Wave Pulse Theory Of Light (WPTOL) Based On The Bohr Model

[Chan Rasjid]

I have completed a 14-page paper entitled: "Wave Pulse Theory Of Light (WPTOL) Based On The Bohr Model".
The pdf file could be downloaded at my website.


Abstract:
The Bohr Model is an alternative theory of light to Maxwell's theory. It is extended to a wave pulse theory of light, WPTOL. It is a classical aether theory. When an orbital electron of an atom makes a quantum jump to a lower energy state, it emits a single polarization wave pulse of one wavelength in the aether. There is no neutron in the nucleus of the atom in the `Simple Unified Theory', SUT; the neutron is replaced with a proton and an nuclear electron. As the nucleus of the atom has only proton and electron, WPTOL covers the emission of gamma-rays originating from the nucleus of the atom. The binding energy within the nucleus is also the Coulomb electric force; there is no strong force. All radiation consist of single wavelength wave pulses and the wave pulses are all separate wave entities; there is no `train of light waves' in WPTOL. The train of light waves as found in Maxwell's theory has no physical basis. A light wave pulse has energy E=hν and momentum P=E/c, the same energy and momentum relation of the relativistic photon. It is this single wave pulse of one wavelength that gives the illusion of light as particle. WPTOL eliminates the `wave particle duality' hypothesis for light. The theoretical value of light speed in the aether is c=m_e e⁴ /(8ε₀h³R), R being the Rydberg constant. Newton's first law is extended to a light wave pulse in the aether which explains why light propagates in a straight line. There is no dissipation of energy of a wave pulse as it propagates in the aether. WPTOL does not need the concept of magnetism. The WPTOL is a much stronger theory of light as compared to the Maxwell's theory.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.
http://www.emc2fails.com

[Sci-Phy]

Hi Chan,
Bohr theory is clear to me. The rotating electron does not emit radiation because "the nature behave this way" (C).
In your theory electron rotates in aether, right? Why it emit something only during "quantum jump"?
If you rotate something in water - it will always be waves.

Cheers.

[paladin17]

1) How would a Coulomb attraction (only) account for stability of nuclei?
2) How would you explain even nuclear spin of, say, a deuteron? If it contains two protons and a nuclear electron, the spin should be half-integer.
3) How would you explain the lack of hyperfine structuring of atomic levels that should be present if there are additional electrons in the nucleus?
4) How would you deal with the Klein paradox (high probability of electron escaping a potential well) to keep the nucleus stable?
5) How would you deal with energy considerations? Coulomb attraction at these distances should lead to hundreds of MeV energy, which is not observed during beta-decay.
Etc.

[Chan Rasjid]

Hi Chan,
Bohr theory is clear to me. The rotating electron does not emit radiation because "the nature behave this way" (C).
In your theory electron rotates in aether, right? Why it emit something only during "quantum jump"?
If you rotate something in water - it will always be waves.

Cheers.

Niels Bohr himself did not explain why a quantum jump caused light waves to be emitted, e.g. the known Balmer series. One cannot explain "all" things. Water and aether are different. You should have read my hypothesis that the aether is frictionless to mass object - the explanation for Newton's first law of motion. Water is not frictionless to objects' motion.

Chan Rasjid.

[Chan Rasjid]

1) How would a Coulomb attraction (only) account for stability of nuclei?
2) How would you explain even nuclear spin of, say, a deuteron? If it contains two protons and a nuclear electron, the spin should be half-integer.
3) How would you explain the lack of hyperfine structuring of atomic levels that should be present if there are additional electrons in the nucleus?
4) How would you deal with the Klein paradox (high probability of electron escaping a potential well) to keep the nucleus stable?
5) How would you deal with energy considerations? Coulomb attraction at these distances should lead to hundreds of MeV energy, which is not observed during beta-decay.
Etc.

All your questions are beyond me. I don't have the answers.

My theory is just an attempt - to be rejected or accepted in some ways.

Chan Rasjid.

[crawler]

I have completed a 14-page paper entitled: "Wave Pulse Theory Of Light (WPTOL) Based On The Bohr Model". The pdf file could be downloaded at my website.
Abstract:
The Bohr Model is an alternative theory of light to Maxwell's theory. It is extended to a wave pulse theory of light, WPTOL. It is a classical aether theory. When an orbital electron of an atom makes a quantum jump to a lower energy state, it emits a single polarization wave pulse of one wavelength in the aether. There is no neutron in the nucleus of the atom in the `Simple Unified Theory', SUT; the neutron is replaced with a proton and an nuclear electron. As the nucleus of the atom has only proton and electron, WPTOL covers the emission of gamma-rays originating from the nucleus of the atom. The binding energy within the nucleus is also the Coulomb electric force; there is no strong force. All radiation consist of single wavelength wave pulses and the wave pulses are all separate wave entities; there is no `train of light waves' in WPTOL. The train of light waves as found in Maxwell's theory has no physical basis. A light wave pulse has energy E=hν and momentum P=E/c, the same energy and momentum relation of the relativistic photon. It is this single wave pulse of one wavelength that gives the illusion of light as particle. WPTOL eliminates the `wave particle duality' hypothesis for light. The theoretical value of light speed in the aether is c=m_e e⁴ /(8ε₀h³R), R being the Rydberg constant. Newton's first law is extended to a light wave pulse in the aether which explains why light propagates in a straight line. There is no dissipation of energy of a wave pulse as it propagates in the aether. WPTOL does not need the concept of magnetism. The WPTOL is a much stronger theory of light as compared to the Maxwell's theory.
Best regards,Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,Singapore.http://www.emc2fails.com

I agree with much. It makes sense that (1) a photon is one wave long. But (2) how wide? I reckon that (3) the transverse part of a photon is more important than the longitudinal part, but u don't go much into that.

A big question is (4) how is a photon absorbed. (5) How stored. (6) How emitted. Which of course makes one step back & ask (7) what is an electron. What is (8) an electron orbit.

Feynman's assertion that (9) a uniformly accelerating electron doesn't emit radiation is new to me. This means that (10) jerk does emit radiation, which is new to me.

I agree that standard science (11) prefers to talk of wave trains & (12) wave fronts, & is dumb when (13) needing to explain the action of a single photon, which means that (14) standard science is a fraud.

I agree that (15) Einsteinology is stupidly enamoured by the speed of light. I agree that (16) the Coulomb force need not travel at c. But (17) i am not in favour of your IAAAD.

U say that (18) aether is frictionless to the motion of bodies, yes, re uniform velocity, but (19) i reckon not re acceleration, & (20) not re jerk.

Your treatment of recoil is new to me (21). I am thinking of (22) a spinning pea moving at 300,000 kmps hitting & sticking to the rear of a spinning golfball (on a string) orbiting a spinning cannonball at 100,000 kmps (pea & golfball going in the same direction). The golfball would immediately go faster. (23) At what stage might the cannonball jerk ahead etc etc. Still thinking.

But what i really want to know is (4)(5)(6)(7)(8).

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello Crawler,

A big question is (4) how is a photon absorbed. (5) How stored. (6) How emitted. Which of course makes one step back & ask (7) what is an electron. What is (8) an electron orbit.

I skipped absorption as I have not come up with any answer. The current theory is that the frequency of the photon must be an exact match of the gap between two states before absorption occurs - this is an extremely tall order; but this seems needed as the absorption and emission spectral lines of any element are exact matches.

When a photon is absorbed, its energy is transferred to increased total energy of the atom, not just the electrons.

What is an electron is a Nobel question; they now have wave particle duality too for particles.

Chan Rasjid.

[crawler]

Hello Crawler,

A big question is (4) how is a photon absorbed. (5) How stored. (6) How emitted. Which of course makes one step back & ask (7) what is an electron. What is (8) an electron orbit.

I skipped absorption as I have not come up with any answer. The current theory is that the frequency of the photon must be an exact match of the gap between two states before absorption occurs - this is an extremely tall order; but this seems needed as the absorption and emission spectral lines of any element are exact matches.

When a photon is absorbed, its energy is transferred to increased total energy of the atom, not just the electrons.

What is an electron is a Nobel question; they now have wave particle duality too for particles.

Chan Rasjid.

i like Jean's & Williamson's idea that an electron is a confined photon (a free photon that has bitten its own tail), which accords with your idea that a free photon has a front & a rear. Anyhow i don't believe that a free photon can convert to some kind of pure energy, & vice versa. I reckon that once a photon allways a photon. Praps if a jerk emits a photon, then an absorption givs a jerk. But in any case i reckon that absorption involves a hidden photon sitting in there somewhere.

If a photon can bite its own tail then an absorbed free photon can bite another photon's tail, making a photon train. But can a free photon bite a confined photon's tail (ie an electron's tail). A confined photon duznt hav a tail to bite.

I don't think that two photons can merge side by side, ie sharing the same helical axis, or, they can, but then they would form a neutrino. But here the absorbed free photon would hav to merge side by side with a confined photon (ie the electron), thusly forming a confined neutrino. No a confined neutrino might exist elsewhere, but it would form something very different to an electron.

There is another option. That two photons can merge in some way such that they form a new photon with more energy. And vice versa. For an electron the confined photon would would hav more energy (& more mass)(& more momentum). Hmmm, i think that that would mean that we would hav more than one kind of electron. However this might be ok, koz it would only be very briefly.

Still thinking.

[crawler]

1) How would a Coulomb attraction (only) account for stability of nuclei?
2) How would you explain even nuclear spin of, say, a deuteron? If it contains two protons and a nuclear electron, the spin should be half-integer.
3) How would you explain the lack of hyperfine structuring of atomic levels that should be present if there are additional electrons in the nucleus?
4) How would you deal with the Klein paradox (high probability of electron escaping a potential well) to keep the nucleus stable?
5) How would you deal with energy considerations? Coulomb attraction at these distances should lead to hundreds of MeV energy, which is not observed during beta-decay.
Etc.

All your questions are beyond me. I don't have the answers. My theory is just an attempt - to be rejected or accepted in some ways. Chan Rasjid.

Answers are easy -- just make something up. And don't settle for mere acceptance, don't settle for anything less than a Nobel. Standard science duznt hav a clue re what the Coulomb force is or isnt. Or what spin really means. Energy considerations hav given us dozens of impossible particles & impossible forces & lots of shiny Nobel medallions.

Lemmeseenow. Allow me to hav a closer look at say 5). That can be fixed by considering that a proton fits inside an electron, ie that an electron is much larger than a proton, in which case the distance involved is in effect zero, in which case the standard science value for the MeV must be infinite. Frayed knot. And i aint even a scientist.

[crawler]

I have completed a 14-page paper entitled: "Wave Pulse Theory Of Light (WPTOL) Based On The Bohr Model". The pdf file could be downloaded at my website.
Best regards, Chan Rasjid Kah Chew, Singapore. http://www.emc2fails.com

U mention that (24) there is no weak force & (25) that there is no strong force. I agree.

Or, they do exist, but they are partly due to faux-gravity due to the centrifuging of aether. U too mention & believe in aether (26). Aether is sucked in at the equator of a spinning or rotating or orbiting body, & is spat out at the two poles or two axes. The acceleration of such sucking & spitting is similar to ordinary real gravity where the aether flows into a body due to aether being annihilated in matter (ie in confined photons)(& likewise in free photons). The strange quirk here re the spitting out is that the deceleration of the outflow at the poles-axes in effect results in faux-gravity attraction not repulsion (similar to the attraction of the acceleration of the inflow at the equator)(its a math thing)(think about it)(u would guess that it would result in a repulsion, but no). In the case of Earth the Earth's spin affects our attempts to measure Newton's big G. In the case of near luminal orbits & near c spins this faux gravity effect must be very great especially at very close range in a nucleus.

U mention that (27) gravity is due to charge.
Above i mentioned that gravity is due to the annihilation of aether in matter. And that faux gravity is not due to any annihilation of aether, but is due to the sucking in & spitting out of aether.