Large rings are electrons, small rings are protons.
- Subatomic particles are rings
- Charge encircles the stationary ring
- 4 fundamental (mass) particles
Philosophically we have strong reason to think causality is true. It seems as fundamental as the Law of Non-contradiction. It is difficult to know how one may understand the world at all if causality is false. Science itself would be unable to proceed if causality were untrue. The whole idea of experimentation relies on this. It would be a little ironic if an area of science subsequently denies causality—chopping off the branch you are sitting on and all that.
A second reason was parsimony. Earlier I mentioned that macroscopic laws were declared to be inapplicable at the microscopic level. This may be true, but to declare it by fiat because one's model requires it seems a little arbitrary. An alternative model that does not require exceptions, but otherwise explains the observations is more parsimonious and should be preferred.
Further, 2 new forces were invented to explain the stability of the atom. The strong and weak nuclear forces. The strong force is what holds the nucleus together, protons and neutrons in close proximity despite the coulomb force pushing protons apart. The weak nuclear force prevents the neutron from decaying into a proton and electron. This decay occurs in unstable isotopes and in free neutrons.
In the Bergman/ Lucas model the laws of classical physics hold at the atomic level, they are in fact the laws invoked in the model. As a consequence, neither a weak nor a strong nuclear force are required in the model. A model of the atom that does not require special pleading, nor the invention of further fundamental forces is more parsimonious. And conceptually a more beautiful model.
Two other related reasons for favouring a new model are the inadequacies of the current model and the explanatory power of the new model. Already mentioned is the artificial fiat that macroscopic behaviour is not obeyed at the microscopic level. An example of this is electrons orbiting the nucleus. Such charged particles should radiate energy thus loss energy themselves and spiral into the nucleus. To claim otherwise for electrons because they must remain in their shells and therefore cannot loss energy is arbitrary. A further example is the lack of explanation of certain phenomena. Spin is analogous the angular momentum in classical mechanics. To acknowledge the elementary particles have spin but not explain what it is or how it occurs is a deficiency.
So what of the explanatory power? The Bergman/ Lucas model apparently predicts the size of complete shells; the structure of the Periodic Table; and, impressively, various nuclide spins.