
R. E. Walsh (Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA) pp. 379-394 (1998).
4. Lucas, Jr., Charles W., A New Foundation for Modern Physics, Foundations of
Science, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 1-8 (2001).
5. Lucas, Charles W. Jr. and Joseph Lucas, A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei Part 1, Foundations of Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-7 (2002).
6. Lucas, Charles W. Jr. and Joseph Lucas, A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei Part 2, Foundations of Science, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 1-8 (2002).
7. Lucas, Charles W. Jr. And Joseph Lucas, A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei Part 3, Foundations of Science, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-8 (2003).
8. Bergman, David L. and Lucas, Jr., Charles W., Physical Models of Matter,
Proceedings of Physics As a Science, edited by G. Galeczki et al., Hadronic Press
Supplement, Palm Harbor, Florida, pp. 45-68 (1998).
9. Bergman, David L. and J. Paul Wesley, Spinning Charged Ring Model of the
Electron Yielding Anomalous Magnetic Moment, Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol.
1, No. 5, p. 63 (1990).
11. Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV No. 1, pp. 20-43 (1919).
12. Compton, Arthur H., Physical Review Series II, Vol. XIV No. 3, pp. 247-259
(1919).
13. Labov, Simon E. and Stuart Bowyer, Spectral Observations of the Extreme
Ultraviolet of Background, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 371, p. 810 (1990).
14. Planck, Max, Ueber das Gesetz der Energieverteilung im Normalspektrum, Annals
de Physik, Vol. 4, p. 553 (1901).
15. Eisberg, Robert Martin, Fundamentals of Modern Physics (John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, 1961), pp. 77-81.
16. Haus, H. A., On the Radiation from Point Charges, American Journal of Physics,
Vol. 54, p.1126 (1986).
Page 9
August, 2003
17. Einstein, A., Ann. der Phys., Vol. 17, p. 132 (1905).
18. Panofsky, W. K. and M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism (AddisonWesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1962), p. 370.
19. Lucas, Charles W. Jr., Soli Deo Gloria - A Renewed Call for Reformation (Church
Computer Services, 29045 Livingston Drive, Mechanicsville, MD, 20659, 1978).
20. Lucas, Charles W. Jr., A New Unified Theory of Modern Science, Proceedings of
the International Conference on Creationism-edited by R. E. Walsh (Creations
Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA) Vol. 2, pp. 127-135 (1987).
21. Lucas, Charles W. Jr., A Call for Reformation in Modern Science, Proceedings of
the First International Conference on Creationism (Creation Science Fellowship,
Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 198) Vol. 1, pp. 83-87.
Correspondence of Charles W. Lucas, Jr. and David L. Bergman
on
The Photoelectric Effect
Bergman: One sentence on page 7 especially caught my attention: Thus, for all practical
purposes, all the energy to unbind the electron must come by absorption of only one wavecycle.
I think your explanation of the Photoelectric Effect is correct. However, I think all the energy
that releases an electron would actual transfer in one-half of a cycle, and that the second half
cycle of an incoming wave would not be relevant. When only energy is considered, without
looking at the force mechanisms of induction, the finer points of the Photoelectric Effect are
not explicitly stated.
Perhaps a more detailed explanation of the Photoelectric Effect could be developed for a later
paper. I think we could show that the wavelength of incoming radiation must be close to the
Compton Wavelength and the circumference of the ring-electron. Then, by the laws of
induction, the ring (acting as a receiving antenna) could absorb energy from the radiation only
when that radiation was in a narrow range of wavelengths. The lower limit of energy and
frequency is well-known (as you show by a graph in Figure 4). I once was told that coherent
radiation from a laser source would not liberate an electron, presumably because the
frequency is too high. This seems reasonable since very high frequency would produce
alternating forces between the metal and electron that reverse in direction before an electron
is liberated. Such a conjecture on my part would have more validity if there is supporting
experimental data that shows the entire range of frequencies that liberate an electron.
My conjecture about the mechanism of inducing a liberating force must also be verified by the
experimental evidence that radiation intensity is not a factor in liberating an electron. Here, it
seems to me, a distinction must be made between coherent and non-coherent radiation. I
suspect that liberation may be a function of radiation intensity only when a coherent source is
used.
Lucas: Your comments on coherent versus non-coherent radiation are well taken. This may
be a way to distinguish between the quantum theories and the Ring Model. We do not have
to actually do these experiments if we can find some published results. The quantum theories
should get the same result with coherent or incoherent radiation, but the Ring Model would be
more sensitive showing a difference.
Page 10
August, 2003

A Physical Model For Atoms and Nuclei

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Physical Model For Atoms and Nuclei

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Physical Model for Atoms and NucleiPart 1

Joseph Lucas and Charles W. Lucas, Jr.

Most of this paper first appeared IN GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS, Volume 7, Number 1,

Plancks constant h, the fundamental constant of quantum mechanics, is derived by

1 great circle of 2 electrons

From observation and general symmetry

An illustration of shell #2 is provided by Figure 5,

The results of these magnet experiments are

Figure 7. Experimental Apparatus

Bergman, D. L., and Wesley, J. P., Spinning Charged Ring Model of

Compton, Arthur H., American Physical Society address December 1917,

Hofstadter, R., Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 28, p. 213 (1956).

Bostick, Winston H., Physics of Fluids, Vol. 9, p.2079 (1966).

Ewald-Oseen, Annealed der Physic (1915).

A Physical Model for Atoms and NucleiPart 2

New Model of the Nucleus

Most of this paper first appeared IN GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS, Volume 7, Number 1,

which consist of N protons

An examination of the experimentally measured nuclear density shapes in Graph 3 gives

Neutrons cause protons to be more tightly bound in packing shells by

Due to the binding effect of the

Most stable nuclides have protons only

The balance of electric and magnetic

The balance of electric and magnetic

Note that in each of Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12

This weak binding allows the outermost triplet

K5 (# unpaired Protons + # unpaired Neutrons) / A

The packing model is completely electromagnetic in Approximate Arrangement of Ne20 Atom

Notes for Table 5:

A Physical Model for Atoms and NucleiPart 3

In 1913, Bohr developed

3. Despite the fact that it is constantly accelerating, an electron moving in such

where RH = 109677.576 ! .012 cm is the Rydberg constant.

associated with that coordinate, nq is the quantum number which takes

The application of the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantization rule to the coordinate where q

= and pq = L = mr d /dt yields

The third equation above indicates that all of

where = 2 e2/hc l 1/137 is called the fine structure constant.

states of a system and the frequency of the quanta emitted or absorbed

Schrdinger used the classical definition of total energy.

dict the interference phenomena as observed in the Davisson-Germer

(x, t ) (x, t )dx = 1

New Experiments on Standing Waves in

where 2 R = o and me = mm = m /2.

Thus the most general case is

Equation (33) may be written

The potential energy is negative, because the Coulomb force is attractive.

The total energy E of the electron is then

From equation (39)

Numbered peaks correspond to hydrogen

Figure 8. Neon Atom.

The rotation of the three charge fibers about

A simpler approachonly electrodynamics, no Quantum or Relativity

Describes more dataespecially the extreme ultraviolet emission spectrum of hydrogen

No obviously false assumptions or postulates like the point-particle

Uses fewer postulates

Allows the laws of mechanics to hold on all size scales as always

Allows the laws of electrodynamics to hold on all size scales as always

Eliminates the random chance statistical basis of Quantum Mechanics

Allows absolute reference frames for all physical phenomena

10. Describes the emission and absorption spectra of multi-electron atoms

13 k = 1/ C = Helium Resonance Scattered

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei Part 4