An Artist\'s Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson

Kenneth Snelson

Essay Abstract

Niels Bohr's atom model of 1913 was abandoned by science over eighty years ago yet it is still introduced in all science classrooms and it remains famous the world over as the cartoon-symbol meaning "atom". In the dramatic causal/acausal debates of the 1920s, the Copenhagen people who argued to disallow any further "reality" atom models were declared the victors. Among the ideas left behind in the rush to get rid of physical models entirely was Louis de Broglie's adaptation of Bohr's model in which he replaced orbiting electrons with matter-waves. De Broglie's atom is remembered in classrooms but is given short shrift on the way to introducing wave mechanics that Erwin Schrödinger developed in 1926 after learning of de Broglie's matter wave theory. As an artist whose work and interest concerns fundamental structure, I became fascinated as far back as 1960, in developing a more complete picture of an atom for those still willing to speculate about a reality model, the kind physics gave up on so very long ago. This is what my paper is about: a qualitative reinterpretation of de Broglie's model of the hydrogen atom.

Author Bio

My name is Kenneth Snelson, born the year of the Fifth Solvay Conference. I am a working artist best known for building large outdoor sculptures of steel pipes and aircraft cable, many of them standing in museums and public places around the world. Each of my sculptures is a prestressed tension/compression network of steel pipes and aircraft cable, a principle known as tensegrity, one of my several inventions. I describe them as diagrams of physical forces in three-dimensional space. www.kennethsnelson.net.

Download Essay PDF File

[deleted]

Kenneth,

Your presentation of electron "energy loops" is one of the better explanations I have read about.

I remember being exposed to the planetary concept of an atom and electrons in my early education. I realized later that this was unrealistic. Physicists then used the energy level jumps, but then I realized they never identified how something as small as an atom could produce a wavelength that was humongous relative to the atom's size. The 21 cm wavelength from the neutral hydrogen atom is a case in point. There has to be an energy structure in place that can support the generation of the EM field that has that particular spatial dimension, and I had never found a satisfactory explanation.

The discussion related to Figure 10 is informative. Fig. 11 depicts shells within shells.

Kenneth Snelson

Dear Frank,

Thanks very much for your recollections of being taught early on about planetary electrons. It's the picture we all carry around to some degree I believe. After years of talking with people about their own inner image, most say they see planetary electrons. I rather think that no one is likely to change that very soon.

Best.

Ken

[deleted]

That was a very informative essay, and the illustrations are superb! That's awesome.

James Dwyer

Hi Kenneth,

Thanks you for addressing this neglected issue. I'm certainly not a physicist, but in my experience I've found that even highly successful mathematical representations of a system may not accurately represent all processes and elements involved in producing the system's observed characteristics. I think most physicists would consider me naive (or more directly, ignorant) but I do think that physical effects are produced by physical mechanisms, not mathematical abstractions. Certainly mathematics are required to very precisely analyze and describe physical effects, but many people will never comprehend those necessarily complex mathematics.

I would like to mention that I had difficulty understanding your caption to Fig. 6: "... as its transparent cone shows, the orbit extends outwardly relative to the nucleus, intuition tells me that it will to give rise to a stronger orbital magnetism than the 2s state."

I was confused, since all points within the illustrated electron's orbit are equidistant from the nucleus. Then I realized that you were referring to the electron's orbital axis - a smaller orbit does increase the distance between the electron's orbital axis and the nucleus.

The distance of the electron's orbital axis from the nucleus might indeed have some significance in determining its magnetic properties, but I can't assess.

While the uncertainty principle seems to make electrons' precise simultaneous location and velocity indeterminable, established theory constrains their locations to a set of specific distances from the nucleus; I don't know that there should be any problem proposing that they be further constrained to, not just a specific area of a 'shell', but a circular orbital path within that specific area.

However, that conception seems to conflict with the electron illustrated in Fig. 3, where the electron's charge is 'smeared' around it rotational plane. The later illustrations (especially Fig.s 7 & 8) seem to lose the idea that particles are not localized, as expressed in the orbital 'cloud' analogy.

I hope I've explained my reservations somewhat understandably - please feel free to ask questions, etc. Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions - you've undertaken a very challenging but I think important task.

Thanks and congratulations, Jim

James Dwyer

Kenneth,

BTW, I did find a Wikipedia entry, Atomic orbitals that presented a great deal of additional considerations I had certainly been unaware of. You might also find it a useful read...

Jim

Kenneth Snelson

Dear Jim,

Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. Yes, even the Figures 7 and 8 are meant to represent a blurred electrical charge. They aren't blurred in the illustrations largely because of I wanted to emphasize the numbers of de Broglie waves and they become less clear by blurring them. It's a question choices of graphic style. I've attempted in so many different ways over the years to represent these invisible things. Did you ever Google "images" for "atom"? It's hilarious how many different ways people try to picture atoms.

Best wishes,

Ken

Vladimir Tamari

Dear Kenneth

Your essay is a pleasure to read both for the clarity of the presentation and illustrations, and the originality and relevance of the ideas presented. I hope readers more qualified than I about atomic structure will give their feedback. I specially love the magnetic spin system shown in your Fig. 10. You have provided more details on your website www.kennethsnelson.net this wonderful invention (discovery!?) which may well describe in a physical way how nuclear particles and electrons actually behave at the smallest scales.

On your website you have also fascinating studies of weaving patterns which in a spherical configuration become topographical knots. Some years ago there was a Scientific American article showing how various quantum states are represented by the topology of knots. You were already there too in that area straddling art and science to the benefit of both!

In this magnetic conception tensegrity plays a role because of the () (-) repulsive- attractive forces. These forces are hard to 'see' in the gear-like top configuration you provided because the gears are always in contact, but may be easier to visualize if you think of the tops as free-floating rotating rods set normal to the rotation axis, moving in unison with their neighbors. Inspired by your work this is how I presented my universal building blocks in my Beautiful Universe Theory

Hats off and good luck in continuing your wonderful inventions and artistic creations.

Vladimir

Kenneth Snelson

Dear Vladimir,

What a wonderful and complimentary comment, and especially from a fellow-obsessive trying to figure out if there's a logical mechanism that we might one day understand out of all of this complexity.

I do think that the culture of quantum physics too willingly shifted in the direction of non-visual tools by the Copenhagen people who succeeded in forever filtering out of the system many bright minds who rely on their visual faculties as well as their left-brain skills. Einstein was such a mind. The enduring reverence for the uncertainty principle seems strange considering that no other realm of science recognizes such a restriction on the imagination.

I was watching a PBS documentary, "Naturally Obsessed" about a class at Columbia trying to discover the workings of a complex protein molecule. One of the students, who eventually got his doctoral for solving the problem, said at one point, "Its properties are never going to be properly understood until we can see what it looks like". When I heard that I thought, "Why was that idea, that goal, abandoned by quantum physics when other sciences HAVE to understand what the thing looks like and how it works". In my naivete I remain baffled.

So, bully for your Beautiful Universe Theory!

Warmest and best,

Ken

Vladimir Tamari

Dear Kenneth thank you so much for your kind words. It is great that you are getting so many visitors to this page who offer support and understanding of your atomic model. Your clear uncluttered model is the result of deep thought about structure and the forces that keep various components in tensegretistic balance (to coin an adjective from your noun !). This has served you well in the conviction that the atom is no different than any other structure.

Bravo for ignoring the negativity of the probabilistic Copenhagen interpretation towards physical reality. That took some strength of mind. On the other hand non-academic researchers like you and me have the advantage that we can go on a limb and present our ideas without worrying that it will cost us a University position, and the like.

The visual approach is more important than other kinds of math (geometry might be considered a visual discipline) because Nature has structure in 3D. This we believe.

Avanti!

Vladimir

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Kenneth,

Louis de Broglie is underappreciated - his contribution was essential to quantum mechanics. I guess that this lack of appreciation has to do with the rejection, by the scientific community, of his idea of double solution and of de Broglie-Bohm theory. In my opinion, the debates which took place at Solvay, and continued after that, had a very important role, and all criticism brought by Einstein, de Broglie and others to the Copenhagen interpretation led to the understanding we have today. It is a shame that they are so often regarded as opposing the new and the truth, and that their contribution is so underrated.

I am amazed by tensegrity and your sculptures, as well as your visual model of the atom - beautiful and inspiring.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

Cristinel Stoica

P.S. I feel that I should add this, to avoid any misunderstanding. I fully endorse the atom as it is pictured by quantum mechanics, based on the Schrodinger and Dirac equations. I can appreciate though an artist's modest proposal.

Kenneth Snelson

Hello Cristi,

Thanks for your kind messages. Yes, clearly, physicists need the mathematical tools of the standard model to solve problems.

I'm wondering though if my visual model, as you see it, is totally resistant to calculation? For example do you think it might be possible to calculate the orbital magnetism -- the azimuthal, l (small L), quantum-number value -- for the 3s, 3p, 3d de Broglie-wave "halo" orbits in my model; in order to compare them with Sommerfeld's elliptical orbits? Or does the question make any sense?

Thanks and best wishes,

Ken

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Kenneth,

You asked:

"I'm wondering though if my visual model, as you see it, is totally resistant to calculation? For example do you think it might be possible to calculate the orbital magnetism -- the azimuthal, l (small L), quantum-number value -- for the 3s, 3p, 3d de Broglie-wave "halo" orbits in my model; in order to compare them with Sommerfeld's elliptical orbits? Or does the question make any sense?"

In my opinion, the parameters of your model can be calculated and compared with Sommerfeld's elliptical orbits. I don't know if the direct calculations can give the known values, but I think it worth checking how far is possible to go in this comparison, and if there are some natural adjustments which can help. My intuition saids that your artistic depiction extracts some essentials features of the atom and makes them somehow more visible. It may be possible even to exist a mathematical correspondence between the standard atom model and yours. If this turns out to be true, your model can complement the standard atom model, and have some pedagogical advantages.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

Kenneth Snelson

Dear Cristi,

Thank you. I am very pleased you believe that calculations for my atom might be possible. In the many years I have tried to explain and describe it no one has suggested that actually doing such math is in the cards.

Something I have often thought of: A fellow student once told me that as a child she was disappointed when she found out for the first time that pasta was made in a factory with machines. She had always pictured a field of spaghetti plants with lots of different pasta blossoms. I have always figured that my atom model is my own kind of pasta bush. If it should turn out that there is a near resemblance to the standard model that would be quite a miracle. It would be truly great if you can discover any evidence of that.

Thanks and best,

Ken

Peter Bauch

Dear Kenneth

It's nice to see a fellow proponent of science-art. We both offer graphic interpretations of physics' hidden realities. It is my belief that the circle is the cornerstone of all creation, its form repeated ad infinitum in nature, and I think that if you use it in a reasonably intelligent way you stand a greater chance of hitting the mark in an attempt to describe a hidden reality. Higher-dimensional string theory that began with Kaluza-Klein introducing the fifth dimension only became possible when Oskar Klein in 1926 proposed that the fourth spatial dimension was curled up in none other than our friend the circle. Looking at your website, I found it fascinating how you were bitten by the physics bug when you began a study of the circular aspects of your tension structures by experimenting with plastic rings. I am of the notion that if you correctly depict a hidden reality it should be as visually appealing as a landscape painting and strike a chord of resonance within the viewer. Your Fig. 11 is a perfect example.

All the best,

Peter Bauch

Kenneth Snelson

Dear Peter,

I agree about nature's fundamental shape -- the circle -- in creating many kinds of structures. About fifty yeas ago I became fascinated with "circlespheres" -- for lack of a standard name -- and the plastic rings you mention. Circlespheres are cousins of to regular platonic and archimedean polyhedra but they also offer a number of peculiar variations. Anyway, that is how I discovered the magnet spherical mosaics and got involved with atoms.

Thanks so much for your kind comments,

Best wishes,

Ken

Peter Jackson

Kenneth,

Both good reading and valid electron conception. Congratulations. Unfortunately it seems my long post last night got lost in cyberspace. The basics;

Have you considered possible helical fields around a more 'substantive' version of your ribbon. This would form a toroid, which I've found as a fundamental structure from single particle through nuclear tokamaks, Earth's em field, through to AGN's and indeed probably the universe. You don't of course suggest what the ribbon may be 'made of'. Thoughts?

Secondly. I commend your comment;

"As with macro pieces of matter, de Broglie waves occupy exclusive space. Orbits cannot be in the same space at the same time."

And suggest it may have far deeper meaning than you discuss, which I outline in my essay, considering the implications of spatial exclusivity of matter an states of motion. I do hope you'll read and comment on (and score!) my essay.

Well done. And congratulations for such a flexible and perceptive mind, putting many physicists 50 years younger to shame.

Best wishes

Peter

Edwin Klingman

Dear Kenneth Snelson,

I very much enjoyed your essay and your artwork. Your summary of de Broglie is excellent. If you have not already read it [it's not in your references] I think you would enjoy reading "Quantum Theory at the Crossroads", a recent analysis of the 1927 Solvay Conference and re-evaluation of de Broglie, available at Amazon.

Like you, I am convinced that the "atom is an elegant submicroscopic mechanism" that can be visualized, much as you have done. The question of how this related to probability is treated in my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function. In fact we visualize the orbits [which have recent experimental support!] in much the same way. Based on my interpretation of the physical field that is the basis of the wave function and upon Joy Christian's framework that focuses on a 'volume element' instead of a 'vector' description, I derive a 'volume conservation' relation that, visually, preserves a cylindrical volume that gets narrower as the cylinder gets longer, fatter as it get shorter, corresponding to your figure 4 and to your figure 3. [see the diagrams on page 5 of my essay.] The volume represents the actual (helical) wave in space whose strength is proportional to the particle momentum and hence to the de Broglie wavelength. You seem to capture this in your figure 3.

Like you and several other authors here, I consider the de Broglie waves to be physically real -- a physical field that is induced by the mass in motion according to an equation of general relativity. I believe that your work with tension/compression networks [tensegrity] have provided you with an excellent intuitive understanding of the relevant atomic relations.

I invite you to read my essay and hopefully comment upon it and give it a [high] community score.

Thanks for your analysis and your artwork, and good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

Dear Kenneth,

Thank you for pointing out that physicists should be held accountable for refusing to think about small objects in real space and time! As you suggest, it was de Broglie who first conceived of the quantum wave and deserves credit for starting the field of QM. I see you give your quantum objects (or at least electrons) a quality such that they cannot share space with any other quantum object, rather like discreet solid objects, whether or not they have differing quantum numbers; this, of course is contrary to the accepted view. Whether or not you are right, I agree that the Pauli exclusion principle, so fundamental to the nature of matter, needs to be thought about more deeply. It surely must be hiding a lot of physics, but when being taught, it is presented without any reason or further comment.

I think you would be very interested in reading Alan Kadin's essay on the rise and fall of wave-particle duality: The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality. He also builds a real-space picture of electrons based essentially on de Broglie waves and suggested that electrons are not point particles, but are made of a distributed rotating vector field. According to Alan, this real field, which can be represented as a picture in 3 dimensions IS the quantum wave function. However, it is not so easy to draw a picture of a distributed rotating vector field. You might have the insight to be able to represent these fields in 3-D.

Best regards,

Robert

Hector Zenil

Dear Kenneth,

The representation and hypothesis you propose for the model de Broglie suggested seems quite interesting, since it covers some of the problems one could find when trying to model it. It was also very useful all the images you provided to show your ideas. I think this reminds us that different models, even if not mainstream or toy models, may have greater pedagogical advantages than others in order to work towards the understanding of more complex topics.