Cosmology: The atom and the point of view of the observer

The atom and the point of view of the observer

J.R. Silva Bittencourt

From Space The space that surrounds the subatomic particles is the one in which stars and distant galaxies are inserted. Space is a mystery. Many claim that it is a real entity, but others disagree. The Reverse Sight Theory project addresses how the observer interacts with the universe around him, being dependent on the existence of measurable time to do so. That is, what exists for the observer's point of view is what he remembers. Nothing in the universe is observed directly, which is ensured by the uncertainty principle. Not even space. Although it is on the sidelines, it’s not worried about our opinion of it. I mean that the situation created by dependence on our memory is our problem, and it would have nothing to do with what is around us. But it creates some moorings that could be undone by better understanding the real nature of the forces acting around us. Much has already been written about the direct action of the masses on space. But very little was said about the capacity of space to generate inertia independently of the masses. It is known, for example, that inertia is a kind of fictitious "force", which counterbalances gravity and keeps the planets fixed in their cyclic orbits around our star without falling into it. One of the quotations about this

space-independent capacity for generating inertia can be found in Albert Einstein's book "How I See the World," published in Brazil by the New Frontier Publishing House. Einstein postulated in his Theory of Relativity that space and time were elastic, forming the space-time continuum, which would overturn the idea of Newton's absolute space.

Curiously, in the book quoted Einstein tried to justify Newton's thinking. Let's read what he says: "In Newton's equations of motion the notion of acceleration plays a fundamental role, which does not define only by the distances between points, variables with time. Newton's acceleration is only thinkable and intelligible as an acceleration in relation to the totality of space. To this geometrical reality of the concept of space is associated, therefore, a new function of the space that determines the inertia. When Newton declared that space is absolute, he certainly had in mind the real meaning of space and must therefore have attributed to his space a well-defined state of motion which, we confess, is not completely determined by the phenomena of mechanics. This space was still invented as absolute, from another point of view. Its effectiveness to determine inertia remains independent, therefore not caused by physical

circumstances of any kind. it acts upon the masses, nothing acts upon it".

This justification that nothing could act directly on space suggests that this would be related to our point of view. It turns out that, to communicate anything to us, space needs a messenger. The candidate which volunteered for service would have been light and electromagnetic radiation as a whole.

Since this messenger needs time to deliver its message at a distant point, space seems to be out of the process. Let's take a simple example.

It is known that there are so many stars that still can not be seen in the night sky, as well as those that we can see directly. The explanation is that their light would not have reached us in the present.

When its light arrives, a star can be seen instantly, but with the appearance it had in the past. That is, what we see shining in the night sky is a snapshot of our past, a reminder of ancient times.

In defending Newton's view, even to disagree with it, Einstein seems to have touched a sensitive spot. What if space were really capable of generating inertia independently of the masses?

Working on this idea, I realized that a way to satisfactorily explain the generation of inertia

through space, without depending directly on the masses, would be to consider the possible direct influence of this space on the total mass of the universe, temporarily altering its density. That is, the mass quoted, in principle, is inert or stationary, like any particle in its natural state. The space would act as a background, creating the favorable conditions for the appearance of the relative movement of the particles, by varying their density.

For the RST (Reverse Sight Theory), any and all movement in space-time would be governed by the variation of the density of the masses, outside of that observable dimension in which we find ourselves and in a certain interval of time, say in passing, would not exist in practice, because it could not be measured directly. Perhaps this was Einstein's reference to the capacity of space to generate inertia without relying on the masses. Just as the quantization of the light energy, all the movement observed around us is relative and would be delivered ready, becoming dependent on the measurability of time. As the density results only from a relation between mass and volume, the total mass would be conserved.

Postulate (test): "The relative motion of the particles and celestial bodies of large masses, as well as the changes in the geometry of the space around them, depend on the transient variations in the density of bodies, and not directly on their masses."

To locate our study in the microscopic infinity we will go over some concepts of Physics, about the most accepted atom model today. It is good to remember that the intention of this work is not to confront the existing laws of physics. The objective is to try to understand the role of the observer, in his interaction with the system under study.

The Uncertainty Principle Below we see the most accepted atom model currently:

According to Eisberg (Fundamentals of Physics, p.96), the question of the stability of this atom presented a serious problem: "If we admit that the electrons in the atom are stationary, it will be easy to see that there is no stable configuration for the electrons surrounding the nucleus, which could prevent them from falling into the nucleus by the attractive coulombian force.

We can not allow the collapse of the atom, for then its radius would be of the order of the nuclear ray, which is four orders of magnitude smaller than the value we know to have the radius of the atom".

Commenting on the attitude of comparing the behavior of the atom with the solar system, with the electrons spinning around the nucleus in orbits similar to the orbits of the planets around the Sun, Eisberg recalls that "Such a (planetary) system may be mechanically stable, because the centrifugal force counterbalances the gravitational pull". In the case of the atom, however, he goes on to say, "The problem is that charged electrons would be constantly accelerated. According to the classical theory of electromagnetism, all accelerated charged bodies radiate energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. The energy would be emitted at the

expense of the mechanical energy of the electron, following this a spiral trajectory towards the nucleus". As we have seen, this does not happen in practice.

It is believed that the electron rotates around the nucleus in a circular orbit. Due to the immense difference between the masses, it is considered that the nucleus stays fixed in the space. In the case of circular orbit, the orbital angular momentum of the electron must be a constant. Translating, this means that the electron always stays the same distance from the nucleus. It is that the force acting on the electron is entirely in the radial (centripetal) direction.

Postulates of Bohr: Bohr's second postulate introduces the concept of quantization: "Instead of the infinity of orbits that would be possible in classical mechanics, it is possible for an electron to move only in an orbit for which its angular momentum is an integral multiple of the Planck constant (h / 2Ď€)."

In his third postulate Bohr eliminates the problem of the stability of the electron moving in

circular orbit, saying that an electron moving in such an orbit does not radiate electromagnetic energy. Therefore, its total energy remains constant.

As support, Bohr relies on the fact that the observed atoms are experimentally stable, even if this is not predicted by classical theory.

The total energy of an atomic electron will be quantized. The normal state of the atom will be the state in which the electron has the minimum energy, that is, the state n = 1. This is called ground state. In an electric discharge the atom absorbs energy. Thus it undergoes a transition to a state of greater energy or "excited state," in which n> 1. The atom will emit its excess energy and return to the ground state.

According to the theory an electron, in an atom, is connected to its atomic nucleus. It travels repeatedly through the same orbit; consequently, the associated pilot waves are expected to be standing waves (fixed nodes). This quantized orbit is the necessary condition for the waves to combine and form stationary waves. If this is violated the waves will interfere with each other, in such a way that their average intensity will cancel out. Since the intensity of the waves must be a measure of the location of the particle (*here the observer is

inserted), this means that the electron could not be found in such an orbit.

The position of an electron and the orientation of the vector indicating its linear momentum can not be specified exactly at a given time point, since the electron could be located anywhere on the orbit.

According to Eisberg, this problem, related to the movement of the electron around the nucleus, is exactly the same as Newton's description of the motion of a planet. Here we see a link that would bring the two extreme levels of matter together, generating uncertainty in the position and momentum of a particle, just as in the case of a planet at any given moment.

Uncertainty in the position of the elĂŠctron

The density of the masses and their influence on the movement of the particles When Eisberg tells us that an electron connected to the atomic nucleus repeatedly travels through the same circular orbit, an essential condition for the pilot waves to be stationary and the orbit of the electron quantized, it is emphasized that the system operator, which analyzes the atomic structure, is dependent on the scattering of light to make comments about the position of the electron at a given moment. What matters is the operator's point of view. In the same direction is the statement that "The intensity of the waves must constitute a kind of measure of the location of the particle". Usually, the role of the system operator is relegated to the background, as well as the dependency he has on his memory. That is, physical phenomena are real, but will always be evaluated outside of their own time.

Niels Bohr believed that events at that microscopic level would only make sense when they were observed. Einstein found this an aberration. For him, a particle exists even if we are not there to see it.

Let us consider as an example the hydrogen atom, where the electron connected to the nucleus

performs a circular orbit. The fundamental state of the electron or the less energetic level is the innermost, in relation to its excited and higher energy state. As has been said, because of the immense difference between the masses, it is considered that the nucleus remains fixed in space.

According to the proposal made regarding the possible variation of nuclear mass density, we will analyze the effects that this same mass would have on the space around it, as its density varied in a transient way and over time. It is worth remembering that this attempt does not find support in the literature on the subject, therefore, it should be viewed with reservations and just an object of curiosity.

The first detail that draws our attention is the dependence of space on the radiation absorbed or emitted by the particles, to communicate to the observer the changes of its geometry. Without this messenger we would have no way of knowing the existence of the particles. So the first premise for the following assessments is that space would not communicate anything to the operator directly, being dependent on a messenger, that is, light.

Anything that influenced the behavior of light would

also reflect on space. In the case of light, it is known that it performs a cyclic movement called "simple harmonic". There is a connection of this movement with the circular and uniform. The harmonic motion would result from the projection of the shadow of a particle in circular and uniform motion on an axis passing through the center of the circle. The simple harmonic motion is the same found in the pendulums of the old clocks, and is well represented in the mass-spring assembly. A block is attached to the free end of a spring which, in turn, has its other end set at a fixed point. When the spring is stretched the block moves away from the fixed end, constituting the first phase of the MHS. If we let the spring relax and compress it, we will have the second phase. The forces acting on the system are conservative.

Our dependence on the space messenger, save for better judgment, would have created some difficulties with regard to the interpretation of events around us. This is the case of the sense of some forces acting in space-time. For example, it is known that the modern view tells us that gravity would result from direct action of the masses on space, curving it. This is related to the harmonic movement of light, as it tells us that in the mass-spring assembly the force always points in the opposite

direction to that of the spring stretching. As physicists maintain that space would have the same behavior as an elastic strip, a celestial body of great mass, like our Sun, would draw its planets towards it, directly generating gravity. It is seen in this evaluation that, apparently, we are confusing the behavior of space with that of light itself. It is light that behaves like an elastic strip, not space. When space was stretched the work promoted by the masses could even be positive, if the communication of the event were done instantly on Earth. In this case, the space would be communicating the event directly, assuming its zero time frame. Let's try to explain better. Since it has no point of view, the Sun could not tell us anything about the curvature event of the space around it. For this, there is a messenger. However, the response given by solar radiation to the observer on Earth would be a negative work, like an implosion, which would allow condensation and the packaging of light (quantization). In fact, without the scattered light after previous packaging we probably would not know the existence of the particles, as well as the Sun and other stars. What we forget to take into account is the fact that space needs time to communicate any events in which the Sun and its

mass are involved. In this case, gravity waves, which would travel at the speed of light, need eight minutes to reach us on Earth. When that happens, we already find ourselves looking the other way, or back to our own past. The arrow of time is reversed in our position and the scattered light, yielding energy, would already have entered the second phase of its harmonic movement, in which the relaxation and contraction of the space spring is predicted. Curiously, due to the retention of the time prior to the arrival of the Sun's light (8 minutes), the second phase of the harmonic movement would abruptly provide information about the previous phase, projecting them in the celestial vault and in our past. This seems to shift virtually the zero point of time from the position of the Sun to our position on Earth, justifying the concept of continuous waves and wave-particle duality. Hence the importance of taking our points of view into account, when interpreting external events. For that, we will always be dependent on our memory, which tells us that there is only what can be remembered. In the same way, it can be suggested that the light of the Sun was always at our disposal on Earth, to be followed only in the direction of our past.

The worst is yet to come.

If you placed the sun at the fixed end of the mass-spring assembly and stretched this spring, the movement of sunlight would be confused with that of space, because it needs the conservative work of its messenger. So, the movement of light, from there to here, does not yet exist on Earth because it can not be remembered. That is, one can not directly measure the time spent in the displacement of light, if it exists. Estimates can be made of this time, based on the velocity we measured for light after its spreading. For this we would need the constant presence of light, or the star could not be seen. If there were an observer occupying the position of the Sun, he could see that the Earth was being sighted in the past, or looking like 8 minutes ago. As the Sun can not manifest its point of view, it is said that the zero mark of time would have migrated virtually to Earth, where there is a conscious observer. In this case, the simple harmonic motion of light would need to be interpreted from the observer's point of view. The direction of the forces involved is reversed, and the fixed end of the set, which was previously occupied by the Sun, would be constantly occupied by the observer. The spring of space, then, would stretch from there.

In the current view of Cosmology the stretching phase would be linked, in theory, to the direct action of the mass of the Sun over space. In the view proposed in this work, the first phase of the harmonic motion of light should take place in the presence of an increase of elastic potential energy.

The movement would tend to slow down, in this case, due to the negative work connected with the stretching of the "spring" of space, which we would be confusing with that of the light itself. However, gravity manifests itself in the presence of constant acceleration of motion, both in the case of the Sun and in the case of our electron. How to explain this incongruity?

It seems that, at least when it comes to our point of view, the effects of the two SHM phases would be mixing soon after the light scattering, or in the excited state of the particles. The return to their fundamental state would remain suspended to infinity, due to the inexistence of measurable time in the first phase. That is, since the information could not be accessed outside the quantized state of the particles, a principle of exclusion of access is created. What remains, as being real, is the continuous scattering of light.

Let's return to the density problem.

If our Sun always maintained the same mass and the same volume, as in practice, it would be expected that the space would always maintain the same curvature over time. This curvature would have to simultaneously manage the orbits of all the planets in the solar system, which seems a bit difficult to understand. In addition, we would be led to the circular and uniform motion, in which the planets would always move at the same distance from the Sun, with constant velocity and acceleration. This does not happen on the real plane of the universe, but it is a disturbingly real illusion.

It is concluded that the problem is not only related to the mass of the Sun. Probably the messenger of space, the light, would be hiding to the observer possible variations in the curvature of the space. The only alternative we have left is to think that the dynamics of motion in space would have to be related to the variations of the solar mass in its density, because in this case it would influence the geometry of space in a variable way, curving it, now more now less.

Thus, it would be relevant and justifiable to compare the motion of the planets with that of the

electrons, since the two systems can be unified at the level of observation: both depend on the same form of remote tracking of light, without depending on the distances it may have traveled before spreading. I always quote the elucidating example of one observer behind a microscope, and another behind a telescope. Regardless of the time involved with the previous movement of light, both depend on their local scatter to see their objects of study.

The main advantage of analyzing the atomic structure through light is to note that the ground state of the electron, the less energetic, is more internal to its excited state, or when it would have absorbed energy. Why this reasoning? Because it tells us that in the fundamental state the nucleus of the atom would have an average density value in its mass, and that density would remain the same over time. As the mass of the nucleus is conserved this would also extend to the orbit of the electron, which would remain circular and uniform. Considering that there were veiled changes in nucleus density, untranslated by the radiation emitted after the excitation, we could evaluate the theoretical consequences that the changes would have in the space around the nucleus of the atom.

Let us suppose that, even conserving its mass, the nuclear structure transiently increases its density. This would change the average curvature of the space around, by stretching it. The electron, in this case, would "feel" the jerk suffered and, even without abandoning its previous position, would assume a movement away from the center of the atomic structure. Now out of its ground state or even quantizing, the electron would assume an uncertain position in its orbit. According to Bohr's atomic model, this is due to the interference between pilot waves outside the fundamental state of the electron, which cancel out. Without the waves, the position of the particle can not be determined. In the model we are proposing in this study the motif is similar: the stretching of space could only be described by radiation, and it would not be able to fulfill its role directly. This would assign to space the characteristics that actually describe the behavior of light. In this case, the virtual fusion between light and space tells us that the latter would have the same behavior as a rubber strip. As it stretched, the force would point in the opposite direction, in this case, toward the nucleus. The detail, however, is that there would be an increase of the elastic potential energy in the stretching phase, to the

detriment of the kinetic energy. That is, as it moves away from the nucleus, the electron tends to decelerate. This clashes with the definition of gravity, since it and acceleration are equivalent concepts (Einstein). Since light would not be available out of the ground state, this would generate an uncertainty in the position or velocity of the electron.

The other issue arises, related to the observer's point of view. The vehicle of information about the geometry of space around the nucleus lies in the light scattered by the electron. Thus, the fixed end of the mass-spring assembly, which describes the zero frame of the harmonic motion performed by the light, must be occupied by the electron. The core will occupy the free end. This will be critical in determining the exact direction of the forces acting on the core-electron system.

1)

2)

3)

The warning given to us by the atomic structure is that the fundamental state of the electron is the least energetic and therefore the innermost level relative to the nucleus. Let us place the electron at the fixed end of the nucleus-electron, in which the space would represent the spring that would be interconnecting them, in order to describe the harmonic movement realized by the light. When the spring stretched the increase of the elastic potential energy, in addition to generating uncertainty in its position, it would suggest that the electron, even without leaving its place, would have left its circular

orbit and assumed a movement in the opposite direction of the stretching of the space. As in the first phase of the simple harmonic motion the work of space stretching would be negative, the retention of light (by our suggestion) or the destructive interference of the pilot waves (by suggestion of classical physics) tells us that the repulsive force would point in the direction of electron, assigning transient features of a mysterious antiparticle, undetectable and with positive signal (e +), since it and the nucleus repel one another (see figure 2, right behind). This pseudoduality of positions assumed by the electron becomes real, with the particles presenting opposite spins. Do not forget that all of this is occurring at a time when the position or velocity of the electron is only a pattern of probabilities, according to the uncertainty principle. After the scattering of light, whatever happened to the electron in its negative spin stage, would instantly reflect on its antiparticle, without depending on the distances involved. Time and distances cease to be a barrier to subatomic particles, for we are in dependence on the constant presence of the scattered light. So, before this scattering, the light would have been everywhere else in space.

The extreme limit of the potential energy assumed by the electron could be linked to the increase of the density of the nuclear mass and to the maximum stretching of the space, constituting the insurmountable barrier that would prevent the electron to hit the nucleus! We could say the same thing, but in a different way. Out of the ground state of the atom, the nucleus would be generating an antigravity orientation force, pushing the electron out of the center. This force would become fictitious due to the retention of light.

The excited state of the electron The inversion of expectations described above, which makes the ground state of the electron the least energetic and closest to the nucleus, is further evidence of the idea that we are confusing the behavior of space with that of light itself. If space could directly communicate its stretching, generating gravity, the electron would immediately jump to its most energetic level or to its excited state. This, however, only becomes feasible and real when it emits the excess energy and returns to its ground state. That is, after the scattering of light.

Bothe and Geiger, in 1925, demonstrated that when a quantum collides with an electron, both appear

simultaneously, with no measurable time interval that could be separating them. As this "communication" of the stretching event depends on the scattered light, this will always occur with virtual delay, however minimal. This limitation would be restricted to the observer's point of view, having nothing to do with the subatomic reality.

The simple harmonic motion phase of the light that provides the information is the second, in which the relaxation of the space spring occurs in the presence of acceleration of the movement of the particle. When this happens the electron already appears at the distal point of its orbit and at its maximum acceleration, releasing the excess energy and returning to the ground state and its circular orbit. This may mean that the space should have stretched in the previous phase, even without direct registration, which would assign maximum limits for this stretching, expressed in the maximum values of the elastic potential energy. These limits could not be overcome after light scattering, constituting a barrier for the movement of the electron direct to the nucleus. Although accelerated, the electron appears at the farthest point from the center. This would be an apparent incompatibility between the movement at the subatomic level and what is observed in the

macro structure. Due to the inversion of expectations that accompanies the scattering of the photons, it can be said that the point of maximum potential energy and that of maximum kinetic energy are confounded, at least for our point of view. This is due to the exclusion of direct access to the phase of stretching of space around the nucleus, which in the current model predicts destructive interference between pilot waves. The result would be the virtual leveling of the energetic extremes of the atom, which impels us to the circular orbit. What is outside it does not exist, because it can not be remembered.

That is, time has been contracting during the entire quantization phase of light energy. Without time, one can not measure movement of any kind. This suggests that even if space were curved against increasing nuclear mass density, it would remain virtually flat out of the electron's ground state.

Note that when we submit to the empire of electromagnetic radiation to describe the events in the microscopic universe, we simultaneously coexist with the two phases of harmonic motion of light, mutually exclusive. When one is there, the other will disappear. This can easily be visualized on the model of the rubber strip: either it is stretching or it is relaxing, but the two phases can never be

confronted. Everything indicates that we continually live with the projection of information in our past, which account for the stretching of space as if it were occurring in real time, as the model of expansionary universe predicts. However, the whole projection of image is always in our past. That is, it does not directly account for events that would happen in real time. By the process of exclusion between the phases, the contraction or relaxation of the elastic strip, which represents space, is no longer part of our physical reality. Even so, since acceleration is its main feature, galaxies seem to accelerate during the expansion phase. The stretching phase appears to incorporate an effect that would be occurring in the opposite phase. It should be noted that in this way of looking at events, one can speak with the same naturalness when dealing with the microscopic universe or the events that would occur in astronomical distances.

The apparent incompatibility between these two levels of matter has a common justification: the retention of time in the space stretching phase. It forces us to run after the particles, or just be able to track them in the direction of our past, always revealing them out of their own time.

According to the theory of relativity, when space is stretched, time contracts. For the observer who depends on his memory, the contraction of time at the subatomic level has limits that could not be overcome. That is, these limits would be suspended to infinity. What is beyond them ceases to exist, because it can not be remembered. This means that the subatomic particles are still there, many of them without the possibility of being detected due to our technical limitations. When the time interval separating the two subsequent positions occupied by the same particle, hitherto inaccessible, can be measured, certainly new particles must be included in our physical reality.

Another aspect worthy of note is that if the harmonic motion of light were to expose its first (stretching) phase, in the full course of the opposite (contraction) phase, both the electrons and the planets would always be in a removal route, even when they passed the proximal point of their orbits.

Our dependence on the second phase of the harmonic motion, in which the scattered light would make available the reports that feed our memory, unfortunately leads us to circular and uniform motion, where we do not anticipate the movements of approach or distance of particles or of the

planets. This would be a consequence of the virtual leveling of the light spectrum, promoted by the contraction of time in the anterior (expansionary) phase. This leveling would be hiding possible variations in the density of the nuclear masses and the Sun, so their volumes do not seem to vary over time. Although such variations in density are undetectable and their absence results in incompatibility between macro and microstructure, they can be predicted due to indirect effects. For example, Johannes Kepler turned around and demonstrated that the real orbits of the planets form an ellipse over time and not a circle, as was supposed to their time. However, elliptical orbits, even if they are real, can not be demonstrated directly in practice, since they would be structured along independent moments. The detail that the less energetic levels of the atom are the more internal, points to an inversion in the direction of the forces acting, due to the retention of time in the process of space stretching. The particles would move more or less away from their nucleus, just like the planets from the Sun, and would accelerate more or less in the process, because the light gives us a continuous stretching of space. A space that was not always curved, however small, would result in the end of the

uncertainty in the position or velocity of the particles and in the collapse of the visible universe, which could not be accepted. Respecting the conservation of the masses in our normal scale of time, the only viable alternative is the transient variation of their densities. If the nucleus or the sun became transiently denser, the electrons and planets would move farther from the center, accelerating less due to an increase in the elastic potential energy predicted in the first phase of the harmonic motion of the light used. As this process would be accompanied by the contraction of time within the light cone of the event, no movement would be detected. That is, the electrons and the planets would not leave the place, because the space around them is that it would stretch veiled. If, on the other hand, the nucleus or the Sun lost density, increasing its volume, the space would be less stretched, promoting a decrease of the elastic potential energy.

In this case, as the particle would move less far from the center, our memory would tell us that an electron (or any planet) would now be in the process of approaching and accelerating. Here we could insert the concept of gravity, acting as a force of secondary nature and positive orientation. That is, gravity would always increase in an indirect way or

by a decrease in the elastic potential energy, generated in the "continuous" stretching of space. If you saw things from this angle, you could remove the veil that covers the intricacies of gravity.

Further, you could understand why Newton was right, by predicting that gravity would act instantaneously and at a distance: the retention of time in the expansionary phase places us in dependence on the local scattering of light. When that happens, we would already be looking continuously towards our past. Only then can the universe be observed instantaneously, although it is always seen with the appearance it had in the past.

As I usually point out, this problem would have nothing to do with the universe. It's all about points of view.

Santa Maria, RS, 04/26/2019.