Introduction
However, modern physics is currently on a different path aimed at, and heavily invested in, explaining everything at the subatomic level in terms of the Standard Model or adaptions of it, and at the cosmic level with theories based on gravitation rather than electricity as the main cosmic driver.
As far as this work is concerned, I hope that what I have proposed in some useful way adds to and builds upon Fredrik Nygaard’s theories, which, as explained in my introduction, have stimulated the whole process! I would very much welcome comment. Paul G Leader 6 May 2021
There is considerable scope for new ideas and research!
Conclusion
The foregoing offers some propositions and explanations that, for right or for wrong, will hopefully stimulate others to consider a different view of the way the electric force and atoms work. Just because a theory seems to explain stuff doesn’t necessarily make it right, but if it is simple and understandable and offers explanations where prevailing theories are complex and unintelligible (to a reasonably educated person) and still do not provide satisfactory answers, then it should be good scientific practice to consider it.
At the atomic physics end of the scale the focus is currently on breaking atoms into bits and looking at the broken bits on the assumption that they somehow tell us something about the original. It’s a similar idea to that of crashing aeroplanes into mountainsides and analysing the pieces in the hope that it might tell you something about flight. It won’t. The myriad unstable broken bits of atoms produced by the LHC can probably all be explained, if deemed worthwhile, in terms of unstable partial assemblies of positrons and electrons and their subsequent process of decay. However, such an exercise would have little value in advancing our understanding of the original atoms.
The Standard Model is based on the proposition that many of these unstable broken bits are viable sub-assemblies of the atom and so, not unexpectedly (since they are not), it makes for an exceedingly complex story with many unexplainables. At the cosmic physics end of the scale, we have a gravitational view of the universe which, because gravity is actually a comparatively minor force in the universe, requires the invention of dark energy and dark matter in an effort to make it all work.
Changing things will undoubtedly be a very slow process because the investment in the status quo is huge. However, as more and more physicists are minded to take a fresh look at things, it will undoubtedly eventually happen.
Introduction
However, modern physics is currently on a different path aimed at, and heavily invested in, explaining everything at the subatomic level in terms of the Standard Model or adaptions of it, and at the cosmic level with theories based on gravitation rather than electricity as the main cosmic driver.
As far as this work is concerned, I hope that what I have proposed in some useful way adds to and builds upon Fredrik Nygaard’s theories, which, as explained in my introduction, have stimulated the whole process! I would very much welcome comment. Paul G Leader 6 May 2021
There is considerable scope for new ideas and research!
Conclusion
The foregoing offers some propositions and explanations that, for right or for wrong, will hopefully stimulate others to consider a different view of the way the electric force and atoms work. Just because a theory seems to explain stuff doesn’t necessarily make it right, but if it is simple and understandable and offers explanations where prevailing theories are complex and unintelligible (to a reasonably educated person) and still do not provide satisfactory answers, then it should be good scientific practice to consider it.
At the atomic physics end of the scale the focus is currently on breaking atoms into bits and looking at the broken bits on the assumption that they somehow tell us something about the original. It’s a similar idea to that of crashing aeroplanes into mountainsides and analysing the pieces in the hope that it might tell you something about flight. It won’t. The myriad unstable broken bits of atoms produced by the LHC can probably all be explained, if deemed worthwhile, in terms of unstable partial assemblies of positrons and electrons and their subsequent process of decay. However, such an exercise would have little value in advancing our understanding of the original atoms.
The Standard Model is based on the proposition that many of these unstable broken bits are viable sub-assemblies of the atom and so, not unexpectedly (since they are not), it makes for an exceedingly complex story with many unexplainables. At the cosmic physics end of the scale, we have a gravitational view of the universe which, because gravity is actually a comparatively minor force in the universe, requires the invention of dark energy and dark matter in an effort to make it all work.
Changing things will undoubtedly be a very slow process because the investment in the status quo is huge. However, as more and more physicists are minded to take a fresh look at things, it will undoubtedly eventually happen.
Introduction
However, modern physics is currently on a different path aimed at, and heavily invested in, explaining everything at the subatomic level in terms of the Standard Model or adaptions of it, and at the cosmic level with theories based on gravitation rather than electricity as the main cosmic driver.
As far as this work is concerned, I hope that what I have proposed in some useful way adds to and builds upon Fredrik Nygaard’s theories, which, as explained in my introduction, have stimulated the whole process! I would very much welcome comment. Paul G Leader 6 May 2021
There is considerable scope for new ideas and research!
Conclusion
The foregoing offers some propositions and explanations that, for right or for wrong, will hopefully stimulate others to consider a different view of the way the electric force and atoms work. Just because a theory seems to explain stuff doesn’t necessarily make it right, but if it is simple and understandable and offers explanations where prevailing theories are complex and unintelligible (to a reasonably educated person) and still do not provide satisfactory answers, then it should be good scientific practice to consider it.
At the atomic physics end of the scale the focus is currently on breaking atoms into bits and looking at the broken bits on the assumption that they somehow tell us something about the original. It’s a similar idea to that of crashing aeroplanes into mountainsides and analysing the pieces in the hope that it might tell you something about flight. It won’t. The myriad unstable broken bits of atoms produced by the LHC can probably all be explained, if deemed worthwhile, in terms of unstable partial assemblies of positrons and electrons and their subsequent process of decay. However, such an exercise would have little value in advancing our understanding of the original atoms.
The Standard Model is based on the proposition that many of these unstable broken bits are viable sub-assemblies of the atom and so, not unexpectedly (since they are not), it makes for an exceedingly complex story with many unexplainables. At the cosmic physics end of the scale, we have a gravitational view of the universe which, because gravity is actually a comparatively minor force in the universe, requires the invention of dark energy and dark matter in an effort to make it all work.
Changing things will undoubtedly be a very slow process because the investment in the status quo is huge. However, as more and more physicists are minded to take a fresh look at things, it will undoubtedly eventually happen.