Book Review: The Nature of the Atom
It has been far too long that science has been constricted by the many absurd assumptions underlying the early 20th century trainwreck that came to be called “standard model quantum mechanics”, sometimes called “the Copenhagen Interpretation” after the birthplace of the school’s founding father Niels Bohr.
The most destructive among the many Trojan horses that were slipped into the minds of physicists during the post-1928 Solvay Conference years include:
1) The belief that the nucleus is composed of random unstructured stochastic protons and neutral objects called neutrons which together make up atomic weights and isotopes,
2) That “strong forces” keep the positive charges from repelling each other must be assumed to exist,
3) That negatively charged electrons orbit nuclei in shells separated from by empty space, and
4) That ultimate uncertainty following Heisenberg’s principle of “intrinsic unknowability of atomic behavior” is law both in regards to the locations of nucleons and outer nuclear electrons along.
With the publication of the ground-breaking new book “The Nature of the Atom: An Introduction to the Structured Atom Model” by Curtis Press (2021), a team of intrepid scientists have amassed an incredible body of experimental and theoretical data within a new breathtaking model of the atom which liberates science of all of the constraints, and absurdities inherent in the Standard Model of Bohr and his followers.
The Structured Atom Model (aka: SAM) begins with a simple concept that had once found a home in early pre-Solvay quantum physics when such atomic chemists as William Draper Harkins and his protégé Robert Moon noted that there is no necessity for neutrons when trying to account for the growth of “atomic mass” within the periodic table. [For anyone curious to know more about Dr. Robert Moon’s revolutionary breakthroughs in atomic physics, check out The Pythaogrean Model Needed to Overthrow Today’s Standard Model Priesthood].
Rather than neutrons stochastically floating within the nuclei and accounting for atomic mass, these early atomic chemists understood that “inter-nuclear electrons” offset by protons can account for all apparent “neutron” behavior within radioactive decay, transmutation, atomic mass, isotope growth, fusion, fission and more.
The theory of inter-nuclear electrons has finally been reborn in the SAM model with what J.E. Kaal has dubbed “Proton-Electron-Pairs” (PEPs) with the inner nuclear electron serving as a “glue” of sorts binding protons together and offsetting positive charges within atoms.
Not only that, but following the Pythagorean traditions dating back to Plato’s Timaeus, and Kepler’s Six Sides Snowflake essay of 1609, the SAM Team has broken free of esoteric math as guide to the arrangement of atomic behavior, relying instead on the elegant principle of spherical dense packing to assemble their model from hydrogen to trans uranic elements and all isotopes in between.
Using sphaerical dense packing, we are free to conceptualize the inner geometric arrangement of protons and nucleons (protons + inner nuclear electrons) that abide by the simple static electric force and Platonic solids with a profound preference for icosahedral, tetrahedral and icosahedral structures.
As these structures grow according to principles of magnetic attraction, polarity and dense packing, geometric forms take shape leading up to the icosahedron structure (made of 12 spheres called “nuclets” by the SAM team) which then sets the basis for new sequencing of icosahedra serving as “backbones” upon which newer atoms and isotopes grow following self-similar fractal patterns.
Embracing platonic structures that make the strong and implicitly weak nuclear forces redundant, the SAM team also opens the door for structured electrostatic shells defining the outer nuclear electrons that are now arranged according to coherent principles without any need to resort to “magic numbers”. As the team makes provocatively clear, is that outer electron organization appears to have more to do with dodecahedra (the dual of icosahedrons) than anything else.
Within SAM, many unresolvable paradoxes contained in the Standard Model are harmonized without having to resort to complex mathematical jumbo and “theories of probability” that can turn any mind to mush relatively quickly.
Some of many attractions of SAM include a rational account for cold fusion, (low energy nuclear reactions that occur in geology, chemistry, biology and even industry). Additionally, SAM’s rational explanation for nuclear decay chains is presented as well as viable reasons why heavy radioactive elements contain an asymmetric fissioning along determined pathways which standard theory fails abysmally to address.
The anomalous law of octaves is here given new meaning, and such qualitative behavior as electrical conductivity, affinity, and valence/oxidization states are redefined around rational intelligible grounds too!
Perhaps most excitingly, is that the SAM model also opens up a new vista of possible new yet-to-be discovered elements and isotopes that are not contained in the conventional periodic table of elements.
This authors of the SAM model and this book are quick to remind us that while the concepts contained within these pages are revolutionary, they are yet still incomplete requiring more inter-disciplinary collaboration, crucial experiments and especially creative love which values truth more than the security of careers in academic priesthoods.
and I also invite you to watch a recent lecture delivered by Edwin Kaal on the model:
See more here: risingtidefoundation.net
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
Finally people are coming to realize that physics is based on reason and evidence not magic and invented imaginary particles.
Everything based on the photon and a constant speed of light is garbage. The universe is composed of 2 building blocks: matter and energy. Matter produces inertia and electric forces and fields. Energy produces motion and attractive forces (magnetism and gravity) and fields.
The atom is formed as a result of the force of energy being greater than the electric force and energy being attracted to positive matter and displacing negative matter. The strong nuclear force is energy acting as a compressing force on the nucleus while gravity is the radiation of that force. (Magnetism is a result of the electrons converting part of that radiated attractive force into directional attractive force) while the weak nuclear force is the attraction between electrons and protons in the nucleus. As long as there are no exposed electrons on the surface of the nucleus energy cannot displace the electrons. If electrons are exposed the force of energy will cause the atom to be radioactive and degrade. (How could a large atom with multiple protons emit an electron.) It is this force that causes a neutron (a subatomic molecule composed of a proton and an electron) to degrade into a proton, electron, and a gamma ray when not protected by the nucleus and moving in an energy field.
The basis of the universe is that the electric force and energy force act oppositely. When opposite electric charges are attracted to each other the radiated forces and fields decrease while the internal force increases. When similar charged particles are forced together the radiated force and fields increase as the internal force decreases. With energy (magnets) the opposite occurs. When opposite poles come together the radiated magnetic fields and force increase while the internal force decreases. When similar poles are forced together the internal repelling force increases while the radiated forces and fields decrease.
Light is a disturbance in these fields. When an increase in energy (attraction) causes two atoms to move closer the internal attractive force decreases while the repelling force between the electric (matter) increases causing the two fields to oscillate as an electromagnetic wave.
Physics actually is simple and makes sense.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Herb…just curious….I know you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are wrong and you alone are correct but why do you say that speed of light is constant? It is constant and maximum in a vacuum but slower in water or glass…. but still constant. Where are your Nobel Prizes for discovering no neutrinos or black holes exist?….and your explanation for the double slit experiment…and dark matter and dark energy?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
If one reads “Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman!” by Richard P. Feynman page 115-116 (Bantam Books, 1986), one will find that Niels Bohr was advising the physicists, at Los Alamos. planning and designing the fission and fusion bombs which worked the first THREE TIMES THEY WERE TESTED
And if one believes J. E. Kaal, A. Otte, J.. A. Sorensen, J. G. Emming and Herb, these physicists, at Los Alamos, achieved this success not knowing what they doing!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Glenn Blencowe
| #
Hi Jerry,
Always a pleasure to read your comments. This one because it’s a clue as to why I (and others) seek understanding – explanations. And why we often fight an uphill battle against those holding different beliefs. Because we, as humans, are hopeless at identifying incorrect explanations. Here’s why.
Firstly, I have read this book. I think its profound – a paradigm shift as important as Darwin and Wallace’s in evolutionary theory. What I found impressive is all the answers to previously unanswered questions that just fall out naturally when we let go of all the previous assumptions and band-aide fixes, adopting this fresh perspective. I think that’s a clue. But time will tell.
Re your comment:
Can’t both of your options be true? Are you not talking about two separate objectives, requiring different sets of “knowledge” – Descriptions vs Explanations? Bohr, and the physicists at Los Alamos could achieve their amazing breakthroughs, knowing what they were doing, WHILE Kaal and Co. can be closer to the truth as to theory. Both can be true because they pursue different objectives. Los Alamos required accurate Descriptions (including Laws) to create those bombs. They were chasing engineering type results and needed the “what” and “how” that descriptions provide. Kaal and friends are attempting to address the “why”.
I don’t need to know “why” wood burns in order to know “what” a fire is and “how” to light or use one. But it would be better to know why it burns, than believe it’s a fire god that’s responsible. To my simple mind, Description tells us “what’ is, and works, Explanation, hopefully, points to “why” it is, and works.
In our example, we can understand fission enough to use it, without knowing why the products split asymmetrically, favoring specific lighter elements. Kaal explains why that happens, and its both logical and simple. It falls out of the hypothesis, naturally. However, not knowing that “why” didn’t prevent them from creating those bombs. It takes nothing from them, and their amazing achievements.
Humans have a history of accurate and usable descriptions, while their explanations are off the wall, often taking on ideological or religious proportions. Many are assumption based beliefs, lacking any foundation in evidence, or are influenced by those with questionable motives. Look no further than the main topics of this site, and the “explanations” believed by most. Yes, climate changes. We can observe and describe it, and its changing… but the true explanation? Our descriptions can be spot on, while our explanations remain delusional.
Our inability to recognize “DESCRIPTION IS NOT EXPLANATION” seems hard wired in us. Evidence for the former doesn’t imply evidence for the latter, but how often do we conclude otherwise? Or come up with something completely random, and believe it. Just because we are able, simultaneously, to accurately describe and utilize the thing we think we are explaining. They’re NOT connected!
Descriptions are not our problem. Unidentified, incorrect Explanations are.
Thanks for your thought provoking comment Jerry.
Reply
JFK
| #
I don’t think we should say that physicists don’t know what they are doing.
(although, I can wholeheartedly say that some modern physicists have no idea what they are talking about most of the time… that’s another topic for discussion…)
They simply create models to match their observations.
The models themselves might have zero touch with reality, but happen to predict some (or most) of the observations at the same time.
So, in essence, their job is to make up stuff that could be used to make predictions based on given conditions.
They already know they will fail to figure out how the atoms are structured exactly, since the scales are too small and our capacity to observe things at that scale is close to zero.
The aim at this point is to create the ultimate model (or fairytale if you prefer), that predicts all the observations.
Thus, it is always good to have competing models.
Me, I am not an expert on physics, but honestly the entire idea of using probabilities to work with things throws me off too. And my experience with physicists is that they don’t think so “straight” most of the times… They try to explain something using the most crazy explanation/model possible as their first choice. It might be related to their focus on their mathematical models or their physics models and worldviews, and their educational influences.
For me (and for science historically), if there is one behavior that is not explained by a model, that model and the underlying theory are dead.
I think this renders most modern theories and models dead already.
Nowadays, that science has started shapeshifting into a dangerous religion, this rule is pushed aside in favor of the created idols : those labeled as scientists and their over-promoted models, no matter how wrong those are.
So, I hope they gather all their data and start creating new models and theories soon.
And this time, without having prejudice.
Otherwise, we might all end up in a mass cult suicide one day, just like what has happened with the covid jabs nowadays…
Reply
JFK
| #
Very educational and thought-provoking video by the way…
Again, I am not a physicist, but the person presenting seems like someone who does his job right: he gathers all the data first and then tries to figure them all out without putting barriers between his brains.
If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…it probably IS a duck, no matter how desperately modern religious-fanatic science will try to convince you otherwise.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
I think “Electro-Universe” people should identify themselves up front so that a reader can choose to continue or not before wasting time reading something that only reveals “Elecro-Universe” after time has been
wasted.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi C. T.,
A few days ago I discovered the Atmospheric Science department of the University of Washington because of the Marshall Wildfire that accorded 12/30/2021). And I cannot explain how it is that I had not learned about its longtime Professors and their attempts at scholarship which are clearly related to my fundamental interests.
For in their long list of emeritus faculty I read “the effects of cloud feedbacks”, “Cloud microphysics; electrification.”, “Role of clouds in atmospheric convection and climate”, “Geophysical fluid dynamics; planetary boundary layers; air-sea interaction; turbulence; satellite remote sensing”, “Air-sea interaction; boundary layer meteorology; atmospheric turbulence”, “Atmospheric chemistry; aerosol physics, chemistry and optics; aerosol instrumentation; climate effects, global distributions of aerosols”, “Atmospheric radiation; radiative transfer; microwave remote sensing”, “Atmospheric chemistry; dispersion modeling; radiative transfer.”, “Atmospheric chemistry; cloud physics”, “Mesoscale meteorology, cloud physics and dynamics; radar meteorology”, “Polar air-sea-ice interaction; radiative transfer in ice and snow”, “Atmospheric dynamics; large-scale atmosphere-ocean interactions; greenhouse warming; equatorial dynamics; El Niño/Southern Oscillation; climate change”, “great dust storms”, “Atmospheric general circulation; climate variability” and “Atmospheric radiation; radiative properties of clouds, snow, and sea ice; Antarctic climate.” THE END.
These at all topics of my interests about which I knew (and basically stlll know) nothing about these professors’ scholarship. But I have read R. A. Brown’s lecture (https://atmos.uw.edu/~rabrown/egshistory.htm) which I found interesting. C. T., you and other PSI Readers might give it a look.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi T. C.,
I do have a possible explanation how it was your initials were reversed. I discovered the U of W Department of Atmospheric Science because C. Mass analyzed the Marshall Wildfire and you might conclude he was a PSI founder taking on the conventional greenhouse, global warming, and climate change issues.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply