Kulak L.A. (Antoniya Ilyinskaya), MD in engineering, PhD, founder of the linguistic physics and methodology of Fractal Synthesis, member of ISPU IAIT and IIHEP (International Institute for Humanitarian and Environmental Projects) as affiliation of ISPU IAIT (International Scientific Public Union “International Academy of Information Technologies”) https://iait.com.by/.
Email: antoniyau@yahoo.com


"Quantum physics urgently needs new images and ideas, which can only arise from a deep revision of the principles that underlie it."
Louis de Broglie, Nobel laureate.

 “The correct conclusion is that the underlying equations are wrong…”
Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate.


Over the past hundred years, the mathematical apparatus of algebra has been successfully and rapidly developed, to some extent bypassing the methodology of natural-philosophical thought and creating a certain imbalance in physics as a science of the nature of things. The observed imbalance is expressed primarily in the fact that the proposed theories, developed on the basis of the apparatus of algebra, lose their ontological content. They are slender and graceful in themselves, but often have no real application to reality and cannot offer a solution to a number of intractable problems of physics. Attempts to confirm the truth of these theories experimentally are also not successful. The created situationality has its roots and causes.
For more than a hundred years, elementary particle physics has been based on the Bohr-Rutherford planetary model of the atom, despite the fact that this model has and generates a number of contradictions in theoretical views and visualized representations. In the physics of elementary particles, an unjustified multiplication of entities has occurred and the number of elementary particles has grown to limits that contradict the principle of Occam's razor. The tendency of the developing crisis has its roots in the theoretical judgments that arose from a number of predecessors and in particular in the interpretations of the experiments carried out earlier. This article is devoted to the issues of the existing atomic model, the revision of the interpretation of the experiments of J. Thomson and E. Rutherford (Geiger-Marsden) and the proposal of the model structure of the atom and its quantum mechanics based on the geometry of Clifford's parallels.

Keywords: epistemological blunders, categories of "phenomenon" and "essence", paradoxes of physics, revision of interpretations of the experiments of J. Thomson and Geiger-Marsden, energy quantum, elementary particle, spin network, hydrodynamic model of the ether, quantum medium, Clifford's parallel geometry, M;bius dipole, gravitation, quantum entanglement, topological knot, polarization orientation in the radial direction, wave model of the atom, quantum "symbiosis", Usherenko effect, fuelless energy, creation of a gUnified Theory of Everything.


The process of cognition of reality by a person often has the following characteristic feature: “Even when a lot of facts are collected that contradict or change the picture of the world chosen by a person, he continues to stubbornly follow an obsolete model, not noticing that his efforts are in vain. Instead of turning around, going back, comprehending new data, changing the vector of movement, he begins to beat the epistemological wall in the hope of breaking through it. [16]
To justify these senseless actions, he comes up with various reasons, creates models that turn this epistemological wall into an insurmountable obstacle, giving rise to hope for a result from the efforts made, and not the meaningfulness of what is happening.
One of the paradoxes of the current state of theoretical physics is that quantum mechanics and elementary particle physics calculate, using the apparatus of algebra, virtual particles in the etherless, empty space of general relativity. For this reason, it is not possible to bring these two theories together. It should also be noted that in this case theoretical physics for its calculations uses Maxwell's equations, derived precisely on the basis of the presence of an ethereal medium.
In the current crisis state and the situation, it is reasonable to take TIME OUT, comprehend what is happening, realize the need to go back on a number of intractable issues and take a fresh look at the heritage of natural philosophy and the experiments and their interpretations carried out earlier in order to understand the current problems and try logically to resolve them on a new round of thinking in order to again more effectively move forward in the application of the mathematical apparatus to the description of the facts of reality.
"... Purely logically, one cannot obtain any knowledge of the real world – any knowledge of reality begins with experience and ends with it." A. Einstein.
This statement should be supplemented by the fact that, when observing phenomena in ongoing experiments, it is necessary to give a correct interpretation of the essence of the process that occurs, since “... errors can arise in the foundation of the theory due to an incorrect understanding of the essence of phenomena. These errors are possible even with the correct mathematical formalism of the theory.” V. Kuligin
In this article, we will talk about how the model representation of the atom was formed, what experiments preceded this, what phenomena were observed, what interpretations were given to these phenomena and what conclusions were drawn, as well as what conclusions could take place.
It was the philosophical categories of "phenomenon" and "essence" that caused numerous paradoxes and contradictions in physical theories in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was about them that Mach, Avenarius, Einstein and other physicists “stumbled”. Among such examples of physical paradoxes, one can cite the interpretation of the experiment of J. Thomson in his experiments on the study of cathode rays.


Let's go back to 1897, when Joseph J. Thomson of Trinity College, Cambridge, discovered a quantum of energy, which was called the "electron".
According to the experiment, J. Thomson observed a certain phenomenon of radiation. Consider this experiment in its existing interpretation:

To read full version