New Atomic Model
Subtle Atomics has developed a new atomic model that provides a completely new perspective on atomic and nuclear physics.

The new model has been developed based on "wave-particle equivalence", with particles being recognised as waves in "oscillating" circular orbits.

The new model is particularly significant as chemical bonding type and orientations can now be directly attributed to atomic nucleus structures.
  
Copyright S. Brink.
Copyright S. Brink.

Chemical Bonding Type and Orientations are Directly Related to Nucleus Structures
  
The new model proposes that:
  • interactions at the atomic and nuclear level are very much "directional", in contrast to the non-directional interactions typically described in existing models.
  • ​"Positive" and "negative" attributes are  due to differences in electro-dynamic wave structures of particles, rather than being absolute properties of particles.​

Copyright S. Brink.
Copyright S. Brink.

Positive 

Negative 

Need for a New Model

The Rutherford model of the atom (1911) consists of point electron particles orbiting a central nucleus, with an attractive force between negatively charged electrons and positvely charged protons in the nucleus.

The Rutherford model has been almost unanimously adopted by physicists for the past 100 years and forms the basis of theories such as quantum mechanics, the standard model and the nucleus shell model.

Despite the many successes of the Rutherford model and associated theories, there still many unresolved inconsistencies between theory and experimental observations which have not yet been addressed.

Various issues with the Rutherford model have been extensively discussed (see text box). 
  
Copyright S. Brink.

Rutherford Atomic Model 

Issues with Atomic Models Based
on Rutherford Electrostatics

  • Point electrons unable to be observed and/or located, (leading to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).
  • Observed electron orbits for multi-electron atoms are not consistent with expected electrostatic interference between electrons.
  • Completely separate forces (strong/weak nuclear forces) needed to describe atomic processes, compared to forces used to describe  macro scale interactions  (gravity/electrodynamics).
  • ​"Point electrons" not consistent with double slit experiment wave-particle duality observations.
  • No viable detailed structural model of the nucleus has been developed based on  Rutherford electrostatics and/or quantum mechanics, (Cook, 2006). 
  • ​The current nucleus shell model, which proposes that nucleons rotate at very high speeds, is inconsistent with the observed non-uniformity of fission decay products (Gulko, 2014).
  • Extremely high proton-electron fusion energy, i.e. billions of degrees, is inconsistent with Rutherford electrostatics (Aloupis, 2015).
  ​​
​​​
"The need for an improved atomic model is clear." 
Alternative Models

A number of alternative atomic models have been proposed, (Gulko, Santilli, Mills, Brightsen, etc.).  

"Classical Physics" based models (e.g. Mills, 2016) have significantly expanded on our understanding of the electron as more than a point entity, but have not yet provided a fully unified solution that can explain the atomic nuclei structures. 


"There is still much more to be done to develop a fully valid atomic model  ."



Successful development of a new generation of power systems may be possible with the development of atomic theory beyond the assumptions of the current atomic models.
Atomic Theory Comparison

The New Atomic Model

Subtle Atomics has developed a new atomic model that identifies particles as waves in "oscillating" circular orbits. 

The new model has been developed by building on the Rutherford model, 20th century quantum physics, classical atomic theory and recent experimental observations.   

The new model is based on the principle of "wave-particle equivalence", adapted from theory developed by de Broglie (1925). Nucleons (protons and neutrons) are represented by stable configurations of multiple oscillating waves in circular orbits with rotating transverse "wobbles", forming forming toriodal, vortex-like flow-structures (Gulko, 2006).

Single circular waves are equivalent to mesons observed in high energy particle physics experients, having some similarities to "current loops" proposed by Cook (2010), Jenson (2016), and Mills (2016), but with more complex trajectories with an oscillating component.
 exactly adf
​Rotating circular waves create electro-magnetic fluxes.  Magnetic flux fields are continuous and three dimensional, but can be simplistically approximateded by flux between magnetic poles, where the magnetic flux flow direction travels from a south pole "source" to a north pole "sink". 

Atomic, nuclear and chemical structures are stable or semi-stable configurations of magnetic flux fields that can be approximated by flux direction matching between magnetic poles.  

The new model allows both nucleus structures and chemical molecular bonding configurations to be modelled directly from magnetic pole interactions.  
  
Copyright S. Brink.

Photons as Electromagnetic Entities

Straight trajectories with rotating transverse EM fieldss
Copyright S. Brink.
Magnetic Flux For a Covalent Bond (2 electron)
Unpaired proton poles match to opposite electron poles
​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ A Link Between
Particles and Waves?  


The diameter of the free proton is quite similar to the

to the  wavelength of a photon with equivalent energy
to the mass of the proton (938MeV).

Mean charge radius of the free proton, rp  = 0.875 fm1


Free proton diameter = 2 x rp = 1.75 fm


Wavelength of the 938MeV photon = 1.32 fm

Does this support an equivalence relationship between
waves and particles?

Note 1: Experimental values have ranged between  
 0.84 fm and 0.88 fm.​

(fm = femtometre = 1 x 10-15 m)
Copyright S. Brink.
Meson Primary Magnetic Flux Direction ​​​

Oscillating circular waves produce magnetic fields with magnetic poles.  
Copyright S. Brink.
Copyright S. Brink.
Magnetic Flux For Metallic Bonding (1 electron)

Unpaired nucleus pole flux matches electron flux 
Magnetic Flux for Non Bonding Electron Pairs 

Nucleus flux direction matches to electron flux direction
Nucleon Substructures 
Experimental observations have  provided an indication that nucleons are comprised of sub-entities. For example, high energy proton-proton impact experiments produce mesons which rapidly decay to muons, (Krane, 1988).

Lattice stability calculations in Cook (2010) show a match with meson-meson based nucleon interactions as "strong nuclear force" experimental observations.

Data presented by Stubbs, (2016), is consistent with the proton having at least one sub-entity with a mass of approximately 100-130MeV/c2.  

The mass of neutral pi mesons (pion O) has been calculated as 135.0MeV/c2, which is close to 1/7 of the free proton mass (Krane, 1988). 

Analysis presented by Tushey (2017) of CERN Fermilab experiments investigating the internal structure of the proton (2009), suggests three concentric shells within the free proton with quantised radii sizes of approximately  0.22fm, 0.44fm and 0.88fm.
(an fm is 10-15m) 

​​Proposed Inverse Rydberg Relationship for
Meson Resonance States
  Observations of resonances during pion (-) production in Krane (1988), show quantised resonances, indicating that pi mesons may exist in a number of different energy states. A relationship between meson energy states may have similarities to the relationship observed for electron excited states. 
​​
Proposed Substructures for Nucleons
3 mesons, i.e. pi, "?", eta  
4 "?" mesons, or 8 pi mesons (4x2) ?
  <----- resonator
          direction
Copyright S. Brink.
Copyright S. Brink.
Neutron
Proton
​​
Different Types of "Nucleon Bonds"
Copyright S. Brink.
Copyright S. Brink.
Proton-Proton Bond Types
Intra-nuclear (non-bonding), Covalent and Metallic
Neutron-Neutron "Nuclear Bond"
(four (?) bonds per neutron)
Nucleon Composites
Existing nucleus models typically consider that the nucleus is comprised of individual, spheric, spatially separated protons and neutrons.

The new model is based on composite structures, comprised of multiple nucleons, consistent with recent ​​experimental observations such as Myers (2016) and Vassen (2016), refer to text box on right. 


    No. of Nucleons     Radius       Multiple

                    1 (p)             0.84-0.88fm          x1
                    2 (n/p)              2.1fm               x2.5
                    3 (2n/p)          1.76fm1              x2
                    3 (n/2p)          1.96fm1           x2.25
                    4 (2n/2p)        1.68fm 2               x2

​   References:
              1
              2
Myers, L., et alia, 2016
Vassen, W., et alia, 2016
​​
Proposed Substructures for Multi-Nucleon Composites
Copyright S. Brink.
Copyright S. Brink.
Copyright S. Brink.
Deuterium Nuclei Proton/Neutron Composite
(typically bonding)
Tritium Nuclei
One Proton/
Two Neutron Composite

Alpha Particle
Two Proton/
Two Neutron Composite
​(non-bonding)
Copyright S. Brink.
Copyright S. Brink.
Copyright S. Brink.

Two Neutron Composite

Helium 3 Nuclei
Two Proton/
One Neutron Composite

Carbon 13 Nuclei Composite
Six Deuterium Nuclei Composites/
One Neutron (central)

References:
Gulko, A. G., 2014, ​​​The Shell Theory of the Nucleus,
Infinite Energy, Volume 117, September/October 2014.
Cook, N., 2010, ​​​Models of the Atomic Nucleus, 2nd Edition, Unification Through a Lattice of Nucleons,  
ISBN 978-3-642-14736-4, e-ISBN 978-3-642-14737-1, first published in 2006.
Aloupis, H., 2015, Is Ether Real? 
Infinite Energy Magazine, Issue No. 124, November/December 2015
​de Broglie, L., 1925, ​​​Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Researches on the quantum theory),
Thesis, Paris, 1924, Ann. de Physique (10) 3, 22 (1925)
Mills, R., 2016, ​​​​Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics,
self published, available on Brilliant Light Power website
Jennison, R. C.,  2015, ​​On the Fundamental Properties of Matter,
Proceedings on the Second International Symposium on Non-Conventional Energy Technology
Bourgoin, R. 2017.  ​Spinning Universe.  Letter to the Editor,
Infinite Energy Magazine, Issue 131, Jan/Feb 2017, page 4
Myers, S, et alia, 2016, ​​The 3H - 3He Charge Radii Difference, The European Physical Journal Conferences 113:08013 · 
January 2016, DOI: 10.1051/epjconf/201611308013
Vassen, W. et alia, 2016, Ultracold Metastable Helium: Ramsey Fringes and Atom Interferometry, Journal of Applied Physics B, Lasers and Optics, Appl. Phys. B (2016) 122:289, DOI 10.1007/s00340-016-6563-0
Stubbs, W., 2016, ​Structures of the Proton, Muon and the Electron
Infinite Energy Magazine, Issue 129, September/October 2016.  
Krane, K., 1988 , ​Introductory Nuclear Physics
Wiley and Sons, 
Tushey, T., 2017, ​Internal Structure of the Proton
Infinite Energy Magazine, Volume 22, Issue 132, March/April 2017
Cook, N., 1978, ​​​Nuclear and Atomic Models, Akamon School, Miyagi, Japan,
International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 17, No. 1, pp 21-32 
Gulko, A. G., 2016, ​​​​​​The Common Mechanism of Blackholes and Supernovas
Infinite Energy Magazine, Volume 21, Issue 125, January/Febuary 2016.
Brink, S., 2016, Emerging Energy Technologies, Active Photon Photovoltaic,
Engineers Australia Presentation
Brink, S., 2016, ​​Active Photon Combustion and Photovoltaic Systems,
All Energy Conference 2016, Presentation