the gravitational effect exerts itself on the mass of the elements."
- Andis Kaulins, February 13, 1972
We see this process in the spectral emission lines of hydrogen (Bohr model)
that are in the clear relationship 1, 4, 9 and 16, i.e. 1², 2², 3² and 4²
as below (Wikipedia), representing the electron orbits in the Bohr model,
i.e. "the energy of an electron in any one of these orbits
is inversely proportional to the square of the integer n."):
....1²....2²........... 3²............................................. 4².........
I wrote the first line found now at the top of this page 40 years ago when I came up with a suggested revision of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements (shown below), a revision based on the hypothesis that what the spectral lines of hydrogen showed was applicable to ALL elements taken to together, as the basic gravitational principle of their construction. That Table has been online at LexiLine for many years and no one has paid any attention to it.
[please read this page first and then see the update to this page on previous similar alternative tables - I am not the first to find the "left-step" model]
In the aftermath of the alleged Higgs Boson discovery, I drew a new illustration as below, and the original revised chart you will find further below that in this posting:
The gravitational principle is similar to the alleged Higgs Boson in The Standard Model, with the difference, of course, that as far as The Periodic Table is concerned, electrons are fermions and not bosons, as Jon Butterworth explained last year at The Guardian's Life & Physics in Bosons and Fermions:
"Chemical elements consist of an atomic nucleus surrounded by electrons.
Because electrons are fermions, not all the electrons can be sucked into
the lowest energy level around the nucleus.... So as more electrons are added around a nucleus, they have to sit in higher and higher energy levels - less and less tightly bound to the nucleus, in general. The behaviour of a chemical element - how it reacts with other elements and binds to form molecules, and where it sits in the periodic table - is driven by how tightly bound its outermost electrons really are." [emphasis added]
We regard that binding force to be gravity -- on a subatomic scale, regardless of how one labels it. Indeed, internal GRAVITATION was the basis of our suggested revision of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, 40 years ago:
THE PERIODIC TABLE
OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS:
A SUGGESTED REVISION
Originally Discovered February 13, 1972 by Andis Kaulins
The Periodic Table of Chemical Elements used in mainstream science
is more than 100 years old and severely outdated.
It is retained because mainstream chemistry is used to it.
It does not correctly represent nature.
Below is the standard mainstream version from 1972
showing "God's footnotes" (typical for the academics)
the actinides and lanthanides.
For the current status of the periodic table see
Webelements.com - Period Table of Chemical Elements
Mainstream Periodic Table 1972
The above table is disorderly and requires
"God's footnotes"
for the actinides and lanthanides.
Nature can not possibly work this way.
The simplicity has been camouflaged
and replaced with unnecessary complexities.
Dmitri Mendeleev
originally made the above table using the chemical elements then known
by arranging cards on his living room floor.
In his era, it was a great step forward.
Today, it is a Model-T Ford,
but people are used to using it,
and have retained it for that reason.
Convenience is a higher priority than correctness.
A "correct" table of the elements
would show the general laws of nature immediately.
It is in fact possible to construct such a corrected table,
showing the gravitational law at the root of all of matter,
for this process extends in both directions!
The Kaulins Revised Periodic Table of the Chemical Elements
The above graphic stems from the year 1972.
Since then more elements have been discovered, all fitting into this scheme.
For the current status see
Webelements.comPeriod Table of Chemical Elements
The principle at the root of the periodic table of elements is gravity.
The elements are formed by internal gravity,
as in the spectral lines of Hydrogen,
where the intervals are 1, 4, 9, 16
-- those are --
the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 squared
i.e. 1², 2², 3² and 4².
The 4 elements from H to Be
build one entity of 4
so that 4 divided by 4 = 1 = 1².
The 16 elements from B to Ca build the next entity of 16
so that 16/4 = 4 = 2².
The elements from Sc to Ba
build the next entity of 36
so that 36/4 = 9 = 3².
The elements from La to No. 120
build the next entity of 64
so that 64/4 = 16 = 4².
What we see in the spectral lines of hydrogen
thus applies to all the chemical elements viewed as a whole
and subsequently also the structure of the universe generally.
The electron rings show how matter in the universe distributes itself.
The process of element-building is comparable
to a mass which falls under the influence of gravity as follows:
The above chart is Galileo and Newton revisited,
but at the atomic level, it accords with Einstein's E=mc2 energy analysis,
which is calculated -- as explained by physicist Dr. William Watson, DEO,
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information --
in Celebrating Einstein: E=mc2 - What's the Speed of Light Got to Do With It?
"Since the velocity of the object as seen by the moving observer,__________
"v", is the same after it emits the energy as it was before,
the only way its kinetic energy can change is if its mass changes.
Evidently, the mass changes by L/c2 -- by the energy the object emits (in our frame of reference), divided by the speed of light in a vacuum squared. Since, as Einstein pointed out, the fact that the energy taken from the object turns into light doesn't seem to make any difference, he concluded that whenever an object emits an amount of energy L of any type, its mass diminishes by L/c2, so that the mass of an object is a measure of how much energy it contains ."
Update, 40 years later....July 4, 2012....in the days of the Higgs Boson....
The basic logic of my illustrations above corresponds to the more modernly called "Higgs Field", a theoretical construct which corresponds in its root conception to what the Ancient Greeks called the "aether".
Forty years ago I thought that the aether of the Greeks was -- and I also think now that the posited Higgs Field is -- nothing other than our familiar (but unexplained) all-pervasive gravity viz. gravitation, which governs the motion and interaction of all bodies (collections of "mass") in space. Indeed, gravitation "accelerates all objects at the same rate" if there is no resistance.
In the metaphysical sense we might view such physical bodies as "something" and the corresponding space as "nothing" in which "somethings" are found.
Space for physicists is often defined in terms of "extension" -- similar and with no more accuracy than Lewis Carroll's definition of his term "WABE" (quoted from Through the Looking Glass):
'And "THE WABE" is the grass-plot round a sun-dial, I suppose?' saidBodies in space are neither particles nor waves per se and that is why Physics speaks modernly of a matter wave, combining the two concepts. A unified concept like matter wave is necessary because the terms "particle" (viz. "matter") and "wave" merely describe what we are able to observe (i.e. particles, and the way particles move) -- but not both at the same time -- something called the uncertainty principle in physics.
Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity.
'Of course it is. It's called "WABE," you know, because it goes a long
way before it, and a long way behind it—'
'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added.
'Exactly so.'
Einstein used the example of a moving locomotive. Where is that locomotive at any given time when moving, and do we look to the front, back or middle of the locomotive when we make our measurements?
At the subatomic level, physicists face this problem all the time -- everything is motion, and maybe what their experimental results show is in fact either the front or the back or the middle of any given body, or wave of motion - like the differing poles of a magnet - which may account for things like electromagnetism and the weak interaction being viewed as two different things, whereas in fact they are the same as the electroweak reaction.
Indeed, perhaps the "three color flavors" of quarks are nothing more than measurements of one or more identical quarks in different positions as a "particle" viz. "wave" located at different parts of the locomotive, so to speak, top, front, back, bottom, sides, etc. We suspect as much, since no single quark or equally elusive companion gluon has ever been isolated, allegedly because they are glued together too strongly. -- Or because the theoretical model is flawed. -- The physicists see the flavored and colored quarks like this (two "up" quarks (U) and one "down" quark (D) -- surely one of the most forced, and surely erroneous, theoretical explanations of nature you will ever see:
The Scientific American had the following image including the gluons, via the Química wiki:
What is important to emphasize time and again is that all of these are merely purely theoretical constructions that aid scientists to explain how things work.
Human theories of matter and space in Physics must also be able to account for things like light (electromagnetic radiation) or energy, which are fundamental "relations" in a cosmic world that has no singularities, i.e. no objects that are fully independent of other objects in the universe.
Everything is interconnected.
Physical "bodies" in the larger sense are not only things like suns, planets or distant galaxies, but also include the chemical elements, which
-- in our view --
provide us with essential information about how the universe works, for the rules that operate here will be the same as operate throughout the universe, only on a smaller scale.
-----
