Member

The structure and internal motions of ground-state electrons are obtained from a physical Spinning Charged Ring (SCR) model. This new electrodynamical model accurately yields the fundamental and structural properties of the electron, including the exact distribution of charge density inside the ring. Equilibrium of charge distributed throughout the ring interior is a result of electromagnetic self-forces that control the structure and internal motions of charge. The model yields the electron rest-mass energy and the electron-positron annihilation energy with energies 510,999 electron-Volts. The model also yields the actual, non-anomalous radius and non-anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. The model predicts the gyromagnetic ratio of a free electron. A current issue in physics is resolved ? how ?potential energy internal to a particle system come[s] into the picture? ? by treating the electron as a system of potential energies and real mass-energies.

Equilibrium of charge distributed throughout the electron ring interior is a result of electromagnetic self-forces that control the structure and internal motion of charge. The exact distribution of charge density inside the ring-shaped electron is described by equations and graphs. The dimensions of ground-state electrons are obtained from a physical spinning charged ring (SCR) model. The model yields the large radius and small radius of the electron ring. And the model also yields the actual non-anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. Thus, the SCR Model predicts that the diameter of a free electron is finite and physically related to electron properties such as its rest-mass, spin, magnetic moment, line spectra, and wavelength.

The underlying worldview assumptions of creation-science are centered in reality, causality and unity?logical assumptions that became embedded in classical science and the Scientific Method. Creation-science has been opposed by atomism ever since Epicurus asserted that random events occur in matter. This randomized theory of matter developed by early atomists to support their pantheistic worldview persists in modern science where atomistic assumptions are implemented into current theories of matter, forces and cosmology. Recently, some creationists have returned to the logical basis of science and developed physical models of elementary particles and atoms to form an improved basic theory of matter. Numerous examples show how creationtist worldview assumptions lead to superior explanations of the structure of matter and the nature of forces on objects.

The philosophy of structuralism asserts that science must use physical models in the quest to understand nature. According to structuralism and principles of the Judeo-Christian worldview, a proper and suitable model of matter must meet criteria of physical reality, truth, unity, and causality.

Actual properties of the electron are compared to the properties of point-like models used in theories such as relativity theory, quantum mechanics, and the Dirac theory of the atom. Comparison shows that only a physical model of the electron with finite size can explain the fundamental properties of the electron, i.e. charge, mass, spin, magnetic moment, and stability.

All attempts to reconcile quantum theory with true science will be futile because the underlying assumptions and methods are different. The underlying dogma of quantum theory is its denial of causality and assertion of randomness. Those who believe truth is tested by the law of non-contradiction cannot accept the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or models (such as Sub-Quantum Physics) that assume the HUP.

In previous centuries, physicists applied the Scientific Method to learn the nature of the world, understand natural processes, and discover some things about the origin, age, and nature of the cosmos. Whatever forces and structures that existed in observable matter were assumed to apply to objects ranging in size from the smallest atom to the largest galaxy of stars. Most physicists believed an orderly universe existed that is governed by inviolable laws of causality, reality, and unity. Taken together, these worldview principles convinced both philosophers and physicists that knowledge gained by observation of the visible in earthly laboratories would apply uniformly to the invisible world of the small atom and the distant world of the heavens.

Part 1 of Science of Origins [1] discussed some principles of origins and presented five doctrines of creation: God is eternal, God is omnipotent, God is creator, God is sustainer, and God is omniscient. Part 2 compares the first four of these doctrines of creation-science with the doctrines of naturalism that deny any supernatural activity occurred in establishing and forming the universe. In this paper, the claims of the supernatural and natural doctrines of origins of the universe are tested by the empirical evidence. Empirical data and laws of physics favor the supernatural origin of the universe.

Using the helicon model, properties of the electron, proton and neutron were calculated and updated, accurate to about five significant figures. The Helicon Model of Elementary Particles makes highly successful predictions based on the partitioning and conservation of energy and accurately accounts for all mass, energy and angular momentum (spin) without necessitating the insertion of a neutrino. A new analysis of neutron beta-decay shows the physical mechanisms at work inside the neutron before, during and after disintegration by emission of the electron. Reprinted in Electric Spacecraft Journal, N45 (March 2009).

Common Sense Science has made considerable progress on the FORMS computer program. FORMS is a computer simulation of the structure and movements inside real molecules, and development of FORMS is the top-priority research and development application of our revolutionary theories.

A mathematical model (the Schr?dinger Equation) and a physical model (Spinning Charged Ring Model) of the electron are compared for their ability to predict waves emitted by electrons. Although it is a fundamental postulate of Quantum Mechanics, the Schr?dinger Equation does not allow for an interpretation of wave-functions as physical waves, cannot be a complete theoretical description of a micro physical system, neglects intrinsic characteristics of particle motion, and fails in several other ways to correspond to physical reality. The Ring Model of Electrons makes accurate and complete predictions of fields and waves by using the locations and internal motions of charge elements that make up the electron in order to determine the external fields of the electron. The physical Ring Model, compliant with the law of cause and effect, explains the meaning of Planck's Constant and accurately predicts the Photoelectric Effect, wavelengths of hydrogen line spectra, blackbody radiation, and the Compton Wavelength. An unbiased assessment of these facts implies that electrons are small physical particles that closely resemble the Spinning Charged Ring Model, and these electrons are a source of electromagnetic waves.

A US government agency chartered ?to conduct high risk/high payoff R&D for the Department of Defense? offers grants and recently invited proposals for ?electromagnetic modeling and simulation? and ?modeling of materials.? Common Sense Science submitted a White Paper on FORMS to the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA) who promptly reviewed and rejected our electromagnetic approach to modeling and simulation of materials.

By accepting that protons and electrons have volume, and are not the point particles approximated in classical calculations, fundamental forces exerted by fundamental particles can account for phenomena explained only in terms of useful fictions by mainstream science.

Knowledge of nature has been acquired through common experiences and controlled laboratory experiments. When the order of physical encounters becomes evident, the expected outcomes of physical events and processes are formulated into general concepts, axioms, and laws of nature to provide understanding of the nature of things in the universe. Observations of the properties of physical entities divide simply into two groups: general concepts called "laws" and specific features of entities called "properties." Part 1 of this report deals with the laws?leaving the properties for a later report. In Part 1, the laws of nature are listed, referenced, and explained in relation to the Ring Model and the Standard Model of Elementary Particles.

Part 2 cites and presents experimental data that reveal the existence, shape, and size of electrons, protons and neutrons. The Helicon Model of Elementary Particles is defined as a toroidal helical structure of charge fibers (one or more) that account for the electromagnetic energy (excited states) of elementary particles. The helicon is a physical model of a durable particle with specific geometry that describes its shape and size. A careful interpretation of scattering experiments performed by Arthur Compton and Robert Hofstadter gives precise agreement with the thin, flexible ring predicted by the Helicon Model. Plasma experiments of Winston Bostick, and S. C. Hsu and P. M. Bellan, provide additional data that support the Helicon Model of Elementary Particles.

For thousands of years, the law of cause and effect guided scientific inquiry. In fact, the history of the concept of causality can be traced through Hebrew, Babylonian, Greek and European cultures. Certain Greek philosophers, however, introduced the atomistic concept of chance-events to oppose the common-sense application of causality. The resulting conflict between cause versus chance has not only shaped the history of science but has imposed lasting effects on Western culture as a whole. This conflict intensified during the Twentieth Century as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) became the leading tool of the proponents of chance. More recent findings have now demonstrated that the HUP fails in six actual cases. Common Sense Science counters chance-based philosophy by returning to causality and other principles of Classical Science such as the conservation of energy and the use of physical finite-sized models for fundamental particles (e.g., the electron). This paper shows how physical models based on the laws of electricity and magnetism fully implement the law of cause and effect in the manner of the four causes required by Aristotle. Chance-based physics is exposed as false science based on erroneous assumptions about supposed chance-events instead of causal relationships.

?Who hath believed our report?? Sometimes we are asked what others say about Common Sense Science. Many want to know if our theory of matter is credible but lack confidence in their ability to make the evaluation themselves. This report identifies scientific criteria and includes an overview to enable an objective evaluation of CSS credibility.

Theory of Everything. The main goal of Common Sense Science is to develop a unified theory that explains the structure of matter and predicts its motions by a single force law. A Theory of Everything has broad appeal among physicists.

Strong electromagnetic forces inside the atom hold its nucleus together. When the forces are barely strong enough, a particle may escape the nucleus. By modeling the nucleus according to the proposals of Lucas [1, 2] and Bergman [3, 4], researchers Boudreaux1 and Baxter2 have explained and predicted the time required for half the nuclei in specific isotopic species to undergo radioactive decay.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the entire universe, and astronomers estimate that this simple form of ordinary matter accounts for seventy five percent of all materials. Nevertheless, for most of the Twentieth Century, atomic hydrogen was measured, analyzed, and modeled without achieving a valid scientific description of this most pervasive element.

Neutrons are vitally important for predicting the basic properties of atoms, and a realistic model (see Figure 1) has long been a major goal of physics. This ?gtiny, uncharged bit of matter?h explains so much about atoms that neutrons were invented without the experimental evidence that proved their existence. Even an elementary knowledge of a neutron?fs most prominent properties??mass without charge??gave promise of solving many puzzles in the theory of atoms:

?Does energy reside in space?? I asked the most distinguished scientist at the conference. ?Most certainly! And I demonstrate it thusly.? Then she opened her hand, dropping the pen she was holding. I watched it accelerate to the floor.

Accurate measurements of time and length are of crucial importance in science; yet, tragically, confusion over the fundamentals of time has been common among physicists since Albert Einstein made the observer a factor in a measurement of a process rate; i.e., the velocity of light.

Faraday's Law of Magnetic Induction has a special role in fundamental, theoretical physics. This is the law that predicts electricity from magnetism, the law that describes time and process rates, and the law that governs electric motors and most of modern technology. Despite its great importance, fidelity to experimental data, and early quantitative treatment by Neumann1 in 1845, the law has continually been modified, reformulated, and ignored in favor of inferior hypotheses.

Close to half of all particles in the universe are protons, and life as we know it would be impossible without them. ?To most researchers, the proton is a workaday particle: the stuff that gives every atomic nucleus its positive charge, and the heart of the ubiquitous hydrogen atom.

For twenty-five centuries, influential philosophers, theologians, and scientists have argued over physical concepts on the nature of matter and space. Relying upon philosophy, or at best deduction (the weakest of scientific methods), ancient ?Greek thinkers in search of things essential and universal? developed some preliminary but persistent notions about primordial substances such as water, earth, air, and fire. From such notions, the atomic school of Leucippus and Democritus gave the original concept of atomism: ?atoms, the elementary corpuscles of matter, are indivisible?; atoms are hard, small and impenetrable objects; ?infinite in number, ?they are in constant and eternal motion.? Yet they differ among themselves in ?shape, arrangement and position.? [Bernard Pullman, The Atom in the History of Human Thought, pp. ix, 18, 32-33, Oxford University Press (1998)]

Exactly what is an electron? Albert Einstein was puzzled about matter: ?You know, it would be sufficient to understand the electron?. The consensus on the dual nature of electrons is much like that of two blind men who found an elephant. One felt the elephant's tail and declared he was touching a rope. The second man put his arms around one leg of the elephant and announced he had encountered a tree. Each man thought he had made an informed and valid assessment; in future discussions they considered each other's evidence and concluded that the ?elephant? had a dual nature.

Bergman succeeded in showing that inertia is not an intrinsic property of matter in the sense of inertial mechanics and that the so-called inertial forces are real forces. His argument is not based on a conception analysis of axioms of classical mechanics but on a quasi-electrodynamic mechanism for moving charged particles which he showed to be the cause for the inertial effect. The quantity of inertial force depends upon velocity and acceleration. Bergman's causal explanation of inertial forces as real, self-induced reaction forces is based on electrodynamic effects on the spinning charged ring model. According to this explanation, inertial mass is a derived concept and not a fundamental one. Because primary electrodynamic force laws determine inertial mass, force is necessarily a fundamental concept in physics.

Before the end of the 19th century, J. J. Thomson was able to demonstrate the existence of a small particle that is named the electron. It has a small and definite amount of electric charge and a small and definite amount of inertial mass. Leading scientists of the day promptly developed models for the electron and performed experiments to validate their ideas. The classical physicists believed that the electrical particle they discovered was a fundamental building block of matter?what we would call an elementary particle; and that electrons were contained in ordinary objects that we observe every day.

Exactly what is an electron? The following paper presents a historical overview of how the electron has been modeled from a variety of perspectives.

Modern science rests upon the foundation of Quantum Theory and two Theories of Relativity. These very successful theories are widely taught in the Physics Departments of nearly every college and university around the world. Many countries provide significant portions of the public funds to conduct more experiments to test and refine the theories. Prestigious journals present the latest twists of theory and their implications for understanding the nature of the universe we live in. And periodicals and newspapers print popular articles to explain how important science is for modern society.

Matter is found all around us. We observe a large variety of objects and chemicals; solids, gases, and liquids; living and dead matter. And we wonder, ?Exactly what is matter?? Science informs us, correctly, that all matter in the universe is composed of about 100 different elements, the different types of atoms. All materials have one or more of these elements arranged in various proportions and combination.

Reviews historical theories of force transmission, shows of origin of the inertial force, and establishes an electromagnetic basis for Newton's laws of mechanics.

Same as "Theory of Forces"?

IVth International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1998). The underlying worldview assumptions of creationism are centered in , and - logical assumptions that came to be imbedded in science and the scientific method. Creationism has been opposed by atomism since Epicurus (342-270 B.C.) asserted that random events occur in matter. The early atomists developed a theory of matter to support a pantheistic worldview; in modern science, atomistic assumptions are implemented into current theories of matter, forces and cosmology. Recently, creationists have returned to the logical basis of science and developed physical models of elementary particles and atoms for a basic theory of matter. Numerous illustrations show how creationist worldview assumptions lead to superior explanations of the structure of matter and the nature of forces on objects.

The following is a summary of a paper delivered by David L. Bergman at the Fourth International Science Conference: Problems of Space, Time & Motion, in St. Petersburg, Russia. Based on the ideas of Bergman and Dr. Charles William Lucas, Jr., it tells how replacing the classical point-like elementary particles with toroidal entities resolves numerous enigmas of modern physics.

Analysis of space-time physics proposed in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Shows how forces really act on moving bodies and explains the basis of inertial mass. Pages 45-92

Science paper explaining the physical mechanisms that produce the inertial force of reaction in the electron and proton rings. Pages 45-92.

Paper showing that physical models are superior to point particles in explaining blackbody radiation and other basic phenomena using a ring particle absorption mechanism. Pages 45-92.

Particle-wave duality and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are fundamental but flawed concepts of Quantum Theory.

Editor's Note:  The following exchange of views would, by its character, belong in the Correspondence column, for which it would be far too long. However, since its subject concerns fundamental points of physics, it was decided to publish it in the form of a regular paper.

The spinning charged model of the electron is established upon the principles of classical physics. Prior models of the electron are reviewed and deficiencies of the historical models are noted. This paper reviews the physical and electrical features of the electron. The use of this information and known force laws of electricity and magentism lead logically to the spinning charged ring model. The features of the ring model are described and compared to experimental data for the electron.

the spinning charged ring model of the electron can be extended to the proton, positron, and antiproton. For all four particles, the attributes of the ring can be chosen to yield the observed spins, magnetic moments, sizes and masses. Conservation of magnetic flux is presented, leading to quantum features of the elementary particles and symmetrical properties. The ring model provides insight into the basic nature of matter and unifies the fundamental forces. Advantages of the ring model are shown by comparison to the quantum theory of elementary particles.

The spinning charged ring model that yields correct electron characteristics is proposed here for the proton, positron and antiproton. The ring with electrostatic charge e spins with tangential velocity c, giving the charged elementary particles constant and identical values of magnetic flux. For all four particles, the approrpiate radii R and half-thickness r of the ring can be chosen to yield the observed spins, magnetic moments, sizes and masses.

A uniformly charged spinning ring is proposed as a model for the electron. Four parameters, the radius of the ring R, the half-thickness r, the total charge e, and the tangential velocity c are chosen to yield the four electron characteristics, the mass m, the charge e, the spin h/2, and the magnetic moment []_e. The model is completely stable under electromagnetic forces alone. The twice classical value for the gyromagnetic ratio is explained. The size of the electron equals the rationalized Compton wavelength, and the frequency of rotation equals the Compton frequency. The model yields to a higher order approximation the anamalous magnetic moment in agreement with observation.