Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

the atom

Expand Messages
  • Mathew Morrell
    In retrospect, it is easy to understand why Steiner might have rejected Gilbert Lewis s model of the atom (1902). Perhaps that s because today we sit on a
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      In retrospect, it is easy to understand why Steiner might have
      rejected Gilbert Lewis's model of the atom (1902).

      Perhaps that's because today we sit on a mountain of experimental
      evidence centered specifically on atomic structure, validating
      Steiner's rejection of Lewis model. For those who don't know, this
      is the model which presents the atom as though it were a miniature
      solar system, with electrons orbiting the nucleus from within one-
      dimensional shells.

      Today, chemistry professors use the classical model merely for
      practical purposes: to show the connection between atomic structure
      and chemical behavior. Although Lewis's model still does an
      outstanding job in this respect, it falls short at other times such
      as when we attempt to make a mathematical connection between
      intensity (I) and wavelength.

      To teach the really fine subtleties of the atom, today's chemistry
      professors use multi-dimensional models far exceeding the classical
      model in strangeness and complexity. Professors don't deny the
      existence of the atom, but they do bless it with qualities that make
      the existence of the electron impossible within a three dimensional
      valence shell. The new electron is hyper dimensional, having
      orbitals within the x, y, z axis.

      But now we have a new problem. The new atom is incomprehensible for
      the Euclidean mind. The new atom exists no where and every where at
      once, in a kind of cloud, and not in the neat, flat, orderly shells
      of Lewis's model. My "Thinkwell" professor says that his brain still
      thinks within the classical model paradigm; but that as a scientist
      he has learned to repress his thinking. In essence, he has replaced
      thought with faith.

      Now does that mean that our new vision of the atom (based on quantum
      mechanics) correctly models how that atom is, in reality?

      Well, no. No model can realistically replicate a spiritual
      principle, especially not one that rich and intricate. What it can
      do, and has done, is help us produce mathematical equations that can
      be used for the purpose of manipulating atoms, harnessing their
      power, and determining their behavior. The friction between
      Spiritual Science and modern science only begins to occur when modern
      science fails to realize that is has never seen the atom itself, only
      it observable reactions.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.