"Very pretty!" said Gandalf. "But I have no time to blow smoke-rings this morning. I am looking for someone to share in an adventure that I am arranging, and it's very difficult to find anyone."
~~The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien
My aim was to take a different look at the model for the atom. I came up with the "donutom". I modelled the donutom on, well, erm ... a donut, a ring donut to be precise. The shape of a ring donut is known as a vortex ring. The donutom is based very much on the vortex ring model proposed for the atom by Lord Kelvin. His inspiration came after observing some of the experiments in fluid dynamics, namely smoke rings, being carried out by Helmholtz. Lord Kelvin was greatly impressed, and in 1867, he wrote:
“After noticing Helmholtz's admirable discovery of the law of vortex motion in a perfect liquid -- that is, in a fluid perfectly destitute of viscosity (or fluid friction) -- the author said that this discovery inevitably suggests the idea that Helmholtz's rings are the only true atoms."
There's something not quite right with my model for the donutom, mind. I was working with the idea that the electrion is the same size as the proton but that it has a charge 1800 times greater. If you bring the two together, it's unlikely that the charge of the proton and the electrion will cancel one another out to form a neutral donutom; it might be seen that that the electrion now has a negative charge that is not 1800, but 1799 times greater than the proton! This being the case - what has happened to the neutrality so characteristic of atoms?
In the current textbook theory, the proton has a MASS that is 1800 times greater than that of the electron. This tiny electron then circles the big fat proton. In this model, the electron has a negative charge, and the proton a positive charge, and both charges having the same value, cancel one another-out. The combined atom now has a neutral charge. Is it possible then to return to the donutom theory where the electrion and the proton are the same size? I think it is possible and it has everything to do with DENSITY.
If the electrion and the proton are vortices in the fluid of the aether, where these vortices are found to be roughly the same size, and it is true that the proton has a mass which is 1800 times greater than the electrion, then it remains to say that the proton is 1800 times more DENSE than the electrion. Thus, the proton emerges as the high pressure system, and the electrion as the "empty" cyclonic vessel. This scenario certainly feels better.
The proton is one of the guises of hydrogen. It's nice that the symbol "H" is used to not only describe high pressure weather systems, but also hydrogen - making the two rather more synonymous. Hydrogen, at least in terms of density, is restored to its rightful place as the "element" closest to the aether field.
What does this mean for the alpha-particle, though? I think that the alpha-particle is a formation of two protons. This would now mean that it is a formation of two anticyclones. To describe the formation of the alpha-particle, I would use the Fujiwhara effect. The Fujiwhara effect or Fujiwara interaction is a type of interaction between two nearby cyclonic vortices, causing them to appear to “orbit” each other. When the cyclones approach each other, their centres will begin orbiting cyclonically about a point between the two systems.
The Fujiwhara effect normally describes two cyclonic vortices. I'm not sure I can apply the effect to a formation of two anticyclones. However, in trying to spot an example of such a formation in nature, I found a nice article where two anticyclone vortices were observed coexisting in the Black Sea, so perhaps there is every chance that anticyclones can act in pairs without mixing:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Advanced Very-High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) imagery (1993, 1998), along with attendant daily meteorological information from seaports and available hydrographic information from different years, was used to investigate the structure and evolution of mesoscale anticyclonic eddies in the northwestern Black Sea, and their role in shelf/deep basin water exchange. In the summer of 1993, two anticyclonic eddies with diameters of 90 and 55 km coexisted without coalescence for 1.5 months over a wide and relatively gentle part of the northwestern continental slope.
One of the most obvious reasons as to why I might have previously dismissed hydrogen as not being particularly dense, is that if you fill a balloon with the stuff, it floats off into space. You never hear stories of hydrogen gas being dropped on people's toes (unless of course it's in a cannister!) Nope, hydrogen, and for that matter helium, just want to go UP. Why on earth would they want to do that?