Energy Retention within Atomic Electron Orbits

One question that hasn’t yet been adequately addressed in our developing Alternative Theory of the Atom, is just how essential is its inclusion of a Universal Substrate, which could not only easily absorb energy from an orbiting electron within the atom, but also, somehow, return it all, in full, to steadfastly maintain that orbit entirely undiminished. It is, indeed, an unavoidable question! For, the whole theory rests upon just how easily such a substrate absorbs and then propagates such energy.

So, within the atom, there is seemingly a damaging contradiction, which, if it isn’t adequately explained away, will most certainly torpedo the entire Theory.

Indeed, any prior suggestion of such a substrate, in the prior history of science, was always finally dismissed, not only because it was never detected, but also because its absence seemed essential to guarantee the stability of the atom (among other similar arguments).

The intermediary for both holding and paying back any lost energy (in our new theory) was assumed to be a whole series of caused vortices, created within this substrate actually inside the atom. For, though such features, as seem unavoidable and yet essential in those circumstances, would at the same time appear to be impossible in straightforward linear sequences of movements within an unbounded substrate, the special case, within the atom, was considered to be significantly different.

And, to confirm this exception, the brilliant Experiments by Yves Couder et al with silicone oil and vibrations alone - delivering his celebrated “Walkers”, seemed to confirm that such maintaining phenomena were, indeed, possible, given the necessary conditions. The persisting stability of Couder’s Walkers seemed to be achieved by interacting vibrations that via both resonances and recursion produced the seemingly inexplicable and resolutely stable Walkers. And, as Couder also delivered “quantized orbits” of these Walkers at the macro level, the implications, of these discoveries, for the micro level clearly demanded to be addressed too.

Quantised orbits performed by "walkers"

NOTE: It also must be mentioned here that the assumption of a Universal Substrate (and its detailed definition) devised by the author of this paper, has already fully explained all the anomalies of the Double Slit Experiments, without any recourse, whatsoever, to Copenhagen, as well as full explanations of Electromagnetic Propagation, and even both Pair Production and Pair Annihilation too.

And, all these were made possible by the assumption and description of an undetectable, but real, substrate of particles.

The key question, of course, had to be about what precise kind of energy would be involved in these “within-atom” transactions. For, the units of the proposed substrate, could both hold and pass on energy to and from their atom’s internal orbits, but could also be moved bodily, thus involving Kinetic Energy as an alternative.

Clearly, if the units of the substrate are to be disturbed from a relatively static arrangement via shearing/contact effects caused by a moving particle (the orbiting electron), then, it would seem most likely that Kinetic Energy from the orbiting electron would be transferred to become Kinetic Energy of substrate units in the usual vortex forms.

Now, if this is correct, the integrity of the orbit will be breached, and, the only way that such lost energy could escape, permanently, from the atom, would be if the caused vortices gave up their acquired Kinetic Energy to either similar translational movements or even vortex-like movements to other sets of substrate units.

Now, with vortices occurring in the usual way, in a liquid like water, for example, that is the only transfer that can happen and such spin-off systems of vortices carry such gained-energy away, and these then ultimately dissociate as vortex-forms and become mere disturbances of the molecules of the liquid involved.

Cymatic vortices

But, here we are considering a very different substrate, which is not at all like molecular water.

The units are very much smaller than molecules or even individual atoms. And, as they don’t move about to any extent but more or less remain where they are, the means of energy transfer away from the cause is not available by mere translational movements.

So. Let us attempt to determine what could be possible in this special case.

First we can take another well known situation, where, say, an electron is moving through a substrate in a straight line, there can be no doubt that because of that movement the caused disturbances, including what energy they have absorbed from the electron, will be left behind and lost to that electron forever. Ultimately that energy would be dissipated through the substrate and be unrecoverable as a whole.

But, within the atom the situation is certain to be very different, for the causing electron is maintained within the atom and constantly returns to re-encounter the vortices it caused earlier, and will do this repeatedly, and at a whole array of vortices all around the orbit. And, on such re-encounters of the electron and such a vortices, there would be the possibility of both transfers back, as well as further transfers out between vortices and the orbiting electron.

Now, though this is indisputable, it doesn’t mean that all the lost energy will be return. So, most scientists would still not accept the maintenance of the orbit by such means.

Until, that is Yves Couder’s Walker experiments achieved the impossible via Resonances and Recursion and established Fixed, Quantised Orbits of his Walkers. Clearly, these effects PLUS energy taken in from the substrate generally was, somehow, able to establish and maintain those orbits.

Indeed, elsewhere in other studies, it has been established, by this theorist, that such a Universal Substrate is certain to constantly act as both Sump for waste energy, and Source for energy when demanded by such processes as Resonance.

Now, exactly how, and by what modes of energy retention, the substrate units acted in this case, isn’t yet absolutely clear, but it is obvious that a significant recursive pay back or even a resonant external topping up could indeed occur.

For more information on this theory please read The Atom & The Substrate on Shape Journal.

The Significance of a Substrate (...and more generally of a context)

David Moore - Light pattern, camera in motion (1948)

We always, as a first approximation, ignore the effects of any underlying substrate, particularly when dealing with dynamical situations of clearly existent and visible entities “moving through space”.

Yet, this is, actually, an absolutely necessary assumption, as, without any real understanding of such an all-pervading context, we just have to simplify to even begin the attempt to understand. And the theories and models that we do manage to develop, in this way, can indeed suffice in many situations, while forming a relatively sound basis for further improvements too.

But, also, as our own abilities and consequent requirements develop, we must, inevitably, start to include more developed concepts of the evident substrate in our models and theories, when our initial efforts clearly fail to deliver.

The omission of substrates certainly simplifies the relations we can find and extract, but we must never forget that in employing such methods we are also both simplifying and idealising the real situation which we are trying to understand, by considering only both the most obvious, and the easiest-to-deal-with aspects of a much more complex situation.

NOTE: before we go any further, it must be emphasized that ignoring the possible presence of a substrate, severely distorts the way we deal with certain important phenomena.

The Propagation of Electromagnetic Energy though Space, the idea of Action-at-a-Distance, and a whole further set of phenomena, such as Pair Productions and Pair Annihilations, all make no sense at all without the presence of some sort of universal substrate. And, theorists simply abandon the attempt to understand, and are instead satisfied with a useable description only – indeed, they replace all causative explanations by purely mathematical descriptions – namely Equations.

No initial efforts, applied to entities moving through the air, for example, have to include the effects of that substrate (as friction for example), and they are never included, initially. Using only a dynamical model, and then making adjustments, based upon results, will take us a long way to our objective, without involving the effects of the substrate.

But, if and when, an actual substrate is, itself, affected by the passage of such a moving body, and then reacts back upon that moving body (or another one closely following behind) then the consequent vortices and the recursive feedback cannot be ignored, and our conceptions, theories and models have to be developed upon a very different level.

So, our first inclusion of substrate effects will undoubtedly be a negative/frictional addition.

But, further studies also show that created vortices can significantly aid by enhancing the speed of following bodies, which is clearly a positive additional effect upon that movement.

What is also slowly becoming clear is, at yet another higher level, where energy caused by the motion of a body (particularly an oscillation) can be communicated via a substrate to another quite separate body, elsewhere, and with ongoing vibrations of the source, this transference of energy to the receiving body is termed Resonance.

Berenice Abbott - The Exposure of Standing Waves 

So, considering this involvement of the substrate somewhat further, we can encounter a situation where communicating resonant energy, along with a returning recursive effect reaching back to the original causing source, and then interacting with it, will change it significantly.

Now, where such things can happen is certainly not common in everyday experiences, but they do occur. And, in investigating such an actual case, the French physicist, Yves Couder, arranged a set up consisting only of a single substance, silicone oil, to be set in motion by the falling of a single drop of the very same substance, and in carefully tuned circumstances a wholly new and stable entity, termed the Walker, was created.

Now, this was a remarkable discovery, for what was achieved was totally inexplicable by the usual means, but, clearly, both Resonance and Recursion were involved.

Though this was a highly controlled experiment, no one could call it complex: it consisted of a single substance in the form of a substrate and an incident drop, along with an applied vibration – and absolutely nothing else!

Why had it never been observed before, and what was involved in how we considered such phenomena, and, even now, somehow prevented us from being able to explain what was going on?

The answer to this latter question is clearly crucial. And, this is because, what was preventing an explanation was a rarely admitted, but universally applied principle, termed the Principle of Plurality.

It is, certainly, this Principle, which makes the driving forces of Reality to be the entirely separable and unchanging Laws of Nature, which are said to cause all observed phenomena by merely summing together without any mutual transformations ever occurring. And, let’s be clear, it is the very basis of Analysis itself, where we attempt to find all the Natural Laws involved, and then explain the phenomenon solely in terms of those Laws - as unchanging components.

But, such a stance is almost never true!

And, the alternative Principle of Holism assumes, on the contrary, that the direct opposite is always the case, indeed, “Everything always affects everything else and changes it, so that nothing is eternal!” Clearly, if this is so, our methodology, for many, many centuries, has been quite definitely pluralistic, and certainly misleading us in literally every single case to some extent, at least, and, has survived, in spite of its inadequacies, by both the simplifying and idealising all of what we find.

Indeed, as was clear from the outset of this paper, we just cannot investigate actual Reality-as-is, because it doesn’t behave in a directly explicable way. So, to make situations amenable, we subscribe to the Principle of Plurality, as the basis of all complexity, and actually achieve a local, organised and maintained situation that conforms to Plurality - and then study that. To achieve this, we isolate, filter and constrain a locality, where the phenomenon we are interested in occurs, and, it is optimised to reveal just ONE of the involved, supposedly, “separable components”, while this “ideal” situation is maintained constantly, throughout our investigations.

This idealisation works because, by trial and error, experimenters finally adjust the context until a single targeted component is acting almost alone, and so can be displayed, observed and quantified to deliver its own, idealised Natural Law. But, in then assuming that the seemingly eternal Law will, in that farmed environment, remain exactly the same in all contexts is a myth.

With such a belief, it “became possible” to display and extract all the assumed-to-be, “unchanging Laws” contributing to a given real world situation, and analyse it into its “constituent Natural Laws”.

Clearly, we never actually crack any situation in totally unfettered Reality, but instead investigate and indeed “crack” a whole series of highly transformed and maintained idealised Domains. And, this means that whatever we do find, can only ever be applied in the very same artificial conditions in which they were discovered.

Postscript:

Two new Special Issues of the SHAPE Journal are now available on this subject by the physicist and philosopher Jim Schofield. The first is entitled The Substrate, and the second The Atom.

Persisting Resonances

Let us muse about the natural oscillations of a fixed set up.

The simplest is that of a fixed taut string anchored at both ends. For, such has a whole quantized series of possible natural oscillations. If a disturbance (such as a pluck) were applied near the centre of the string, it would oscillate with the so-called fundamental frequency of that particular length, weight and tension of the string. You don’t have to apply a necessary frequency of disturbance – anything will do, as it is the addition of energy that will set it vibrating at its natural frequency.

In other words, the fundamental frequency is a property of that precise set up only. But if the agitation of the string were applied at precisely one quarter of the length of the string, it would then vibrate at twice the fundamental frequency. And similar agitations at particular precise points, along the length of the string, will produce other so-called harmonics – frequencies simply related to the fundamental. But, such a device is not rigidly controlled, so variations in string tension will change the set of related frequencies that are produced. Nevertheless, we have a very simple construction, which naturally possesses Quantized Frequencies.

NOTE: this infers that elsewhere-in Nature, when such quantized frequencies occur, might also have very similar causes, as we will see!

Now, if our string is totally still, but elsewhere, its exact fundamental frequency is made to occur elsewhere, but clearly hear-able at our string, that would begin to vibrate too in resonance with the separately situated source.

The intervening substrate (the air) will have itself been set into that same oscillation, and communicated both the original’s frequency and its energy to our originally quiescent set up, and by resonance, set it too into motion. But, in addition, many initiators may well be mixes of many frequencies, but even they can set our string into resonance, but only at one or another of its harmonic set.

The frequency of a marching squad of soldiers crossing a bridge, will not all be in perfect unison, but could be enough to set the bridge in resonance and even shake itself to dissolution. 

The key thing is the transference of energy.

Now, various questions are posed.

The main one is concerned with the fact that to set our string in motion at its fundamental frequency, it doesn’t have to be initiated by a direct input of that same frequency. It can be almost any mix of frequencies as long as some related one is present. So, we can conceive of a non-specific energy from without.

This poses questions about persistence of oscillation.

In Yves Couder’s famous Walker set up, he had a constant input of energy, at a particular frequency of the whole set up, which was externally driven, and this was certainly what kept the formed Walkers as persisting entities.

Now, considering the processes in Couder’s work, using examples involving vibrations of strings, may well mislead, as further work seems to indicate that it isn’t fixed frequencies that are the key, BUT related frequencies in all the participating vibrations. Indeed, it seems likely that the same could be achieved with a different set of frequencies, as long as they are appropriately related via careful tuning.

Of course, Couder’s Experiment was different in that a second and different oscillation was set in motion by the applied persistent oscillation – the falling drop of the same oil onto the main oil bath. That was sent back up to, thereafter, deliver regular kicks via its persistent bouncing, and finally the surface of the oil in the bath also had a surface oscillation, which because of the bouncing drop was turned into an interacting standing wave.

Clearly, there is no reason why basically similar stable arrangements could not be set up in other appropriate media.

Our task is to relate these findings to the phenomena within the atom, by including consideration of an undetected universal substrate, even within the atom itself.

The Atom and the Substrate series is being published on Shape Journal. The first issue The Substrate is available now. Part 2 on The Atom will be published in the next week or two.