David Noel
<davidn@aoi.com.au>
Ben Franklin Centre for Theoretical Research
PO Box 27, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia.
About Gravity
Isaac Newton's work on gravity was one of the most important parts of the scientific revolution which started off in England and elsewhere in the later 1600s. Newton is said to have made the discovery in 1666, and he published his findings (in Latin) in his book "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" (Principia) in 1687.
Newton established Gravity as a force of attraction between two bodies (with the force proportional to the masses of the two bodies. multiplied together, and divided by the square of the distance between them). But he did not say what caused it. Also, while people have a feeling for what "mass" is, this property is not independently defined, but is only measurable by assuming that the bodies involved follow Newton's equation.
Newton's gravity (which we may refer to here as "Mass Gravity") has served well to allow calculation of the behaviour of bodies in the Universe, right up to the present day. However, tiny discrepancies with Newtonian gravity were first noticed through observations of Mercury's orbit, when the planet's orbit was found to precess (shift) at a rate that was not fully explained by Newtonian gravity and the gravitational influences of other planets.
The discrepancy was cleared up by Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, published in 1905, with his General Theory of Relativity published in 1915. Einstein envisaged Gravity as a "distortion" or bending of a framework of "Space-Time", as though large masses were pulling down depressions or pits in a flat flexible sheet, so that smaller masses would experience a force causing them to fall "down" towards the larger mass.
Fig. SL110-F1. Einsteinian "curvature of space-time". From [1].
Figure F1 shows a representation of this concept. On an initially horizontal flat sheet, placing the large ball has caused a bowl-shaped depression to form. The smaller ball is orbiting around the larger in its own circular depression, at a speed such that its centrifugal force exactly balances its tendency to fall down into the large depression.
Such representations are helpful, but of course they are only analogies, there are no such flexible sheets in the real world -- and the analogy is in one plane, a 2-dimensional slice across a 3-dimensional world.
One area where Einstein's (later) General Theory of Relativity differs from his earlier "Special" one is that the later work includes a basis for what can be called "Spin Gravity", the existence of forces between two Rotating bodies. Between a rotating body such as the AGN at the centre of a galaxy and the rest of the Universe, there is a force acting to slow the central body down. This is referred to as "Frame Dragging", and is quite separate to ordinary (mass) gravity. For more on spin gravity (with relevant formulas), see "BS806: Mass Gravity and Spin Gravity: Adjusting the Universe" [B].
Atoms as objects with mass -- nuclear particles, or vortexes?
Galaxies, stars, and planets all have mass -- they obey the laws of gravity. Smaller items too have mass, right down to atoms -- the smallest units which still retain the properties of a given sort of stuff (with smaller units, subatomic particles, gravity no longer figures).
Why do atoms have mass? The conventional picture has an atom made up of a central nucleus within orbiting electrons, with atoms which are heavier having more nucleons (protons or neutrons) in their nuclei. This is a useful model, called the Bohr Model, but it contains nothing which suggest why such atoms exert gravitational forces.
Let us look now at a different model of the atom, the Spindle Vortex Model, which does include a source of gravitational attraction. In this model, atoms are represented as vortexes, rapidly spinning objects pulling stuff in from their outside edges.
Fig. SL110-F2. Vortex action. From [A].
Figure F2 is a graphic representing the action of a vortex. While the concepts of representing an atom either as a vortex, or as a collection of tiny mass-balls, appears as a conflict of models, this is quite OK in science -- we are happy with representing light as waves (radiation) or as particles (photons). Models are not the real thing, but are aids to comprehension, and we can still use different models to understand different aspects of a phenomenon.
Perhaps surprisingly, the idea of atoms as vortexes is not a new thing, but actually predates the Bohr model. Atoms being objects in rapid motion was implied in the original concept put forward in Roman times by Lucretius [A]. In more recent times, the famous scientist Lord Kelvin also reckoned that atoms should be represented as vortexes.
Fig. SL110-F3. Vortexes in 1644. From [A].
And as far back as 1644, the brilliant French scientist, mathematician, and philosopher Rene Descartes (after whom Cartesian Geometry is named) came up with a description of matter and space which suggested atoms were vortexes [A]. And he even suggested that these vortexes were the source of gravity. Here is some of what he said.
"Due to centrifugal force, matter tends towards the outer edges of the vortex, which causes a condensation of this matter there. The rough matter cannot follow this movement due to its greater inertia -- so due to the pressure of the condensed outer matter those parts will be pushed into the center of the vortex".
"According to Descartes, this inward pressure is nothing else than gravity. He compared this mechanism with the fact that if a rotating, liquid filled vessel is stopped, the liquid goes on to rotate. Now, if one drops small pieces of light matter into the vessel, the pieces move to the middle of the vessel".
The Spindle Vortex Model of atoms
This model is described in "BS802: GEMMA: The Spindle Vortex Model for Gravity, Energy, Matter, Magnetism, Antimatter" [A]. While it can be used alongside the currently popular Bohr Model, it does have some superior aspects compared to the latter, which we'll look at later.
Fig. SL110-F4. A Spindle Vortex atom. From [A].
The graphic in Figure F4 represents an atom (a spindle vortex) as a rapidly-spinning sphere. This representation is just an aid to comprehension, it does not claim that atoms are spherical. In the model, an atom is represented as a spinning vortex, with spin energy (square of rotation rate) proportional to what we think of as mass. Einstein tells us that mass and energy are equivalent, and in the Spindle Vortex Model, the rotational energy of an atom is perceived as its mass.
As an example, Hydrogen (the simplest atom) contains a single proton, with no neutrons. In the Bohr model, Hydrogen is assigned an Atomic Weight (a mass) of 1. In Spindle Vortex, Hydrogen is assigned a VRN (Vortex Rotation Number) of 1.
Now consider a heavier atom, such as Oxygen. In the Bohr model, an oxygen nucleus contains 16 nucleons (8 protons and 8 neutrons), so its Atomic Weight is 16. In the Spindle Vortex Model, the Oxygen spindle is rotating 4 times as fast as a Hydrogen spindle (VRN=4), so its rotational energy is 4-squared or 16, the same number as its mass.
The Spindle Vortex Simulator
To give an intuitive visual feel for the concept of atoms as rotating vortexes, the following interactive simulator has been designed and implemented.
1, 1 16, 256
VRN: 1/16, AW: 1/256
Figure BS802-F18. The Spindle Vortex with VRN slider. From [A].
In this simulator, the slider scale above the spinning sphere represents the rate of rotation of the atom. This value, the VRN or Vortex Rotation Number, varies in single steps from 1 to 16.
The scale beneath, marked AW for Atomic Weight, is the square of the VRN. This is because the energy of rotation varies as the square of the rate of rotation, and in the new model energy is perceived as mass. The AW scale also has some sample elements marked at the appropriate places, such as H, O, Cu, Nd (Neodymium), and Au (Gold),
Moving the slider along the scale will cause the spindle vortex image to increase in apparent rate of rotation, if your browser has the appropriate features.
It is a common concept, that if the rotation speed of a body is continually increased, eventually increasing stress will cause the body to break apart. Moving the slider to its extreme right point may cause the simulated atom to fly apart. This gives a nod to the idea that as atoms increase in mass, they may become more unstable and break down.
Superiority of the Spin Vortex Model over the Bohr Model
While both models have their place in understanding atoms, the Spin Vortex model has a number of advantages, These are dealt with in more detail in "BS802: GEMMA: The Spindle Vortex Model for Gravity, Energy, Matter, Magnetism, Antimatter" [A], but here is a brief summary.
Gravity. SVM gives a natural cause for gravity, in the inherent tendency of vortexes to pull matter in. Moreover, mathematical treatment of vortexes is readily available in Fluid Dynamics. Bohr has no obvious reason for masses invoking gravity.
Atomic Weight. Here perhaps the familiar Bohr model is easier to understand, just count up the number of red balls (protons) and black balls (neutrons) in the nucleus. The equivalent in SVM, marking steps along the mass/energy scale, is the concept of resonant frequencies -- rotation rates which are somehow more favourable.
Direction in space. Bohr atoms have no obvious alignment in space, and so no reason for atoms to emit photons in a particular direction. SVM atoms have clear axes along which photons would be emitted, and a plausible "shrugging" mechanism for emission.
Matter/Antimatter. In the Bohr model, particles and their antiparticles differ in charge (plus or minus), but there is no indication of what charge means. In SVM, matter and antimatter are defined by their direction of rotation, clockwise or anticlockwise.
Magnetism. Bohr has no explanation of magnetism. In SVM, expression of magnetism just means preferential alignment of spin axes in a local area.
Matter and Energy.The equivalence of matter and (rotational) energy is obvious in SVM. Bohr has no such pointers.
Radioactivity. The Standard Model of atoms has the feature that when a nucleus contains a very large number of nucleons, it becomes unstable, but does not explain why. With SVM, radioactivity is just the tendency of a spinning sphere to fly apart as centrifugal forces get higher.
Ockham wins again
Although it may house considerable detail, the idea of atoms as spinning vortexes is a simple one, perhaps the simplest model to date. Those who favour the application of Ockham's Razor will applaud it.
[1]. K Gajendran. Revolutionizing Gravity: Einstein's Journey from Special to General Relativity. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/revolutionizing-gravity-einsteins-journey-from-special-gajendran-k-3lxvc/ .
