Controversy: Some physicists have claimed that Dr. Vlasak's electrical circuit model does not conform to either the original quantum theory of Max Planck or that of quantum mechanics (Neils Bohr has sometimes been given credit for quantum theory, although his contributions came some 15 years after those of Professor Planck). Dr. Vlasak however, provides supporting evidence to counter these claims. In a detailed study of Planck's writings he found a pleasant surprise: Planck had also used the electronic oscillator as his radiation model for the atom. In fact, he generally referred to atoms as "oscillators". Both the Planck model and Dr. Vlasak's model are compatible with each other and the methods of modern electronic analysis. But Dr. Vlasak took it one step further and applied Heaviside/Cauchy calculus in the analysis and was able to derive and plot a picture of the time function of an energy state! The results were presented in the tenth chapter of his fourth book: Planck's Columbia Lectures, which was published in 2005. Planck's original recorded and translated presentation at Columbia University is also included in this book. Some physicists are also unaware that mass has transverse properties, and that transverse mass is quite different from the commonly assumed longitudinal mass. Planck analyzed these properties in detail, and Dr. Vlasak was able to apply modern (classical) analysis to derive a time picture of a quantum change in energy. He plans to reveal even more important information regarding the dynamics of mass in the near future.

Dr. Vlasak's brief comments regarding his efforts: "The material in my books is all based on measurements made by other scientists, which has been thoroughly verified and accepted by the scientific community and my own extensive laboratory and field measurements. These models and scientific methods include Planck's Radiation Equation, electronic theory, the antenna electromagnetic wave equations, Coulomb's Law, Maxwell's equations, Ampere's Law, Lenz's Law, the Lorentz Force, the Bohr Atom, Parseval's formula, the Rydberg series of spectral lines and Einstein's equations. In order to find the truth, all possibilities must be considered and theory must conform to all measurements (as Planck had emphasized). This statement also applies to some of the methods of quantum mechanics, wherein the methodology is limited to a narrow range of possibilities. The manipulations and analysis of the Schrodinger equation, for instance, require certain limiting assumptions and may therefore be incorrect. The key to my analysis is the derivation of the exact position of the electron in the hydrogen atom, whereas in quantum mechanics it is defined only as being located somewhere on a spherical surface having a probable radius (religiously believed by many physicists). How is it possible to accomplish this task? Through the process of "characterization", of which most electrical engineers are quite familiar. Some analyses are commonly based on the solutions to second order differential equations, but this method is subject to the high sensitivity of coefficients, resulting in questionable accuracy and potential subsequent misinterpretation (Hilbert and Courant). Another problem occurs with the accepted method of separation of variables for solving the 3-dimensional equation of quantum mechanics (4-dimensional for space and time), which is based on an important assumption that limits the conditions for the variables (look for some future details on this elementary problem on this web site). Other possibilities exist, including the proposition that there is a term missing in some of Maxwell's equations that is necessary to account for the transverse properties of radiation. The Fitzgerald/Lorentz Contraction and Einstein's relativity equations also appear to have missing terms or incorrect coefficients that can account for the transverse properties."

With resepect to physics publications: "One has to question the general use of unnecessary and disconcerting buzz words that are appearing in ever increasing numbers to describe mathematical terms or equations. For instance, the word "quantum" is often excessively sprinkled throughout many current technical papers, and yet it is not well-defined in the literature. The problem of defining this word was resolved in my fourth book by deriving a picture of a quantum of energy in real time. The reason for placing emphasis on the exact definition of this fuzzy word is that it is fundamental to the understanding of basic science. Planck did not use this word in the 1900 presentation of his radiation theory. Such distractions result in confusion, and they serve no useful purpose, although certain publication editors seem to love it. Planck did not need to use it, and although his investigations were rigorous and detailed, he made his explanations as simple and clear as possible for all equations, rather than making them cloudy and ill-defined. Associating enumerable names with equations should be reserved mainly for the most important laws of physics."

Continued on next page