[Stemmer (OP)]

STEM is an energy-centric model predicated upon the hypothesis that 'there is only one source of energy': and that source is energen. The STEM electron consists of a torus-shaped energy-core of concentrated energen, and an outer torus of less concentrated energen that is called field-energy.

Could there be only one type of energy-generating material that is responsible for the formation of fundamental particles, electromagnetic fields, light and atoms? It would certainly mean that Physics would be more consistent and provide a bridge between Newtonian and particle Physics.

STEM is a new theory based upon the hypothesis that ‘there is only one type of energy-generating material’, and it calls that material energen. All fundamental particles, which build into and interact with matter, and their associated field-energy, is considered to consist of the same type of energy, but in different concentrations and configurations.

It would be hard to find a physical model for the structure of matter with a simpler premise; but the implications of the STEM are quite extensive.

Attached is a brief pdf overview of the STEM approach: it provides links to more detailed coverage related to electrons and electricity. atomic structure and light.

As you can guess, I am a supporter of the STEM approach.

[Bored chemist]

Interesting idea.
What experiments could you do which would show that it is wrong?

(Science is about showing that things are wrong, rather than that they are correct).

[alancalverd]

Simply measure the charge of an alpha or beta particle and the remnant atom. But that's going back over 120 years and the laws of physics must have changed since then, surely? Well, I haven't done either for the last 50 years but Rutherford and Chadwick stood the test of the first 70, IIRC.

[Stemmer (OP)]

Interesting idea.
What experiments could you do which would show that it is wrong?

(Science is about showing that things are wrong, rather than that they are correct).

The main weak point would probably be the structure of up/down quarks in terms of 6 CESs(or preons). Even if this structure was found wanting, it does not preclude the formation of the nucleon layers as described.

I am also uneasy about the FER structure of light, although it does provide reasonable explanations for the wave/particle duality of light and for PPL, CPL and OVL.

But I do not know what experiments could possibly disprove the concepts. I am sure others will.

[Origin]

STEM is an energy-centric model predicated upon the hypothesis that 'there is only one source of energy': and that source is energen.

If I heat up a material with IR radiation how does your idea apply to this situation.

The STEM electron consists of a torus-shaped energy-core of concentrated energen

What evidence leads you to believe an electron is torus shaped?

[Bored chemist]

But I do not know what experiments could possibly disprove the concepts.

Then it is not science.

[Stemmer (OP)]

Quote from: Stemmer on Today at 12:28:22

But I do not know what experiments could possibly disprove the concepts.
Then it is not science.

But then there are a lot of experiments that support it. This is the definition of true Science.

[Stemmer (OP)]

Quote from: Stemmer on Today at 08:22:09

If I heat up a material with IR radiation how does your idea apply to this situation.

The same as heating with any EMR.

Quote from: Stemmer on Today at 08:22:09

What evidence leads you to believe an electron is torus shaped?

Page 4 of 'The Duplicit Electron' paper (link provided it the provided pdf) states 'well-documented alternative model to QM-based point-form model is the Toroidal Solenoidal Electron (TSE), which defines the electron as a spinning electric charge that moves at high speeds in a solenoidal pattern around a torus-shaped pathway' and provides four such references.

I don't think that spherical or point-form models fit as well as the toroidal model.

[Stemmer (OP)]

A more detailed overview of the STEM approach can be found via the link in the attached pdf. I could not place the pdf directly in this post as it is 2893 Kb, which exceeds this site's upload limit.

This extended overview pdf maps to the three STEM position papers: it is more detailed than the first PowerPoint-based overview, but not as detailed as the position papers themselves.

I hope that the extended overview proves useful.

[Origin]

The same as heating with any EMR.

So the question remains how does your idea apply to this situation?

Page 4 of 'The Duplicit Electron' paper (link provided it the provided pdf) states 'well-documented alternative model to QM-based point-form model is the Toroidal Solenoidal Electron (TSE)

I googled "The Duplicit Electron" but I didn't find anything.

[Bored chemist]

This is the definition of true Science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[alancalverd]

wave/particle duality of light and for PPL, CPL. OVL

"Wave-particle duality" is misleading nonsense. Light is light, but we need two mathematical models to fully describe its behavior and properties.

Private Pilot Licence  Commerical Pilot Licence, I understand, but I don't recall a novel model of the structure of the atom as being part of the examination syllabus for either. Other Vehicle Licences, perhaps, along with the g and altitude limits for dilithium crystal warp drives.

[Stemmer (OP)]

[

I googled "The Duplicit Electron" but I didn't find anything.

A direct link to the paper is not possible at this site, but it has been provided in both the pdf'd that I have supplied so far. Below I have re-attached the 1-page pdf with a direct link to the Duplicit Electron.

So the question remains how does your idea apply to this situation?

For STEM energy absorption is not much different than the description provided by ONAM.  It is acquired by the nucleus and any associated orbital electrons. Field-energy balancing takes place between nucleons within the nucleon layers so there is no concentration building up on outward-facing atoms. The other energy-balancing process is the (re-)emission of EMR by the nucleus, and STEM refers to an energy capacitance that is related to the frequency of such emissions. As the acquired energy increases, the increased electromagnetic field strength of the atoms causes re-adjustment and disturbance of their bonds with other atoms, which causes atoms to vibrate and possibly become more chemically active.

Without writing a thesis, I think that just about covers it.

[Stemmer (OP)]

"Wave-particle duality" is misleading nonsense. Light is light, but we need two mathematical models to fully describe its behavior and properties.

Don't blame me - this is a favorite concept of Quantum Mechanics.

A lot depends upon how you define a ‘particle’. To STEM a fundamental particle is simply energen that is more concentrated than in its energy-field equivalent that presents as electromagnetic fields. Other so called particles, such as quarks, nucleons and atoms, are composed of fundamental particles and are thus composite particles.

Now all fundamental particles are amenable to the wave equations, and can thus be considered to be wave-like, but that does not necessarily mean that they are waves.  Composite particles have a net electromagnetic field that can be parametrised so that they satisfy the wave equations, and similarly that does not make them waves.

So you are right: you can use the maths of particle interaction or that of waves depending upon the situation.

[Stemmer (OP)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability [nofollow]

Lets do a swan song. Your reference to Science philosophy states 'the observation of a single black swan is technologically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim.'

For many years now I have been looking for that black swan so that I can pack up my caboodle, drop STEM and spend more time pursuing interests in the real world. But unfortunately, in spite of all the Physics experiments I have been able to check out in published research accessible by myself on the internet,  that black swan has failed to materialize. I would welcome a black swan, but I don't know where I can find one.

So, I tend to concentrate ion what STEM can explain, and that is a lot of weird and wonderful phenomena, and that involves looking for what it cannot expalin: that black swan. We have a couple of plucked swans and await to see what colour they end up.

[alancalverd]

Don't blame me - this is a favorite concept of Quantum Mechanics.

No, it's a common misconception among popsci writers and philosophers. Dangerous company.

[paul cotter]

Black swans are easily observed at Dublin zoo( and many other zoological establishments and environments, I am sure ).

[Stemmer (OP)]

Black swans are easily observed at Dublin zoo

The swan analogy was direct from your 'Falsifiability' reference. Here in Perth,  white swans a rarity on the Swan River, but plenty of black ones.

But I am sure tat you get the gist of my argument: despite expecting to find a fundamental flaw in the STEM approach, none has been identified to date.

[Bored chemist]

despite expecting to find a fundamental flaw in the STEM approach, none has been identified to date.

That may be because, as you said, it wouldn't be possible.

But I do not know what experiments could possibly disprove the concepts.

If you can't prove that it's true or false, it's meaningless.

[Stemmer (OP)]

despite expecting to find a fundamental flaw in the STEM approach, none has been identified to date.

That may be because, as you said, it wouldn't be possible.

But I do not know what experiments could possibly disprove the concepts.

If you can't prove that it's true or false, it's meaningless.

What is meaningless and totally non-sensical is your statement that 'you can't prove that it's true or false'.

A proof of the STEM hypothesis (what you call proving that it to be true) is in terms of its ability to provide feasible explanations for observed phenomena, and if you read the provided material you would realise just how broad based is the range of the areas addressed. Should the theory be unable to satisfactorily explain any major aspect within the Physics realm that it should be able to explain, then its validity can be questioned (what you call proving it to be false), and to date that has not happened.