Here is a quick look at my other blogs before you start this one.
My main blog, where the most recent postings on all topics are to be found, is http://www.markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/
If you liked this blog on physics and astronomy, you will also like my blogs about cosmology, http://www.markmeekcosmology.blogspot.com/ and creation, http://www.markmeekcreation.blogspot.com/
http://www.markmeekearth.blogspot.com/ is my geology and global natural history blog for topics other than glaciers. http://www.markmeekworld.blogspot.com/ is my natural history blog concerning glaciers.
http://www.markmeekniagara.blogspot.com/ is about new discoveries concerning natural history in the general area of Niagara Falls.
http://www.markmeeklife.blogspot.com/ is my observations concerning meteorology and biology.
http://www.markmeekpatterns.blogspot.com/ details my work with the fundamental patterns and complexity that underlies everything in existence.
http://www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com/ is my blog about economics, history and, other human issues.
http://www.markmeekprogress.blogspot.com/ is about progress in technology and ideas.
http://www.markmeekreligion.blogspot.com/ is my religion blog.
http://www.mark-meek.blogspot.com/ is my autobiography
http://www.markmeektravel.blogspot.com/ is my travel photos of North America. http://www.markmeekphotos.blogspot.com/ is my travel photos of Europe.
My books can be seen at http://www.bn.com/ http://www.amazon.com/ or, http://www.iuniverse.com/ just do an author search for "Mark Meek"
Monday, May 26, 2014
PHYSICS
The first section of this blog is about physics. To enter the astronomy section, click on 2009 in the column at right.
The Science Structure
We sometimes see subjects such as chemistry, physics and, astronomy referred to as "branches" of science. This implies that, if we sought a way to connect all of the sciences together, we would end up with a structure somewhat like a tree with it's various branches. However, it seems to me that the structure is actually more like a ten-story building with each "branch" of science being one story, and being dependent for support on those stories beneath it.
1) The foundation of science is mathematics. Indeed, the majority of physicists involved with cosmology believe that everything is really just numbers being manifested. Mathematics are the fundamental patterns of everything that exists, and everything is a manifestation of these patterns. We can separate mathematics from science by defining mathematics as that which is completely understood, while science is that which is partially understood. This is because it is necessary to completely understand something in order to define it with numbers. We can see this in the calendar and the periodic table of the elements. We can thus conclude that statistics must be at the border region between science and math because, although it is considered as mathematics, we cannot describe exactly what will happen but can only give the odds of it happening due to incomplete knowledge.
2) The ground floor of the science structure is cosmology. This is the fundamental physics, forces and, particles of which matter is composed. The hydrogen atom, a simple arrangement of one electron in orbit around one proton, is also a part of the level. Everything above depends on this.
3) The next level is astronomy. This is the large scale structures across the universe that form by gravity from the atoms created in the level below.
4) The next level up is nuclear. This comes into play when enough mass comes together so that gravity overpowers the electron repulsion that keeps atoms apart and crunches smaller atoms, beginning with hydrogen, into the larger atoms of different elements. The reason that some elements are rare, while others are common, can be explained with a factor tree of numbers because heavier elements are simply lighter elements fused together. Elements are defined by the number of protons in the nucleus and those whose number has a lot of numerical factors tend to be more common than those that don't.
5) With different elements, we now have chemistry as the next level as atoms of those elements combine in various ways by either ionic bonding, when one atom loses an electron to another so that they bond by the resulting negative-positive attraction, or by covalent bonding when two or more atoms share an electron. Such chemical bonding does not take place in the interior of the stars where the atoms are produced, but outside after the atoms are thrown across space by a supernova.
6) When a supernova takes place, a star explodes and scatters it's component matter across space. This will include elements heavier than hydrogen, which will fall back together by gravity to produce a second-generation star as well as planets. This brings us to another, and more local, level of astronomy with a solar system. Our sun is such a second-generation star and virtually all of the matter in our solar system came from a star that exploded.
7) The next level incorporates all of the earth sciences. This is because our planet is relatively unique due to the nature of the matter that was brought together to form it. Earth sciences include geology, oceanography, meteorology and, climatology.
8) Now we come to basic biological science and the fundamental forms of life whose bodies contributed to the earth with the gradual formation of limestone, coal and, oil.
9) Then we arrive at the higher living things, including ourselves. this level of science includes anatomy, zoology and, medicine.
10) Now that we have reached the level of human beings, we are at the highest level of science with the "human sciences" of psychology, economics, sociology and, politics.
Can you see how reality is divided into ten very distinct levels, and each level depends for it's existence on the levels below?
1) The foundation of science is mathematics. Indeed, the majority of physicists involved with cosmology believe that everything is really just numbers being manifested. Mathematics are the fundamental patterns of everything that exists, and everything is a manifestation of these patterns. We can separate mathematics from science by defining mathematics as that which is completely understood, while science is that which is partially understood. This is because it is necessary to completely understand something in order to define it with numbers. We can see this in the calendar and the periodic table of the elements. We can thus conclude that statistics must be at the border region between science and math because, although it is considered as mathematics, we cannot describe exactly what will happen but can only give the odds of it happening due to incomplete knowledge.
2) The ground floor of the science structure is cosmology. This is the fundamental physics, forces and, particles of which matter is composed. The hydrogen atom, a simple arrangement of one electron in orbit around one proton, is also a part of the level. Everything above depends on this.
3) The next level is astronomy. This is the large scale structures across the universe that form by gravity from the atoms created in the level below.
4) The next level up is nuclear. This comes into play when enough mass comes together so that gravity overpowers the electron repulsion that keeps atoms apart and crunches smaller atoms, beginning with hydrogen, into the larger atoms of different elements. The reason that some elements are rare, while others are common, can be explained with a factor tree of numbers because heavier elements are simply lighter elements fused together. Elements are defined by the number of protons in the nucleus and those whose number has a lot of numerical factors tend to be more common than those that don't.
5) With different elements, we now have chemistry as the next level as atoms of those elements combine in various ways by either ionic bonding, when one atom loses an electron to another so that they bond by the resulting negative-positive attraction, or by covalent bonding when two or more atoms share an electron. Such chemical bonding does not take place in the interior of the stars where the atoms are produced, but outside after the atoms are thrown across space by a supernova.
6) When a supernova takes place, a star explodes and scatters it's component matter across space. This will include elements heavier than hydrogen, which will fall back together by gravity to produce a second-generation star as well as planets. This brings us to another, and more local, level of astronomy with a solar system. Our sun is such a second-generation star and virtually all of the matter in our solar system came from a star that exploded.
7) The next level incorporates all of the earth sciences. This is because our planet is relatively unique due to the nature of the matter that was brought together to form it. Earth sciences include geology, oceanography, meteorology and, climatology.
8) Now we come to basic biological science and the fundamental forms of life whose bodies contributed to the earth with the gradual formation of limestone, coal and, oil.
9) Then we arrive at the higher living things, including ourselves. this level of science includes anatomy, zoology and, medicine.
10) Now that we have reached the level of human beings, we are at the highest level of science with the "human sciences" of psychology, economics, sociology and, politics.
Can you see how reality is divided into ten very distinct levels, and each level depends for it's existence on the levels below?
Isotopes Made Really Simple
The elements of the periodic table are defined by the number of protons in the nucleus of the atom. If there is a different number of protons, then it must necessarily be a different element. There is no such thing as the same element, but with a different number of protons in the nucleus.
There are also neutrons within atomic nuclei, and it is possible to have atoms of the same element but with varying numbers of neutrons. These are known as isotopes, and I would like to explain the formation of isotopes in my own way.
One of the first elements that we usually think of when we hear of isotopes is uranium. This element has 92 protons in it's nucleus. Most uranium atoms, the vast majority, are of the isotope known as Uranium-238, this means that there is a total of 238 nucleons, protons plus neutrons, in the nucleus. There is another isotope of uranium with fewer neutrons, Uranium-235. This is significant because U-235 can undergo nuclear fission, while U-238 cannot. Enriching is the extremely painstaking process of separating out the few percent of U-235 atoms from the rest.
Another commonly noted isotope is that of carbon. Most carbon is Carbon-12, with six protons and six neutrons in the nucleus. But there is also Carbon-14, with two extra neutrons, which undergoes radioactive decay. Since the so-called half-life of Carbon-14 is very precisely known, when half of the C-14 will have decayed into another isotope, it is of great use in archeological dating since all living things and former living things, such as wood and textiles, contain carbon.
Hydrogen, the lightest element with only one proton, actually has three isotopes. There can be either no neutrons, one neutron forming the isotope known as deuterium, or two neutrons in the nucleus forming tritium. The heavier isotopes of hydrogen are useful in that they can be combined with oxygen to form "heavy water", this is water, H2O, in which the hydrogen atom have neutrons so that it is heavier. This makes it useful as a nuclear moderator. Ordinary water cannot be used as a moderator because it absorbs neutrons, but if the hydrogen atoms in the water molecule already have neutrons it will slow down the neutrons without absorbing them.
In the centers of stars, lighter atoms are crunched together into heavier elements. Stars shine because there is some leftover nuclear binding energy when this takes place that is released. The first atoms created by the Big Bang, which began the universe, were mostly hydrogen and far lesser amounts of helium, lithium and beryllium. The vast majority of the atoms in the universe are still hydrogen.
The number of neutrons in the nucleus of a given atom is the result of the "addition route" that it took to get where it is by smaller atoms being crunched together into larger atoms. My thought is that a nucleus put together from more smaller atoms, rather than a few larger atoms, will tend to have fewer neutrons even as it has the same number of protons as like atoms. But, on the other hand, it would seem to make sense that unions formed of fewer atoms would be more likely to occur even if it may be easier to crunch smaller atoms together than larger ones and smaller atoms are naturally much more abundant. Some atoms are first formed as heavier ones and then, through radioactive decay, turn into lighter atoms.
Basically, the route through the "factor tree" of small atoms being crunched together into larger ones that the atom of the given element takes to arrive at being that element determines which isotope of that element it will be,
Another question is where neutrons originate from. We know that a neutron left outside a nucleus will decay into a proton and an electron in a relatively short period of time. This implies that neutrons are actually protons and electrons crunched together so that they are neutral particles with no charge, with the electron changing one of the component quarks to another. The neutron requires the nucleus to hold it together even as it holds the nucleus together. The larger the atom, by far the greater the number of neutrons relative to protons.
There are also neutrons within atomic nuclei, and it is possible to have atoms of the same element but with varying numbers of neutrons. These are known as isotopes, and I would like to explain the formation of isotopes in my own way.
One of the first elements that we usually think of when we hear of isotopes is uranium. This element has 92 protons in it's nucleus. Most uranium atoms, the vast majority, are of the isotope known as Uranium-238, this means that there is a total of 238 nucleons, protons plus neutrons, in the nucleus. There is another isotope of uranium with fewer neutrons, Uranium-235. This is significant because U-235 can undergo nuclear fission, while U-238 cannot. Enriching is the extremely painstaking process of separating out the few percent of U-235 atoms from the rest.
Another commonly noted isotope is that of carbon. Most carbon is Carbon-12, with six protons and six neutrons in the nucleus. But there is also Carbon-14, with two extra neutrons, which undergoes radioactive decay. Since the so-called half-life of Carbon-14 is very precisely known, when half of the C-14 will have decayed into another isotope, it is of great use in archeological dating since all living things and former living things, such as wood and textiles, contain carbon.
Hydrogen, the lightest element with only one proton, actually has three isotopes. There can be either no neutrons, one neutron forming the isotope known as deuterium, or two neutrons in the nucleus forming tritium. The heavier isotopes of hydrogen are useful in that they can be combined with oxygen to form "heavy water", this is water, H2O, in which the hydrogen atom have neutrons so that it is heavier. This makes it useful as a nuclear moderator. Ordinary water cannot be used as a moderator because it absorbs neutrons, but if the hydrogen atoms in the water molecule already have neutrons it will slow down the neutrons without absorbing them.
In the centers of stars, lighter atoms are crunched together into heavier elements. Stars shine because there is some leftover nuclear binding energy when this takes place that is released. The first atoms created by the Big Bang, which began the universe, were mostly hydrogen and far lesser amounts of helium, lithium and beryllium. The vast majority of the atoms in the universe are still hydrogen.
The number of neutrons in the nucleus of a given atom is the result of the "addition route" that it took to get where it is by smaller atoms being crunched together into larger atoms. My thought is that a nucleus put together from more smaller atoms, rather than a few larger atoms, will tend to have fewer neutrons even as it has the same number of protons as like atoms. But, on the other hand, it would seem to make sense that unions formed of fewer atoms would be more likely to occur even if it may be easier to crunch smaller atoms together than larger ones and smaller atoms are naturally much more abundant. Some atoms are first formed as heavier ones and then, through radioactive decay, turn into lighter atoms.
Basically, the route through the "factor tree" of small atoms being crunched together into larger ones that the atom of the given element takes to arrive at being that element determines which isotope of that element it will be,
Another question is where neutrons originate from. We know that a neutron left outside a nucleus will decay into a proton and an electron in a relatively short period of time. This implies that neutrons are actually protons and electrons crunched together so that they are neutral particles with no charge, with the electron changing one of the component quarks to another. The neutron requires the nucleus to hold it together even as it holds the nucleus together. The larger the atom, by far the greater the number of neutrons relative to protons.
The Four Time Frames
I am always looking for ways to make the universe seem simpler.
Since time, or at least the passage of time as we perceive it, is motion of matter then it's passage must ultimately be determined by matter. If there was no motion, or at least apparent motion, then there would be no such thing as time. Time thus depends on distance, which makes it equivalent to space, as I pointed out in the cosmological theory. But we will only look here at the conventional space, time and, matter as we see it.
The first of the four time frames is the briefest, because it involves the least distance, and concerns the fundamentals of matter and antimatter. As explained in the cosmological theory, when matter and antimatter meet so that they mutually annihilate, the component charges of both are simply rearranging themselves back into empty space and releasing the energy which had held them together. Antimatter is matter with the basic electric charges reversed so that positively-charged positrons, instead of electrons, are in orbit around a negatively-charged nucleus.
The second time frame is nuclear, and involves the building or breaking apart of atomic nuclei. Smaller atoms are crunched together in stars to form heavier elements, some of which can be broken apart by high-speed neutrons or will decay radioactively back into lighter elements. The factor that brings distance, and thus time, into play here is that the nuclei are separated from one another by the mutual repulsion of the electrons in orbit around them.
The third time frame is chemical, and involves interactions of the electrons in orbit around atomic nuclei. The reason that this time frame is longer than the nuclear one is simply that it involves more distance. Electrons orbit the nucleus and to get chemical interactions between adjoining atoms, those electrons are required to line up. This takes distance, and thus time.
The fourth, and longest, time frame is the physical one. This involves the movement of objects over distances, and is the longest simply because it involves more distance. It is by the cumulative effect of gravity that this longest time frame can work in the others. Gravity brings matter together so that it can react chemically, it overcomes electron repulsion in stars to crunch nuclei together into the larger atoms of heavier elements and, according to my cosmological theory, it can even shift the fundamental electric charges in black holes.
Each time frame is supported by the one below it. The nuclear time frame is supported by the electric charges of matter or antimatter, with the nucleus being a concentration of these charges. The chemical time frame is supported by the nuclear in that it is the nucleus which holds the participating electrons in orbit. The physical time frame is supported by the chemical because the objects that move are held together by chemical bonds.
The energy that drives each of the time frames must ultimately come from the one below it. For a living thing to function in a given time frame, it must obtain it's power from one below it. We operate in the physical time frame, but our bodily processes are driven by the chemical time frame.
Our perception of time is rooted in the chemical time frame processes that drive our bodies. If we were nuclear-powered instead, time would move much faster. We can manage living in the universe as we do because we live in the physical time frame but are driven by the supporting chemical time frame.
This structure of time frames is somewhat related to what we saw in "The Science Structure" on this blog, with the branches of science described as a ten-story structure. Does the universe seem any simpler now?
Since time, or at least the passage of time as we perceive it, is motion of matter then it's passage must ultimately be determined by matter. If there was no motion, or at least apparent motion, then there would be no such thing as time. Time thus depends on distance, which makes it equivalent to space, as I pointed out in the cosmological theory. But we will only look here at the conventional space, time and, matter as we see it.
The first of the four time frames is the briefest, because it involves the least distance, and concerns the fundamentals of matter and antimatter. As explained in the cosmological theory, when matter and antimatter meet so that they mutually annihilate, the component charges of both are simply rearranging themselves back into empty space and releasing the energy which had held them together. Antimatter is matter with the basic electric charges reversed so that positively-charged positrons, instead of electrons, are in orbit around a negatively-charged nucleus.
The second time frame is nuclear, and involves the building or breaking apart of atomic nuclei. Smaller atoms are crunched together in stars to form heavier elements, some of which can be broken apart by high-speed neutrons or will decay radioactively back into lighter elements. The factor that brings distance, and thus time, into play here is that the nuclei are separated from one another by the mutual repulsion of the electrons in orbit around them.
The third time frame is chemical, and involves interactions of the electrons in orbit around atomic nuclei. The reason that this time frame is longer than the nuclear one is simply that it involves more distance. Electrons orbit the nucleus and to get chemical interactions between adjoining atoms, those electrons are required to line up. This takes distance, and thus time.
The fourth, and longest, time frame is the physical one. This involves the movement of objects over distances, and is the longest simply because it involves more distance. It is by the cumulative effect of gravity that this longest time frame can work in the others. Gravity brings matter together so that it can react chemically, it overcomes electron repulsion in stars to crunch nuclei together into the larger atoms of heavier elements and, according to my cosmological theory, it can even shift the fundamental electric charges in black holes.
Each time frame is supported by the one below it. The nuclear time frame is supported by the electric charges of matter or antimatter, with the nucleus being a concentration of these charges. The chemical time frame is supported by the nuclear in that it is the nucleus which holds the participating electrons in orbit. The physical time frame is supported by the chemical because the objects that move are held together by chemical bonds.
The energy that drives each of the time frames must ultimately come from the one below it. For a living thing to function in a given time frame, it must obtain it's power from one below it. We operate in the physical time frame, but our bodily processes are driven by the chemical time frame.
Our perception of time is rooted in the chemical time frame processes that drive our bodies. If we were nuclear-powered instead, time would move much faster. We can manage living in the universe as we do because we live in the physical time frame but are driven by the supporting chemical time frame.
This structure of time frames is somewhat related to what we saw in "The Science Structure" on this blog, with the branches of science described as a ten-story structure. Does the universe seem any simpler now?
Laws Of Proportion In Physics
I have noticed a law of physics that I have never seen pointed out before. It is actually about how existing laws of physics relate to each other.
There are a number of laws of physics in which some quantity increases as a function of another quantity. Here are a few examples of increases in direct proportion: The gravity of some body in space, such as an asteroid or planet, increases in direct proportion to it's mass (Although this is only practically true if the size of the body of matter remains constant, since an increase in size along with mass would mean that an object on the surface of the body would be further from the center). Distance covered increases in direct proportion to velocity. The kinetic energy (or energy of position) of an object increases in direct proportion to the gravity of the planet that it is on, and also in direct proportion to it's altitude from the surface.
These proportion laws also apply to economics. Supply tends to increase in direct proportion to prices. When there is more demand for goods, and people are willing to pay higher prices, there is more incentive for manufacturers to produce it.
There are other laws that are similar in concept, but where one quantity increases in inverse proportion as a function of another quantity. Here are a few examples: Gravity increases in inverse proportion to distance (The closer to a planet or star one gets, the stronger it's gravitational becomes). Density increases in inverse proportion to volume (Matter becomes more dense when it is compressed into a lesser volume). Travel time increases in inverse proportion to velocity.
My observation is that in any given system or set of rules, opposite rules of proportion must balance out for any finite system, including the entire universe. For every law that something increases in direct proportion, if the universe is finite then there must something that increases in inverse proportion. Something cannot go on increasing, unless something equivalent is decreasing. So, the two sets of laws are opposite but must be equal.
In fact, this can be considered as an extension of Newton's principle that every action brings about an equal but opposite reaction, a simple example is a rocket being driven forward by it's thrust in the opposite direction. Every law of physics that has something increasing in direct proportion to something must be balanced by a law that has something increasing in inverse proportion to something. This principle also has an electrical application in Kirchhoff's law that if there is an electric current in an inductor (such as a coil of wire) that induces a current in another inductor, the secondary current will flow in a direction that opposes that of the original current.
I cannot see how it can be otherwise. The laws of physics that involve changes in proportion, either in some closed system or in the universe as a whole, must balance between those that increase in direct proportion and those that increase in inverse proportion. To be otherwise, the system would have to be infinite. There is just no way for anything to keep increasing unless it is balanced by something equivalent decreasing. This is how the laws of physics must relate to each other to form a coherent whole, there must be balance between equivalents.
This must be true not only in the laws of physics, but in any set of rules of operation of a finite system such as economics, and either in a specific system or the laws as a whole.
There are a number of laws of physics in which some quantity increases as a function of another quantity. Here are a few examples of increases in direct proportion: The gravity of some body in space, such as an asteroid or planet, increases in direct proportion to it's mass (Although this is only practically true if the size of the body of matter remains constant, since an increase in size along with mass would mean that an object on the surface of the body would be further from the center). Distance covered increases in direct proportion to velocity. The kinetic energy (or energy of position) of an object increases in direct proportion to the gravity of the planet that it is on, and also in direct proportion to it's altitude from the surface.
These proportion laws also apply to economics. Supply tends to increase in direct proportion to prices. When there is more demand for goods, and people are willing to pay higher prices, there is more incentive for manufacturers to produce it.
There are other laws that are similar in concept, but where one quantity increases in inverse proportion as a function of another quantity. Here are a few examples: Gravity increases in inverse proportion to distance (The closer to a planet or star one gets, the stronger it's gravitational becomes). Density increases in inverse proportion to volume (Matter becomes more dense when it is compressed into a lesser volume). Travel time increases in inverse proportion to velocity.
My observation is that in any given system or set of rules, opposite rules of proportion must balance out for any finite system, including the entire universe. For every law that something increases in direct proportion, if the universe is finite then there must something that increases in inverse proportion. Something cannot go on increasing, unless something equivalent is decreasing. So, the two sets of laws are opposite but must be equal.
In fact, this can be considered as an extension of Newton's principle that every action brings about an equal but opposite reaction, a simple example is a rocket being driven forward by it's thrust in the opposite direction. Every law of physics that has something increasing in direct proportion to something must be balanced by a law that has something increasing in inverse proportion to something. This principle also has an electrical application in Kirchhoff's law that if there is an electric current in an inductor (such as a coil of wire) that induces a current in another inductor, the secondary current will flow in a direction that opposes that of the original current.
I cannot see how it can be otherwise. The laws of physics that involve changes in proportion, either in some closed system or in the universe as a whole, must balance between those that increase in direct proportion and those that increase in inverse proportion. To be otherwise, the system would have to be infinite. There is just no way for anything to keep increasing unless it is balanced by something equivalent decreasing. This is how the laws of physics must relate to each other to form a coherent whole, there must be balance between equivalents.
This must be true not only in the laws of physics, but in any set of rules of operation of a finite system such as economics, and either in a specific system or the laws as a whole.
Dimensions And Machine Design
How can we know for sure that there are three dimensions of space that we inhabit, but only one of time? Time is essentially motion, having no real meaning other than motion, and this motion during the course of time takes place within the three spatial dimensions. We say that time is only one-dimensional because we have no freedom of movement in it, as we do in space.
Let's consider the diagrams detailing the construction and operation of machines with moving parts. I have noticed a simple fact, but have never seen it pointed out. Suppose a mechanical diagram is made of a machine which has moving parts, with the moving parts in a stationary condition. Then a separate diagram is made of the motion of the moving parts. If both diagrams are of the same scale and detail, the stationary diagram must contain at least three times as much information as the diagram of the motion of the moving parts.
There is no way to describe the parts and their structure in one diagram, and then their motion in a second diagram, without the stationary diagram containing at least three times as much information as the second. This dimensional order is how we experience the universe and we put our imprint on anything that we design. The most basic motion is a three-dimensional object moving in a one-dimensional straight line, and this 3:1 ratio will be reflected in any machine no matter how complex.
A simple, featureless wheel may appear to exhibit a motion that is equal in complexity to it's design, but to do so it must have a mounting and a driving mechanism. In devices like windmills, and the motion of an artillery shell, the earth with it's wind and gravity becomes essentially part of the design.
The same principle applies to electronic devices. In a simple radio transmitter, the movement is that of electrons in the antenna which produces the electromagnetic wave.
It is true that complexity is never lost or destroyed, and the complex motion of the moving parts in space will reflect the complexity of the machine. But this does not mean that the two complexities are equal because the motion in three-dimensional space of the moving parts is determined by the position and alignment of the machine.
This 3:1 ratio of information in design of the moving parts relative to the information in their movement has nothing to do with the efficiency of machines. Efficiency is simply the percentage of energy used by the machine that is turned into useful power.
The information ratio, as we could call it, of most machines with moving parts is far higher than the absolute minimum of 3:1. Structural and foundational elements are not included in the actual drive mechanism. The ratio would tend to be even higher for machines which themselves move, such as vehicles, aircraft and, boats. A significant portion of the structure of these would include parts for the support of passengers and cargo, as well as decorative elements. But the minimum 3:1 design information ratio remains a reflection of the universe as we inhabit it.
Let's consider the diagrams detailing the construction and operation of machines with moving parts. I have noticed a simple fact, but have never seen it pointed out. Suppose a mechanical diagram is made of a machine which has moving parts, with the moving parts in a stationary condition. Then a separate diagram is made of the motion of the moving parts. If both diagrams are of the same scale and detail, the stationary diagram must contain at least three times as much information as the diagram of the motion of the moving parts.
There is no way to describe the parts and their structure in one diagram, and then their motion in a second diagram, without the stationary diagram containing at least three times as much information as the second. This dimensional order is how we experience the universe and we put our imprint on anything that we design. The most basic motion is a three-dimensional object moving in a one-dimensional straight line, and this 3:1 ratio will be reflected in any machine no matter how complex.
A simple, featureless wheel may appear to exhibit a motion that is equal in complexity to it's design, but to do so it must have a mounting and a driving mechanism. In devices like windmills, and the motion of an artillery shell, the earth with it's wind and gravity becomes essentially part of the design.
The same principle applies to electronic devices. In a simple radio transmitter, the movement is that of electrons in the antenna which produces the electromagnetic wave.
It is true that complexity is never lost or destroyed, and the complex motion of the moving parts in space will reflect the complexity of the machine. But this does not mean that the two complexities are equal because the motion in three-dimensional space of the moving parts is determined by the position and alignment of the machine.
This 3:1 ratio of information in design of the moving parts relative to the information in their movement has nothing to do with the efficiency of machines. Efficiency is simply the percentage of energy used by the machine that is turned into useful power.
The information ratio, as we could call it, of most machines with moving parts is far higher than the absolute minimum of 3:1. Structural and foundational elements are not included in the actual drive mechanism. The ratio would tend to be even higher for machines which themselves move, such as vehicles, aircraft and, boats. A significant portion of the structure of these would include parts for the support of passengers and cargo, as well as decorative elements. But the minimum 3:1 design information ratio remains a reflection of the universe as we inhabit it.
Electric Charges And Negative Numbers
Let me show you a simple but vivid example of how the large-scale structure of things must be a reflection of the component "building blocks" of which it is made. Some of the most obvious examples, we have seen already. Planets orbit the sun just as the electrons in their component atoms orbit the nucleus of the atom. There is only a certain amount of information available on how to construct the large-scale structures, such as the Solar System, and this information must be contained in the building blocks of the structures so that the larger scale cannot be completely different from the nature of it's building blocks.
Another example is the building of a house out of bricks. The easiest form in which to construct a brick house is in the same as that of the bricks. There are brick houses nearby that are almost exactly the same shape as the bricks from which they are built.
Our number system actually runs in two directions, the negative as well as the positive. If we subtract 10 from 5, for example, we get -5. I find that this must ultimately be the result of the two electric charges of which the universe is composed, positive and negative. Let me explain why.
Negative numbers in our number system are used much less frequently than ordinary positive numbers. But there are two examples of where negative numbers come into play.
Electromagnetic waves which travel in space include radio waves, infrared (heat), light, ultraviolet, X-rays and, gamma rays. A wave is known as a sine wave and can be rendered on an oscilloscope as starting from a horizontal plane representing zero, reaching a maximum amplitude, decreasing back to zero at the horizontal plane, continuing to a negative maximum amplitude, and finally back to zero to begin the wave over again. The positive and negative sides of the wave are identical mirror images of one another. Aside from electromagnetic waves, this same pattern also applies to an alternating current.
The height of the wave, representing it's strength, is known as the amplitude. The length from the beginning of one wave to the next and the frequency, a function of the wavelength, is the number of waves that pass by per second.
Electromagnetic waves and electric current are, of course, related to the fundamental electric charges of positive and negative that compose the entire universe. The amplitude of the wave, including it's negative mirror image, are expressed in negative and positive numbers. The amplitude of a wave might be expressed as ranging from +6 to -6 along the cycle of the wave. The necessity of negative as well as positive numbers can thus be seen as the result of the basic building blocks of the universe being negative and positive charges.
There are other negative numbers that we are only too familiar with, that of debt and budget deficits. It may seem to be a mystery as to how this is rooted in the fundamental electric charges of the universe. But consider that financial expenditures are rooted in scarcity.
Economics only applies to what is referred to as "scarce" goods. This means simply that there may not always be enough of these scarce goods to fulfill all demand for them. Oxygen is the most vital necessity of life, yet economics does not apply to it because there is enough of it. Oxygen is thus not a scarce good. Water is the next vital necessity of life but is usually treated as a semi-scarce good, only charged for in significant quantities. Sunlight is another necessity, but is not considered as a scarce good.
But scarcity is related to complexity. There is an abundance of matter, although only a limited amount has just the right nature and configuration to supply human necessities. This is related to our complexity and to the nature of the fundamental electric charges. If there were only one electric charge then matter would hold less information and so would have to have less complexity. This would make it likely that there would be less requirement of complexity in human necessity meaning, in turn, that would be less need for expenditures and the resulting economics, and thus less of the negative numbers of debt and budget deficit.
Remember that the larger scale of things must always reflect the nature of it's building blocks.
Another example is the building of a house out of bricks. The easiest form in which to construct a brick house is in the same as that of the bricks. There are brick houses nearby that are almost exactly the same shape as the bricks from which they are built.
Our number system actually runs in two directions, the negative as well as the positive. If we subtract 10 from 5, for example, we get -5. I find that this must ultimately be the result of the two electric charges of which the universe is composed, positive and negative. Let me explain why.
Negative numbers in our number system are used much less frequently than ordinary positive numbers. But there are two examples of where negative numbers come into play.
Electromagnetic waves which travel in space include radio waves, infrared (heat), light, ultraviolet, X-rays and, gamma rays. A wave is known as a sine wave and can be rendered on an oscilloscope as starting from a horizontal plane representing zero, reaching a maximum amplitude, decreasing back to zero at the horizontal plane, continuing to a negative maximum amplitude, and finally back to zero to begin the wave over again. The positive and negative sides of the wave are identical mirror images of one another. Aside from electromagnetic waves, this same pattern also applies to an alternating current.
The height of the wave, representing it's strength, is known as the amplitude. The length from the beginning of one wave to the next and the frequency, a function of the wavelength, is the number of waves that pass by per second.
Electromagnetic waves and electric current are, of course, related to the fundamental electric charges of positive and negative that compose the entire universe. The amplitude of the wave, including it's negative mirror image, are expressed in negative and positive numbers. The amplitude of a wave might be expressed as ranging from +6 to -6 along the cycle of the wave. The necessity of negative as well as positive numbers can thus be seen as the result of the basic building blocks of the universe being negative and positive charges.
There are other negative numbers that we are only too familiar with, that of debt and budget deficits. It may seem to be a mystery as to how this is rooted in the fundamental electric charges of the universe. But consider that financial expenditures are rooted in scarcity.
Economics only applies to what is referred to as "scarce" goods. This means simply that there may not always be enough of these scarce goods to fulfill all demand for them. Oxygen is the most vital necessity of life, yet economics does not apply to it because there is enough of it. Oxygen is thus not a scarce good. Water is the next vital necessity of life but is usually treated as a semi-scarce good, only charged for in significant quantities. Sunlight is another necessity, but is not considered as a scarce good.
But scarcity is related to complexity. There is an abundance of matter, although only a limited amount has just the right nature and configuration to supply human necessities. This is related to our complexity and to the nature of the fundamental electric charges. If there were only one electric charge then matter would hold less information and so would have to have less complexity. This would make it likely that there would be less requirement of complexity in human necessity meaning, in turn, that would be less need for expenditures and the resulting economics, and thus less of the negative numbers of debt and budget deficit.
Remember that the larger scale of things must always reflect the nature of it's building blocks.
Energy And Nuclear Fusion
There is one thing about science that I have long had questions about. It is the energy that is involved in the process of nuclear fusion.
Nuclear fusion is the process which powers the sun, and other stars. A star forms when enough matter coalesces in space to crunch smaller atoms together into larger atoms by the sheer force of gravity in the center of the mass. This does not take place in planets because there is simply not enough mass. This process, while combining lighter atoms such as hydrogen into heavier ones, releases a tremendous amount of energy so that the sun or star shines.
But not only does fusion release the energy that we see as sunlight and star light, it also forces the nuclei of the smaller atoms together so that the nuclear force can take over and hold the new and heavier nucleus together by binding energy. The nuclear force, which operates only over very short range, actually converts some of the mass of the nucleus into energy so that there is more total binding energy in the larger atom that results from smaller atoms being crunched together than there was in the smaller atoms which were crunched together. This addition to the energy in the nucleus by fusion is depicted in what is known as the Binding Energy Curve.
Binding energy is necessary for atomic nuclei to exist. The nucleus of an atom consists of protons and neutrons. The protons have a positive electric charge while the neutrons are neutral, hence their name. Under the rules of electric charges that like charges repel, while opposite charges attract, the protons in the nucleus should fly apart by mutual repulsion.
The reason that this does not happen is that the binding energy overcomes this mutual electrical repulsion to hold the nucleus together. Binding energy actually comes about by the so-called nuclear force, which can operate only over very short distances, converting some of the mass of the nucleus into the energy which holds it together. But, for this to happen, it takes energy to force the lighter nuclei together so that the nuclear force can take hold.
The Binding Energy Curve is a graph of how the binding energy per nucleon in the atomic nucleus increases as we go to heavier elements, at least up to the element iron which has a total of 56 protons and neutrons in it's nucleus. A nucleon is a member particle of the nucleus, either a proton or neutron. There is a section about the binding energy curve in the article on www.wikipedia.org , "Nuclear Binding Energy".
But where does all of the energy to force the lighter nuclei together come from during the fusion process? We can see how the binding energy in the nucleus, per nucleon, increases as small atoms are crunched into successively heavier atoms. This must be because the kinetic energy in the gravitational mass of the star, which is what crunches the atoms together, is effectively transformed into binding energy by forcing the two lighter nuclei together so that the nuclear force can take over and convert some of the mass of the nucleus into binding energy.
But if the kinetic energy which crunches the atoms together is effectively transformed into the increasing binding energy per nucleon, as illustrated in the binding energy curve, where does the vast amount of energy that is released by the nuclear fusion process come from? Clearly, a tremendous amount of energy gets released or the sun would not be shining or we could not see star light being radiated by stars hundreds of light years away.
Supposedly, this released energy is the leftover binding energy. My question is how there could be all of this leftover energy if the binding energy per nucleon actually increases as we move to heavier atoms. If the energy per nucleon decreased as we moved to heavier atoms, it would be different. We could say that this missing energy in heavier atoms is what was released as sunlight. But that is not the case, the binding energy per nucleon actually increases as we move to heavier atoms so there must be some other explanation of where the energy that is released comes from. Remember the rule of physics that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form.
At the present time, the sun is in the process of crunching four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom. This process is known as the Proton-Proton Process and is common in stars which are not too large. The sunlight that we see, and other radiation from the sun, is the result of this process.
The binding energy per nucleon does decrease for elements heavier than iron, as can be seen in the binding energy curve. However, these elements are different from those up to iron because they are not formed by the ordinary fusion process. Elements heavier than iron are formed by the fusion of smaller atoms together only during the brief period when a large star is actually exploding as a supernova.
This is because formation of these heavier elements requires an input of energy, and this required energy is available from the explosion of the star. The reason for this is that the nuclear force, which is one of the basic forces of the universe and is the vehicle for nuclear binding energy, acts only over extremely short distances and these nuclei of the heaviest atoms are larger than this distance. This scenario explains why the atoms up to iron are exponentailly more common than those heavier than iron.
The article about nuclear fusion on Wikipedia explains that the binding energy curve is due to simple geometry. Large atoms have a lower surface area per volume so that each nucleon has more "neighbors" to help to bind it in. But this effect begins to diminish when the size of the nucleus starts to grow beyond the very short range of the nuclear force.
But the nuclear force itself contains no energy, it is only a vehicle for the binding energy which holds the nucleus together against the mutually repulsive force of the like-charged protons. This is similar to if we were to throw a ball into the air and it came back down with force. Gravity is one of the basic forces just as the nuclear force is. But there is no energy at all in gravity, we are only getting back the energy that we put into the ball in the first place.
The nuclear force is like a spring, which can hold energy. Binding energy is like the energy in the spring when it is compressed. Just as the spring acts as a vehicle for the energy which compresses it, but has no energy itself until energy compresses it, the nuclear force acts as a vehicle for energy from outside to be effectively transformed into the binding energy which holds a nucleus together against the mutually repulsive force of positively-charged protons.
( Note-Illustrations tend to depict both protons and neutrons as spherical in form. But my view of binding energy is that, since the neutron is made up of a mix of electric charges that balance out to zero, binding energy twists those charges within the neutron so that the negative portion of the neutron is more to the outside of it. The result is that the neutron acts as a "glue" to bind the positively-charged protons from mutually repelling, and holds the nucleus together).
So, if the kinetic energy of the gravitational mass of the star, which is what crunches the smaller atoms together into larger atoms, is then effectively transformed into the increased binding energy per nucleon as we move to heavier atoms, where does all of the energy that is released as solar radiation come from?
Another question concerns fission and fusion. The two both release energy, even though they are opposite processes. Fission is the splitting of heavy nuclei by the impact of a high-speed neutron, so that a large nucleus is split into two smaller ones and excess energy is released. The only two atoms which will undergo fission are plutonium, a man-made element which does not occur in nature, and the 235 nucleon isotope of uranium because it's nucleus, with fewer neutrons, is held together more weakly then the much more common 238 nucleon isotope of uranium.
But how can these opposite processes both release energy? It does not seem to make sense that energy is always released whether we have atoms combining together, or whether we have atoms splitting apart. If one releases energy, then shouldn't the other absorb energy?
Actually, fission of the heavier plutonium and uranium isotope 235 is releasing the energy that had to be absorbed to form it when the star which preceded the sun exploded as a supernova. So how then can even more energy be released by the fusion of light elements when no additional input of energy from a supernova is required to form them. Fusion actually releases far more energy than equivalent fission. Just where does this extra energy come from?
By the way, you may be wondering how fission can release energy either if the binding energy per nucleon gets less as we move to heavier elements in elements heavier than iron. The two lighter nuclei into which the nucleus of plutonium or uranium isotope 235 is split should together actually have more binding energy than the original nucleus, so that there would be no leftover energy to be released. But what actually happens is that the total number of nucleons is less in the two resulting lighter atoms. Several high-speed neutrons are released by the split nucleus during fission, an average of about 2.5 neutrons, and it is the kinetic energy of these neutrons, which in turn split other nuclei in a chain reaction, which mostly give us the energy released by fission.
The conclusion that I have come to is that there are two separate energy "avenues" when it comes to nuclear fusion. These are the internal and the external. The internal avenue is the one that we are familiar with already, the increased binding energy per nucleon as we move to heavier elements. This energy originally comes from the kinetic energy of successive crunches of smaller atoms into larger ones so that binding energy per nucleon increases as we move to heavier atoms.
I find that there is only one possible source of energy for the external avenue, the energy that we see released by the fusion process as sunlight and star light. The heavier the elements get, the more neutrons there tends to be relative to protons in the nucleus. This is why the increase in the weight of matter is not proportional as we move from lighter to heavier atoms.
Heavier elements are heavier out of proportion to atomic number relative to lighter elements. The most common isotope of uranium, for example, has 1.58 times as many neutrons as protons. The presence of neutrons is vital as a vehicle for binding energy to hold the nucleus together against the mutual repulsion of like-charged protons.
The reason that this preponderance of neutrons can occur is that neutrons can be formed, during the crunching process, by crunching an electron into a proton to give it the neutral charge of the neutron. There is an article titled "Electron Capture" on Wikipedia. This is sometimes referred to as K-capture because it is most likely that the electron will be captured from the K-shell of electron orbitals, which is nearest to the nucleus. In heavier atoms, there are many, many more neutrons in heavier atoms, relative to protons and electrons, and these could only have come from mergers of protons and electrons.
(Note-cosmology is beyond the scope of our discussion here and this article is about physics, rather than cosmology, but the fact that an electron and a proton can readily merge to form a third particle because the two have an identical electric charge, even though a proton is 1,836 times the mass of an electron, shows that a proton and electron are not completely separate entities but must have been originally "cut from the same cloth" shows that the sheet model of the Big Bang, in which both are different "cuts" of the sheet, to be correct).
But what happens to the energy that was in the electron in orbit around the nucleus when it is halted in it's motion and crunched into a proton to form an electron?
When I completed the recent posting "The Mystery Of Exploding Stars", which detailed my view of how it is the electron repulsion which keeps atoms separate and the eventual overcoming of this electron repulsion by the kinetic energy in the star's gravitational mass so that smaller atoms can be crunched together into larger ones, which is actually what drives the processes within stars, I began to think that it might also be electrons which might explain how vast amounts of energy can be both released and also incorporated into nuclear binding energy during the fusion process.
My conclusion is that the energy released by nuclear fusion, including sunlight and star light is the energy of the external energy avenue, and comes from the energy that was in electron orbitals after the electron is captured to be combined with a proton to create a neutron. This has got to be a tremendous amount of energy, which originally came from the Big Bang, and is not accounted for in explanations of nuclear fusion. When an electron is captured from the innermost orbital shell, one from a higher shell ultimately drops down to take it's place and this would also release energy since the higher shell would be a higher energy level.
The principle is similar to the energy in the orbit of the moon around the earth. The moon is actually moving further away from the earth, at the rate of about four centimeters per year, to a higher energy orbit. This is accomplished by drawing energy from the earth's rotation, and thus gradually making a day longer. This happens because the moon raises a tidal bulge in the earth's ocean, which is then moved forward by the earth's rotation which is faster than the moon orbits. The gravity of the tidal bulge being pulled ahead whips the moon into a slightly higher orbit even as the friction of the same process gradually slows the rotation of the earth.
What basically happens is that the energy in electron orbitals resists the crunching together of atoms by gravity by the electron repulsion of the electrons with the same negative charge. When this electron repulsion is finally overcome by the gravitational mass of the star, this energy in the electron orbital is radiated away so that we see it as sunlight or star light and the kinetic energy of the gravitational mass that was being resisted is transformed into binding energy in the nucleus. Before the crunching together, there was equilibrium, but afterward one goes along the external energy avenue and the other along the internal.
If the kinetic energy of the star's gravitational mass is transformed into binding energy when it finally overcomes the energy of electron repulsion which was resisting it, then that resistant energy in the electron orbitals must also be transformed into something. The electron resistance is because no two atoms can occupy the same quantum address, despite the pressure on them. This does not take place if an electron becomes positioned in an orbital of the new, larger, atom but only if it is one of the electrons crunched into a proton to create a neutron.
It must be explained what becomes of the energy in the electron orbital, just as it must be explained where the energy which is radiated from the sun and stars comes from, and this is the answer.
Nuclear fusion is the process which powers the sun, and other stars. A star forms when enough matter coalesces in space to crunch smaller atoms together into larger atoms by the sheer force of gravity in the center of the mass. This does not take place in planets because there is simply not enough mass. This process, while combining lighter atoms such as hydrogen into heavier ones, releases a tremendous amount of energy so that the sun or star shines.
But not only does fusion release the energy that we see as sunlight and star light, it also forces the nuclei of the smaller atoms together so that the nuclear force can take over and hold the new and heavier nucleus together by binding energy. The nuclear force, which operates only over very short range, actually converts some of the mass of the nucleus into energy so that there is more total binding energy in the larger atom that results from smaller atoms being crunched together than there was in the smaller atoms which were crunched together. This addition to the energy in the nucleus by fusion is depicted in what is known as the Binding Energy Curve.
Binding energy is necessary for atomic nuclei to exist. The nucleus of an atom consists of protons and neutrons. The protons have a positive electric charge while the neutrons are neutral, hence their name. Under the rules of electric charges that like charges repel, while opposite charges attract, the protons in the nucleus should fly apart by mutual repulsion.
The reason that this does not happen is that the binding energy overcomes this mutual electrical repulsion to hold the nucleus together. Binding energy actually comes about by the so-called nuclear force, which can operate only over very short distances, converting some of the mass of the nucleus into the energy which holds it together. But, for this to happen, it takes energy to force the lighter nuclei together so that the nuclear force can take hold.
The Binding Energy Curve is a graph of how the binding energy per nucleon in the atomic nucleus increases as we go to heavier elements, at least up to the element iron which has a total of 56 protons and neutrons in it's nucleus. A nucleon is a member particle of the nucleus, either a proton or neutron. There is a section about the binding energy curve in the article on www.wikipedia.org , "Nuclear Binding Energy".
But where does all of the energy to force the lighter nuclei together come from during the fusion process? We can see how the binding energy in the nucleus, per nucleon, increases as small atoms are crunched into successively heavier atoms. This must be because the kinetic energy in the gravitational mass of the star, which is what crunches the atoms together, is effectively transformed into binding energy by forcing the two lighter nuclei together so that the nuclear force can take over and convert some of the mass of the nucleus into binding energy.
But if the kinetic energy which crunches the atoms together is effectively transformed into the increasing binding energy per nucleon, as illustrated in the binding energy curve, where does the vast amount of energy that is released by the nuclear fusion process come from? Clearly, a tremendous amount of energy gets released or the sun would not be shining or we could not see star light being radiated by stars hundreds of light years away.
Supposedly, this released energy is the leftover binding energy. My question is how there could be all of this leftover energy if the binding energy per nucleon actually increases as we move to heavier atoms. If the energy per nucleon decreased as we moved to heavier atoms, it would be different. We could say that this missing energy in heavier atoms is what was released as sunlight. But that is not the case, the binding energy per nucleon actually increases as we move to heavier atoms so there must be some other explanation of where the energy that is released comes from. Remember the rule of physics that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form.
At the present time, the sun is in the process of crunching four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom. This process is known as the Proton-Proton Process and is common in stars which are not too large. The sunlight that we see, and other radiation from the sun, is the result of this process.
The binding energy per nucleon does decrease for elements heavier than iron, as can be seen in the binding energy curve. However, these elements are different from those up to iron because they are not formed by the ordinary fusion process. Elements heavier than iron are formed by the fusion of smaller atoms together only during the brief period when a large star is actually exploding as a supernova.
This is because formation of these heavier elements requires an input of energy, and this required energy is available from the explosion of the star. The reason for this is that the nuclear force, which is one of the basic forces of the universe and is the vehicle for nuclear binding energy, acts only over extremely short distances and these nuclei of the heaviest atoms are larger than this distance. This scenario explains why the atoms up to iron are exponentailly more common than those heavier than iron.
The article about nuclear fusion on Wikipedia explains that the binding energy curve is due to simple geometry. Large atoms have a lower surface area per volume so that each nucleon has more "neighbors" to help to bind it in. But this effect begins to diminish when the size of the nucleus starts to grow beyond the very short range of the nuclear force.
But the nuclear force itself contains no energy, it is only a vehicle for the binding energy which holds the nucleus together against the mutually repulsive force of the like-charged protons. This is similar to if we were to throw a ball into the air and it came back down with force. Gravity is one of the basic forces just as the nuclear force is. But there is no energy at all in gravity, we are only getting back the energy that we put into the ball in the first place.
The nuclear force is like a spring, which can hold energy. Binding energy is like the energy in the spring when it is compressed. Just as the spring acts as a vehicle for the energy which compresses it, but has no energy itself until energy compresses it, the nuclear force acts as a vehicle for energy from outside to be effectively transformed into the binding energy which holds a nucleus together against the mutually repulsive force of positively-charged protons.
( Note-Illustrations tend to depict both protons and neutrons as spherical in form. But my view of binding energy is that, since the neutron is made up of a mix of electric charges that balance out to zero, binding energy twists those charges within the neutron so that the negative portion of the neutron is more to the outside of it. The result is that the neutron acts as a "glue" to bind the positively-charged protons from mutually repelling, and holds the nucleus together).
So, if the kinetic energy of the gravitational mass of the star, which is what crunches the smaller atoms together into larger atoms, is then effectively transformed into the increased binding energy per nucleon as we move to heavier atoms, where does all of the energy that is released as solar radiation come from?
Another question concerns fission and fusion. The two both release energy, even though they are opposite processes. Fission is the splitting of heavy nuclei by the impact of a high-speed neutron, so that a large nucleus is split into two smaller ones and excess energy is released. The only two atoms which will undergo fission are plutonium, a man-made element which does not occur in nature, and the 235 nucleon isotope of uranium because it's nucleus, with fewer neutrons, is held together more weakly then the much more common 238 nucleon isotope of uranium.
But how can these opposite processes both release energy? It does not seem to make sense that energy is always released whether we have atoms combining together, or whether we have atoms splitting apart. If one releases energy, then shouldn't the other absorb energy?
Actually, fission of the heavier plutonium and uranium isotope 235 is releasing the energy that had to be absorbed to form it when the star which preceded the sun exploded as a supernova. So how then can even more energy be released by the fusion of light elements when no additional input of energy from a supernova is required to form them. Fusion actually releases far more energy than equivalent fission. Just where does this extra energy come from?
By the way, you may be wondering how fission can release energy either if the binding energy per nucleon gets less as we move to heavier elements in elements heavier than iron. The two lighter nuclei into which the nucleus of plutonium or uranium isotope 235 is split should together actually have more binding energy than the original nucleus, so that there would be no leftover energy to be released. But what actually happens is that the total number of nucleons is less in the two resulting lighter atoms. Several high-speed neutrons are released by the split nucleus during fission, an average of about 2.5 neutrons, and it is the kinetic energy of these neutrons, which in turn split other nuclei in a chain reaction, which mostly give us the energy released by fission.
The conclusion that I have come to is that there are two separate energy "avenues" when it comes to nuclear fusion. These are the internal and the external. The internal avenue is the one that we are familiar with already, the increased binding energy per nucleon as we move to heavier elements. This energy originally comes from the kinetic energy of successive crunches of smaller atoms into larger ones so that binding energy per nucleon increases as we move to heavier atoms.
I find that there is only one possible source of energy for the external avenue, the energy that we see released by the fusion process as sunlight and star light. The heavier the elements get, the more neutrons there tends to be relative to protons in the nucleus. This is why the increase in the weight of matter is not proportional as we move from lighter to heavier atoms.
Heavier elements are heavier out of proportion to atomic number relative to lighter elements. The most common isotope of uranium, for example, has 1.58 times as many neutrons as protons. The presence of neutrons is vital as a vehicle for binding energy to hold the nucleus together against the mutual repulsion of like-charged protons.
The reason that this preponderance of neutrons can occur is that neutrons can be formed, during the crunching process, by crunching an electron into a proton to give it the neutral charge of the neutron. There is an article titled "Electron Capture" on Wikipedia. This is sometimes referred to as K-capture because it is most likely that the electron will be captured from the K-shell of electron orbitals, which is nearest to the nucleus. In heavier atoms, there are many, many more neutrons in heavier atoms, relative to protons and electrons, and these could only have come from mergers of protons and electrons.
(Note-cosmology is beyond the scope of our discussion here and this article is about physics, rather than cosmology, but the fact that an electron and a proton can readily merge to form a third particle because the two have an identical electric charge, even though a proton is 1,836 times the mass of an electron, shows that a proton and electron are not completely separate entities but must have been originally "cut from the same cloth" shows that the sheet model of the Big Bang, in which both are different "cuts" of the sheet, to be correct).
But what happens to the energy that was in the electron in orbit around the nucleus when it is halted in it's motion and crunched into a proton to form an electron?
When I completed the recent posting "The Mystery Of Exploding Stars", which detailed my view of how it is the electron repulsion which keeps atoms separate and the eventual overcoming of this electron repulsion by the kinetic energy in the star's gravitational mass so that smaller atoms can be crunched together into larger ones, which is actually what drives the processes within stars, I began to think that it might also be electrons which might explain how vast amounts of energy can be both released and also incorporated into nuclear binding energy during the fusion process.
My conclusion is that the energy released by nuclear fusion, including sunlight and star light is the energy of the external energy avenue, and comes from the energy that was in electron orbitals after the electron is captured to be combined with a proton to create a neutron. This has got to be a tremendous amount of energy, which originally came from the Big Bang, and is not accounted for in explanations of nuclear fusion. When an electron is captured from the innermost orbital shell, one from a higher shell ultimately drops down to take it's place and this would also release energy since the higher shell would be a higher energy level.
The principle is similar to the energy in the orbit of the moon around the earth. The moon is actually moving further away from the earth, at the rate of about four centimeters per year, to a higher energy orbit. This is accomplished by drawing energy from the earth's rotation, and thus gradually making a day longer. This happens because the moon raises a tidal bulge in the earth's ocean, which is then moved forward by the earth's rotation which is faster than the moon orbits. The gravity of the tidal bulge being pulled ahead whips the moon into a slightly higher orbit even as the friction of the same process gradually slows the rotation of the earth.
What basically happens is that the energy in electron orbitals resists the crunching together of atoms by gravity by the electron repulsion of the electrons with the same negative charge. When this electron repulsion is finally overcome by the gravitational mass of the star, this energy in the electron orbital is radiated away so that we see it as sunlight or star light and the kinetic energy of the gravitational mass that was being resisted is transformed into binding energy in the nucleus. Before the crunching together, there was equilibrium, but afterward one goes along the external energy avenue and the other along the internal.
If the kinetic energy of the star's gravitational mass is transformed into binding energy when it finally overcomes the energy of electron repulsion which was resisting it, then that resistant energy in the electron orbitals must also be transformed into something. The electron resistance is because no two atoms can occupy the same quantum address, despite the pressure on them. This does not take place if an electron becomes positioned in an orbital of the new, larger, atom but only if it is one of the electrons crunched into a proton to create a neutron.
It must be explained what becomes of the energy in the electron orbital, just as it must be explained where the energy which is radiated from the sun and stars comes from, and this is the answer.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
The Unification Of Forces
There is much effort in the physics community to find a way to unify the basic forces of the universe such as the strong nuclear force, electromagnetism and, gravity. By the way, the so-called "strong" nuclear force is not an adjective but is distinguished from the weak nuclear force, which is a different force altogether. I have thought of a simple way to unify the forces and there is a maxim in physics that the simplest explanation for something is usually the best explanation.
The strong nuclear force operates only in the close confines of the atomic nucleus. The positive charges of the protons in the nucleus should mutually repel and thrust the nucleus apart, yet they do not. The strong nuclear force overcomes the mutual repulsion of the like-charged protons and holds the nucleus together.
However, the strong nuclear force never occurs except in the presence of neutrons. There always must be neutrally-charged neutrons present in order for the positively-charged nucleus to hold together. I am sure that this strong nuclear force results from the ability to twist around the internal charges in the neutrons so that it's negative charges are facing outward and thus holding the protons in place and the nucleus together.
As we know, both protons and neutrons consist of three quarks. The charges within the neutron balances out to zero and the proton to +1. This means that the strong nuclear force is actually electromagnetic in nature. The strong nuclear force is, as the name implies, by far the strongest of the basic forces of nature. This can be simply explained by the fact that the nucleus is so tightly packed together. As powerful as it may be, the strong force acts only over the extremely close distances within the nucleus.
The electromagnetic force is the next of the basic forces of the universe. It is far weaker than the strong nuclear force. But this relative weakness can be explained in a very simple way. The root of the electromagnetic force is the electrons in orbit around the nucleus of the atom. Although it may not seem so to us, atoms consist almost entirely of empty space. The most often used model is that of a large sports stadium. If the electron orbits are the rows of seats, the nucleus could be compared to a strawberry in the middle of the playing field.
The electric charges on the electrons are equal but opposite to the charges on the protons. However, even though electrons are far smaller than protons ( A proton or neutron is 1,836 times the mass of an electron) they are spread, in their orbits, over a far wider area. The electromagnetic force is really of the same nature as the strong nuclear force but the strong force is concentrated in the tightly packed nucleus while the electromagnetic force is spread over the vast (by comparison) outer atom as the electrons dart around in their orbits.
I am sure that if the electrons formed a solid shell around the nucleus, or they were concentrated in one place as the protons are, we would find that the two are approximately equal in value. The difference between the strong force and electromagnetism can be compared with seeing an object up close compared to at a distance. The electromagnetic force is nowhere near as strong as the strong nuclear force but in return, it operates over far greater distances.
Next, we come to gravity. It is by far the weakest force of all but it makes up for it by being cumulative so that it is the force that runs the universe on a large scale. The size scale of stars shows how weak gravity is in comparison with the strong nuclear force. As a mass of material builds up, the gravity inside it naturally becomes more and more powerful. When the point is reached where the cumulative gravity becomes strong enough to overpower the forces within the atom and force atoms together, binding energy in those atoms is released in the form of heat and light. The mass of material begins to glow from within and we have what is known as a star.
The vast amount of matter necessary to form a star illustrates the weakness of gravity in comparison with the strong nuclear force. The sun, a slightly larger than average star, is about 1.64 million km (a million miles) in diameter. To see how weak gravity is in comparison with the electromagnetic force, we need only to pick up a piece of iron or steel with a small magnet. The magnetic force is strong enough to overpower the gravity of the entire earth.
My belief is that gravity is also electromagnetic in nature. The attractive force between unlike charges is known to be slightly stronger than the repulsion between unlike charges. So with the vast amount of matter in the universe, this slight difference must be manifested in some way and it is. There is a net attraction between objects in space. This attraction is what we refer to as gravity. The force of gravity takes the exchange of strength for distance much futher than the electromagnetic force has. But the distance factor allows gravity to make up for it's inherent weakness by being cumulative so that it can eventually overpower even the strong nuclear force and a star is born.
The reason that gravity is so weak is simply that atoms are so empty. Once again, we come back to a large sports stadium as the classic model of the inside of an atom. The only really solid part of the atom is the strawberry in the middle of the playing field representing the nucleus. I think of the vastness of the stars that we can see as an inverse mirror image as the emptiness of the atoms that we cannot see. If atoms were more solid or electrons had more mass, stars would be smaller.
My hypothesis is that all three of these basic forces are really different manifestations of electromagnetism. If atoms were solid, the positive nucleus in the middle and a solid negative outer shell instead of the orbiting electrons, the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism would be roughly equal in strength. If an infinite number of atoms could then be packed together, gravity would become approximately equal to the other two.
I do not believe that these basic forces are innately woven into the universe as it may seem to us. They are the result of how atoms formed. If atoms would have come together differently when matter formed, these forces would today be different.
I have left a fourth force out of this, the weak nuclear force that breaks apart large nuclei associated with radioactivity but I believe it to be a failure of the strong nuclear force. So, let's make the universe really simple. There are two electric charges, negative and positive, opposite charges attract and like charges repel, everything else is details.
The strong nuclear force operates only in the close confines of the atomic nucleus. The positive charges of the protons in the nucleus should mutually repel and thrust the nucleus apart, yet they do not. The strong nuclear force overcomes the mutual repulsion of the like-charged protons and holds the nucleus together.
However, the strong nuclear force never occurs except in the presence of neutrons. There always must be neutrally-charged neutrons present in order for the positively-charged nucleus to hold together. I am sure that this strong nuclear force results from the ability to twist around the internal charges in the neutrons so that it's negative charges are facing outward and thus holding the protons in place and the nucleus together.
As we know, both protons and neutrons consist of three quarks. The charges within the neutron balances out to zero and the proton to +1. This means that the strong nuclear force is actually electromagnetic in nature. The strong nuclear force is, as the name implies, by far the strongest of the basic forces of nature. This can be simply explained by the fact that the nucleus is so tightly packed together. As powerful as it may be, the strong force acts only over the extremely close distances within the nucleus.
The electromagnetic force is the next of the basic forces of the universe. It is far weaker than the strong nuclear force. But this relative weakness can be explained in a very simple way. The root of the electromagnetic force is the electrons in orbit around the nucleus of the atom. Although it may not seem so to us, atoms consist almost entirely of empty space. The most often used model is that of a large sports stadium. If the electron orbits are the rows of seats, the nucleus could be compared to a strawberry in the middle of the playing field.
The electric charges on the electrons are equal but opposite to the charges on the protons. However, even though electrons are far smaller than protons ( A proton or neutron is 1,836 times the mass of an electron) they are spread, in their orbits, over a far wider area. The electromagnetic force is really of the same nature as the strong nuclear force but the strong force is concentrated in the tightly packed nucleus while the electromagnetic force is spread over the vast (by comparison) outer atom as the electrons dart around in their orbits.
I am sure that if the electrons formed a solid shell around the nucleus, or they were concentrated in one place as the protons are, we would find that the two are approximately equal in value. The difference between the strong force and electromagnetism can be compared with seeing an object up close compared to at a distance. The electromagnetic force is nowhere near as strong as the strong nuclear force but in return, it operates over far greater distances.
Next, we come to gravity. It is by far the weakest force of all but it makes up for it by being cumulative so that it is the force that runs the universe on a large scale. The size scale of stars shows how weak gravity is in comparison with the strong nuclear force. As a mass of material builds up, the gravity inside it naturally becomes more and more powerful. When the point is reached where the cumulative gravity becomes strong enough to overpower the forces within the atom and force atoms together, binding energy in those atoms is released in the form of heat and light. The mass of material begins to glow from within and we have what is known as a star.
The vast amount of matter necessary to form a star illustrates the weakness of gravity in comparison with the strong nuclear force. The sun, a slightly larger than average star, is about 1.64 million km (a million miles) in diameter. To see how weak gravity is in comparison with the electromagnetic force, we need only to pick up a piece of iron or steel with a small magnet. The magnetic force is strong enough to overpower the gravity of the entire earth.
My belief is that gravity is also electromagnetic in nature. The attractive force between unlike charges is known to be slightly stronger than the repulsion between unlike charges. So with the vast amount of matter in the universe, this slight difference must be manifested in some way and it is. There is a net attraction between objects in space. This attraction is what we refer to as gravity. The force of gravity takes the exchange of strength for distance much futher than the electromagnetic force has. But the distance factor allows gravity to make up for it's inherent weakness by being cumulative so that it can eventually overpower even the strong nuclear force and a star is born.
The reason that gravity is so weak is simply that atoms are so empty. Once again, we come back to a large sports stadium as the classic model of the inside of an atom. The only really solid part of the atom is the strawberry in the middle of the playing field representing the nucleus. I think of the vastness of the stars that we can see as an inverse mirror image as the emptiness of the atoms that we cannot see. If atoms were more solid or electrons had more mass, stars would be smaller.
My hypothesis is that all three of these basic forces are really different manifestations of electromagnetism. If atoms were solid, the positive nucleus in the middle and a solid negative outer shell instead of the orbiting electrons, the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism would be roughly equal in strength. If an infinite number of atoms could then be packed together, gravity would become approximately equal to the other two.
I do not believe that these basic forces are innately woven into the universe as it may seem to us. They are the result of how atoms formed. If atoms would have come together differently when matter formed, these forces would today be different.
I have left a fourth force out of this, the weak nuclear force that breaks apart large nuclei associated with radioactivity but I believe it to be a failure of the strong nuclear force. So, let's make the universe really simple. There are two electric charges, negative and positive, opposite charges attract and like charges repel, everything else is details.
The Scale Set
I have concluded that we have some misunderstanding about the nature of electromagnetic waves. So, I have developed an idea called the "Scale Set" to help clarify things. This misunderstanding is similar to that of the fact that we percieve the sun as moving around the earth when the opposite is actually the case.
The basis of the Scale Set is the understanding that it is not the nature of the waves themselves that cause some to be radio waves, others to be heat, some to be visible light, some to be ultraviolet and, so on. It is our scale set, which is the size of the atoms that our world and universe is composed of relative to the wavelengths of electromagnetic waves that cause the waves to fall into categories based on how their wavelength causes them to interact with matter.
There is no difference at all between X-rays and infrared (heat), between radio waves and ultraviolet or, between gamma rays and visible light, except for the wavelength of the waves. There is a near-infinity of possible wavelengths. The Scale Set is the way in which matter interacts with the various wavelengths of electromagnetic waves due to the sizes of atoms, molecules and other physical structures. It is not so much how waves affect matter but how matter interacts with waves.
In this view of reality, the waves are the constant and the matter is the variable according to it's scale set. Matter produces and interacts with waves but if the nature of atoms was different, the wavelength of wave that would interact in the same way would also be different. Again, it is a lot like the earth revolving around the sun. It seems to us that the earth is the constant but it is not.
If atoms were as big as oranges, very long low-frequency waves would replace the electromagnetic spectrum as we know it today. The waves that would operate with that scale set would be of far lower energy and could carry far less information than the waves associated with our scale set today. Vision as we know it would be impossible.
The basis of the Scale Set is the understanding that it is not the nature of the waves themselves that cause some to be radio waves, others to be heat, some to be visible light, some to be ultraviolet and, so on. It is our scale set, which is the size of the atoms that our world and universe is composed of relative to the wavelengths of electromagnetic waves that cause the waves to fall into categories based on how their wavelength causes them to interact with matter.
There is no difference at all between X-rays and infrared (heat), between radio waves and ultraviolet or, between gamma rays and visible light, except for the wavelength of the waves. There is a near-infinity of possible wavelengths. The Scale Set is the way in which matter interacts with the various wavelengths of electromagnetic waves due to the sizes of atoms, molecules and other physical structures. It is not so much how waves affect matter but how matter interacts with waves.
In this view of reality, the waves are the constant and the matter is the variable according to it's scale set. Matter produces and interacts with waves but if the nature of atoms was different, the wavelength of wave that would interact in the same way would also be different. Again, it is a lot like the earth revolving around the sun. It seems to us that the earth is the constant but it is not.
If atoms were as big as oranges, very long low-frequency waves would replace the electromagnetic spectrum as we know it today. The waves that would operate with that scale set would be of far lower energy and could carry far less information than the waves associated with our scale set today. Vision as we know it would be impossible.
The Electronic Wave Model Of Electron Orbitals
Induction is the property of an electrical current in a conductor that induces a current in another conductor, if there is relative motion between the two. This concept is familiar to anyone around Niagara Falls, where hydroelectric power is generated. There is also the self-inductance of a coil of wire in a circuit. The initial current induces a secondary current that opposes the original current. This has the effect of "smoothing out" the original current. A coil for this purpose is known as a choke coil.
In another area of basic electronics, we know that an electromagnetic wave that we call a radio wave is set up when an alternating electric current, which is a movement of electrons, is made to flow with a high frequency in a circuit. An antenna is connected to the circuit to assist the propagation of the radio waves.
I got to wondering why these same principles wouldn't also apply to the orbitals of electrons within the atom. These two fundamentals of electronics, induction and radio wave creation, take place because of the nature of electrons, and the electrons in orbit around an atomic nucleus have exactly the same properties. My reasoning is that basic electronics should be able to provide a lot of insight into what goes on in electron orbitals within atoms.
If one or more electrons moving up and down in a radio antenna will set up an electromagnetic radio wave, then what about the electrons in orbit within atoms? Isn't it logical that these electrons would create electromagnetic waves also, considering that an orbit is a form of circuit?
My hypothesis is that, just as the current in a coil of wire induces another current that opposes the original current, electrons pair up and position themselves so that the electromagnetic waves that the two produce will cancel one another out. Electrons operate in pairs, with opposite spin. Notice the strong resemblance between an orbital pair of electrons and a waveform. All waves consist of crests and troughs, when a crest meets a trough of the same wavelength the two will mutually cancel one another.
Both electron in a pair create waves, but with the crests and troughs of the waves inverted. This causes the two waves created by an electron pair to cancel one another out.
The Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli introduced the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This states that no two electrons in an atom can have the same quantum numbers, which define the energy levels of the electrons. The quantum numbers had been defined by another Austrian, Erwin Schrodinger.
Electron pairs are two electrons that have the same quantum numbers, but have opposite spin. I take that to mean that the two electrons in such a pair will produce electromagnetic waves that will completely cancel one another.
The two electrons position themselves to achieve this cancellation so that there will be no net wave produced because the wave produced by one electron can move the other electron in the pair, but not those in other orbitals with different quantum numbers because their waves are of a different wavelength. Electrons filling the orbitals in an atom first pair so that they match one another, and then they position themselves so that they cancel each other's wave.
Remember that our universe always seeks the lowest energy state. This is why an object falls when it is dropped. It requires less energy for it to fall than it does to maintain it in it's position. The same principle applies with all of physics. This is why electrons position themselves, being moved by the opposing electron in the pair, so that no net wave is produced. Generating electromagnetic waves requires energy, and the nature of the universe is that it always seeks the lowest energy state.
It may seem that having the shells and orbitals of electrons in atoms is, in itself, a violation of this seeking of the lowest energy state because this represents a higher energy condition than all of the electrons just crowding into the lowest shell, the one closest to the nucleus, which is also the lowest energy level for electrons in the atom. But then that would mean that the electrons would not cancel each other's waves, and the generation of waves would mean a higher energy state.
This also explains the basis of magnetism. In a magnet, there are unpaired electrons whose spin has been aligned so that the unpaired electrons all spin in one direction. Seen from one direction is the magnet's north pole and from the other the south pole. Opposite poles of two magnets strongly attract because their waves are cancelling out, thus producing a lower energy state and the energy that is saved is why the magnet is able to lift iron.
The waves of unpaired electrons with opposite spin will draw together and cancel one another in the process. Since waves are electromagnetic in nature, the two magnets with facing opposite poles will attract, just as opposite electric charges attract.
But all of this shows that electron waves must exist. Magnetism is when these waves have an influence outside the atom. Magnets can lift non-magnetized iron because the pole of the magnet, with unpaired electrons spinning in only one of two possible directions, will induce unpaired electrons in the non-magnetized iron to spin in the opposite direction and thus draw the two pieces of metal together. But the attraction between a magnet and non-magnetized iron is never as strong as that between the opposite poles of two equivalent magnets.
Now it becomes clear what happens when we try to force the like poles of two magnets together. The energy required is just the opposite of the attraction between two opposite poles, whose waves cancel out. Instead of crest meeting trough, we have crest meeting crest and trough meeting trough. Instead of cancelling out, and allowing the energy thus released to pull the two magnets together, this requires more energy to force the like poles together.
With this in mind, how do you suppose that electric motors and generators work? If we force the delocalized electrons in metal to move in one direction, by the application of a voltage or electromotive force, it must also align their directions of spin. My scenario here shows that it is actually the aligned direction of electron spin, rather then the simple movement of electrons, which makes it possible for an electric current to exert mechanical force in an electric motor. An electric generator is basically the reverse of an electric motor, with the mechanical force producing the current.
But an electric wire that was not in physical contact should not be able to exert any force on anything, regardless of current flowing through it, unless the electrons of that electric current were producing some kind of waves to transmit energy and force. If the spin of the electrons moving in the current were unaligned, they would simply cancel one another out and no net force would be exerted. Such a force, on magnetic material such as iron, could only be exerted by an electric current if the movement of the current also aligned the spin of the electrons, just as in a stationary magnet.
The same concept does not apply to a light bulb, or to the production of heat by electricity, because that energy is the result of the moving electrons losing energy by resistance in the wire. The lost energy has to go somewhere, and it shows up as heat.
But all of this shows that the Electronic Wave Model Of Electron Orbitals must be correct. We can see that these waves must be produced by electrons in their orbitals but, in non-magnets, we do not see any evidence of such waves. We know that electrons operate in pairs, with opposite spin, and the normal lack of evidence of such waves outside the atom can only mean that they cancel out.
This model explains why elements that have even numbers of both protons and electrons are more stable than those that have odd numbers. Even numbers of electrons in an atom are well-known to produce more chemical stability. It is because even numbers are necessary for complete pairing, and pairing is necessary for this wave cancellation. This concept also helps to explain why electron orbitals in atoms like to be either empty, full or, half full. It also explain why matter is said to have a wave nature, as well as a matter nature.
Metals differ from non-metals in that a number of atoms share their outer-shell electrons among themselves. These are known as delocalized electrons, and the group of sharing atoms is known as a crystal. In some metals, most notably iron, these shared electrons can be made to align their motion, rather than cancelling out the effect of their charges. We then see the effect known as magnetism, and why magnetism is related to electricity which is the movement of the electrons..
The electromagnetic waves that must be generated by an electron moving in an atomic orbital, just as an alternating current in a circuit and an antenna produces a wave, would not be readily detectable by us. The wave produced by a single electron, even if it was not cancelled out by it's opposing pair electron, would be exceedingly faint in the space beyond. If the wave had been produced by an unpaired electron, it would then be cancelled by the waves from other unpaired electrons.
While there must be alignment by electron pairs, there would be no such alignment with other electrons either within the same atoms or in other atoms. This means that, even if the waves did not cancel, they would dissipate out of phase and would not reinforce one another in materials other than magnets.
Furthermore we, and any equipment that we build and use, must necessarily be made of matter. These "electron orbital waves", as we will refer to them, would be of extremely high frequency and short wavelength. X-rays and gamma rays pass right through matter because the atom is actually mostly empty space, and these waves are fine enough to go right through at least the atoms of some elements.
Remember that electromagnetic waves are reflected by matter which is about the same size as the wavelength of the waves, meaning that waves of extraordinarily short wavelength can pass right through the electron orbitals of atoms. Waves from electron orbitals would be of far shorter wavelength than this, making most of these waves undetectable by any equipment made of matter.
I cannot see how these electron orbital waves would not exist. This explains the nature of electron orbitals in atoms ideally, and fits with the properties of electrons in basic electronics.
In another area of basic electronics, we know that an electromagnetic wave that we call a radio wave is set up when an alternating electric current, which is a movement of electrons, is made to flow with a high frequency in a circuit. An antenna is connected to the circuit to assist the propagation of the radio waves.
I got to wondering why these same principles wouldn't also apply to the orbitals of electrons within the atom. These two fundamentals of electronics, induction and radio wave creation, take place because of the nature of electrons, and the electrons in orbit around an atomic nucleus have exactly the same properties. My reasoning is that basic electronics should be able to provide a lot of insight into what goes on in electron orbitals within atoms.
If one or more electrons moving up and down in a radio antenna will set up an electromagnetic radio wave, then what about the electrons in orbit within atoms? Isn't it logical that these electrons would create electromagnetic waves also, considering that an orbit is a form of circuit?
My hypothesis is that, just as the current in a coil of wire induces another current that opposes the original current, electrons pair up and position themselves so that the electromagnetic waves that the two produce will cancel one another out. Electrons operate in pairs, with opposite spin. Notice the strong resemblance between an orbital pair of electrons and a waveform. All waves consist of crests and troughs, when a crest meets a trough of the same wavelength the two will mutually cancel one another.
Both electron in a pair create waves, but with the crests and troughs of the waves inverted. This causes the two waves created by an electron pair to cancel one another out.
The Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli introduced the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This states that no two electrons in an atom can have the same quantum numbers, which define the energy levels of the electrons. The quantum numbers had been defined by another Austrian, Erwin Schrodinger.
Electron pairs are two electrons that have the same quantum numbers, but have opposite spin. I take that to mean that the two electrons in such a pair will produce electromagnetic waves that will completely cancel one another.
The two electrons position themselves to achieve this cancellation so that there will be no net wave produced because the wave produced by one electron can move the other electron in the pair, but not those in other orbitals with different quantum numbers because their waves are of a different wavelength. Electrons filling the orbitals in an atom first pair so that they match one another, and then they position themselves so that they cancel each other's wave.
Remember that our universe always seeks the lowest energy state. This is why an object falls when it is dropped. It requires less energy for it to fall than it does to maintain it in it's position. The same principle applies with all of physics. This is why electrons position themselves, being moved by the opposing electron in the pair, so that no net wave is produced. Generating electromagnetic waves requires energy, and the nature of the universe is that it always seeks the lowest energy state.
It may seem that having the shells and orbitals of electrons in atoms is, in itself, a violation of this seeking of the lowest energy state because this represents a higher energy condition than all of the electrons just crowding into the lowest shell, the one closest to the nucleus, which is also the lowest energy level for electrons in the atom. But then that would mean that the electrons would not cancel each other's waves, and the generation of waves would mean a higher energy state.
This also explains the basis of magnetism. In a magnet, there are unpaired electrons whose spin has been aligned so that the unpaired electrons all spin in one direction. Seen from one direction is the magnet's north pole and from the other the south pole. Opposite poles of two magnets strongly attract because their waves are cancelling out, thus producing a lower energy state and the energy that is saved is why the magnet is able to lift iron.
The waves of unpaired electrons with opposite spin will draw together and cancel one another in the process. Since waves are electromagnetic in nature, the two magnets with facing opposite poles will attract, just as opposite electric charges attract.
But all of this shows that electron waves must exist. Magnetism is when these waves have an influence outside the atom. Magnets can lift non-magnetized iron because the pole of the magnet, with unpaired electrons spinning in only one of two possible directions, will induce unpaired electrons in the non-magnetized iron to spin in the opposite direction and thus draw the two pieces of metal together. But the attraction between a magnet and non-magnetized iron is never as strong as that between the opposite poles of two equivalent magnets.
Now it becomes clear what happens when we try to force the like poles of two magnets together. The energy required is just the opposite of the attraction between two opposite poles, whose waves cancel out. Instead of crest meeting trough, we have crest meeting crest and trough meeting trough. Instead of cancelling out, and allowing the energy thus released to pull the two magnets together, this requires more energy to force the like poles together.
With this in mind, how do you suppose that electric motors and generators work? If we force the delocalized electrons in metal to move in one direction, by the application of a voltage or electromotive force, it must also align their directions of spin. My scenario here shows that it is actually the aligned direction of electron spin, rather then the simple movement of electrons, which makes it possible for an electric current to exert mechanical force in an electric motor. An electric generator is basically the reverse of an electric motor, with the mechanical force producing the current.
But an electric wire that was not in physical contact should not be able to exert any force on anything, regardless of current flowing through it, unless the electrons of that electric current were producing some kind of waves to transmit energy and force. If the spin of the electrons moving in the current were unaligned, they would simply cancel one another out and no net force would be exerted. Such a force, on magnetic material such as iron, could only be exerted by an electric current if the movement of the current also aligned the spin of the electrons, just as in a stationary magnet.
The same concept does not apply to a light bulb, or to the production of heat by electricity, because that energy is the result of the moving electrons losing energy by resistance in the wire. The lost energy has to go somewhere, and it shows up as heat.
But all of this shows that the Electronic Wave Model Of Electron Orbitals must be correct. We can see that these waves must be produced by electrons in their orbitals but, in non-magnets, we do not see any evidence of such waves. We know that electrons operate in pairs, with opposite spin, and the normal lack of evidence of such waves outside the atom can only mean that they cancel out.
This model explains why elements that have even numbers of both protons and electrons are more stable than those that have odd numbers. Even numbers of electrons in an atom are well-known to produce more chemical stability. It is because even numbers are necessary for complete pairing, and pairing is necessary for this wave cancellation. This concept also helps to explain why electron orbitals in atoms like to be either empty, full or, half full. It also explain why matter is said to have a wave nature, as well as a matter nature.
Metals differ from non-metals in that a number of atoms share their outer-shell electrons among themselves. These are known as delocalized electrons, and the group of sharing atoms is known as a crystal. In some metals, most notably iron, these shared electrons can be made to align their motion, rather than cancelling out the effect of their charges. We then see the effect known as magnetism, and why magnetism is related to electricity which is the movement of the electrons..
The electromagnetic waves that must be generated by an electron moving in an atomic orbital, just as an alternating current in a circuit and an antenna produces a wave, would not be readily detectable by us. The wave produced by a single electron, even if it was not cancelled out by it's opposing pair electron, would be exceedingly faint in the space beyond. If the wave had been produced by an unpaired electron, it would then be cancelled by the waves from other unpaired electrons.
While there must be alignment by electron pairs, there would be no such alignment with other electrons either within the same atoms or in other atoms. This means that, even if the waves did not cancel, they would dissipate out of phase and would not reinforce one another in materials other than magnets.
Furthermore we, and any equipment that we build and use, must necessarily be made of matter. These "electron orbital waves", as we will refer to them, would be of extremely high frequency and short wavelength. X-rays and gamma rays pass right through matter because the atom is actually mostly empty space, and these waves are fine enough to go right through at least the atoms of some elements.
Remember that electromagnetic waves are reflected by matter which is about the same size as the wavelength of the waves, meaning that waves of extraordinarily short wavelength can pass right through the electron orbitals of atoms. Waves from electron orbitals would be of far shorter wavelength than this, making most of these waves undetectable by any equipment made of matter.
I cannot see how these electron orbital waves would not exist. This explains the nature of electron orbitals in atoms ideally, and fits with the properties of electrons in basic electronics.
Our Dual Charge Universe
There is a basic fact concerning the universe which underlies everything that is. It is also one of the primary ways that the universe can be defined as what it is, in comparison and contrast to what it might have been.
Our universe is a dual-charge universe. Everything about the universe revolves around the fact that there are two electric charges, which are equal and opposite. We know these two charges as negative and positive. Like charges always repel one another, just as opposite charges attract.
These two charges are at the most basic level of physical reality in the universe. My cosmological theory defines space as a vast checkerboard of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges, structured in multiple dimensions. Matter is defined as any arrangement of the two charges other than this alternating checkerboard.
Have you ever wondered exactly what a dimension is? We know that it is a direction that we can move in, but there must be a deeper level at which it can be defined.
It is these two fundamental electric charges that define what a dimension in space is. In our universe, one dimension is basically a line. This is because there are two electric charges forming space, and two points are joined by a line.
What about our number system, the 1,2,3,....? We use numbers to represent the reality that we inhabit. Do you notice that the sequence of numbers forms a line? This is no coincidence, it is a manifestation of the dual-charge universe.
There can be geometric shapes in multiple dimensions, but these shapes are composed of the same one-dimensional lines. No matter how we look at it, reality is a reflection of the fact that the universe is composed of two electric charges that are equal and opposite.
Suppose that there were more than two charges composing the universe, and that these charges were equal and opposite in the same way that our negative and positive charges are.
If there was only one charge in the universe, a dimension would be a point rather than a line. There could be no matter as we know it, because matter is concentrations of charges held together by opposite charge attraction with it's positioning governed by both attraction and like-charge repulsion. There would be no electromagnetic waves because there would be no matter to move in order to create waves. Even if there was, there would be no waves unless a charge attracted or repeled other electric charges when it moved. Neither could there be a number system like ours.
The nature of a single-charge universe would depend on the relationship between the like charges. If they mutually repelled, the universe would be continuously expanding but getting more sparse. If they mutually attracted, the universe would contract into nothing.
If there were three equal and opposite charges, what we perceive as two dimensions would be only one dimension. Each dimension would be a plane, rather than a line. Beings inhabiting a three-charge universe would be unaware of any of this because a one-dimensional line, as we know it, would be non-existent and inconceivable. They could no more conceive of a line being a dimension as we can conceive of a point being a dimension. Their number system would necessarily have sideways numbers, in a way that we cannot easily imagine.
If there happened to be four equal and opposite charges composing the universe, a dimension would be what we perceive here as three dimensions. Although, once again, any beings inhabiting that universe would be unaware of it. This would make the universe less intricate than ours, if it limited the number of spatial dimensions, but would open fantastic possibilities with regard to different varieties of matter.
There would be, or at least could be, electromagnetic waves in any universe with two or more electric charges. Any such waves would follow the dimensions of that universe. Basic electromagnetic waves in our universe occupy two dimensions, because we have two charges. But such two-dimensional waves as ours could not exist in a universe of three electric charges. Waves must always involve all of the electric
Our universe is a dual-charge universe. Everything about the universe revolves around the fact that there are two electric charges, which are equal and opposite. We know these two charges as negative and positive. Like charges always repel one another, just as opposite charges attract.
These two charges are at the most basic level of physical reality in the universe. My cosmological theory defines space as a vast checkerboard of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges, structured in multiple dimensions. Matter is defined as any arrangement of the two charges other than this alternating checkerboard.
Have you ever wondered exactly what a dimension is? We know that it is a direction that we can move in, but there must be a deeper level at which it can be defined.
It is these two fundamental electric charges that define what a dimension in space is. In our universe, one dimension is basically a line. This is because there are two electric charges forming space, and two points are joined by a line.
What about our number system, the 1,2,3,....? We use numbers to represent the reality that we inhabit. Do you notice that the sequence of numbers forms a line? This is no coincidence, it is a manifestation of the dual-charge universe.
There can be geometric shapes in multiple dimensions, but these shapes are composed of the same one-dimensional lines. No matter how we look at it, reality is a reflection of the fact that the universe is composed of two electric charges that are equal and opposite.
Suppose that there were more than two charges composing the universe, and that these charges were equal and opposite in the same way that our negative and positive charges are.
If there was only one charge in the universe, a dimension would be a point rather than a line. There could be no matter as we know it, because matter is concentrations of charges held together by opposite charge attraction with it's positioning governed by both attraction and like-charge repulsion. There would be no electromagnetic waves because there would be no matter to move in order to create waves. Even if there was, there would be no waves unless a charge attracted or repeled other electric charges when it moved. Neither could there be a number system like ours.
The nature of a single-charge universe would depend on the relationship between the like charges. If they mutually repelled, the universe would be continuously expanding but getting more sparse. If they mutually attracted, the universe would contract into nothing.
If there were three equal and opposite charges, what we perceive as two dimensions would be only one dimension. Each dimension would be a plane, rather than a line. Beings inhabiting a three-charge universe would be unaware of any of this because a one-dimensional line, as we know it, would be non-existent and inconceivable. They could no more conceive of a line being a dimension as we can conceive of a point being a dimension. Their number system would necessarily have sideways numbers, in a way that we cannot easily imagine.
If there happened to be four equal and opposite charges composing the universe, a dimension would be what we perceive here as three dimensions. Although, once again, any beings inhabiting that universe would be unaware of it. This would make the universe less intricate than ours, if it limited the number of spatial dimensions, but would open fantastic possibilities with regard to different varieties of matter.
There would be, or at least could be, electromagnetic waves in any universe with two or more electric charges. Any such waves would follow the dimensions of that universe. Basic electromagnetic waves in our universe occupy two dimensions, because we have two charges. But such two-dimensional waves as ours could not exist in a universe of three electric charges. Waves must always involve all of the electric
The Weight Hypothesis
SEEKING ZERO ENERGY
This has nothing to do with diet. It is well-known that matter in the universe seeks the lowest-energy state possible by way of gravity. When an object is in the air, it falls to the ground because it would require less energy to maintain it there than it would in the air. Planets and stars form into a spherical shape because that is the shape with the lowest surface are per volume and thus the lowest energy level.
I have been thinking about why the universe is unable to acheive a gravitational zero energy state. If matter could get to where gravity was trying to pull it in the seeking of a zero energy state, that matter would be weightless. Gravity should actually have put itself out of business and ceased to be a force by now but the way atoms are constructed makes a gravitational zero energy universe impossible.
Matter is mutually exclusive, two objects cannot occupy the same space, but gravity goes right through matter. My conclusion is that if matter could pass through other matter, it would be possible to attain a zero energy universe.
ELECTRON REPULSION
It is possible for two galaxies to collide and pass through each other without a single star collision. Atoms are also mostly empty space and it may seem that they should be able to pass through each other as well but cannot due to what is known as "electron repulsion".
Gravity attracts two objects together. The average distance between the negative and positive charges in one of the objects to the negative and positive charges in the other object is the same. But as the two objects get very close together, that no longer remains true.
The atoms in both objects have negatively-charged electrons on the outside. This means that when the objects reach very close quarters, the electrons repulse each other and the attractive force between the two ceases. A state of equilibrium is reached and the two objects remain as close as they can get but without merging into or passing through each other.
Despite what we perceive, two objects do not actually touch due to electron repulsion. The positive and negative charges in the atoms of two objects can be compared to positive and negative layers. Both objects have a negative layer on the outside. The thickness of the layers is insignificant in comparison with the distance between the objects until they get extremely close and the outer layer of each object repulses it's counterpart. An equilibrium is reached and the objects cannot get and closer or pass through each other.
If the positive and negative charges in atoms were random, this would not be the case. Neither is it the case when matter comes in contact with antimatter, which has the positively-charged particles on the outside.
WEIGHT
Weight is not the same thing as mass, which is fixed and is the amount of matter in an object. Weight is variable and is the result of gravity acting on a mass. Weight is therefore the result of kinetic energy, or energy of position. This hypothesis revolves around the idea that weight is the manifestation of the fact that matter is able to get only part of the way to where it is being directed by gravity.
The gravitational attraction between two objects is between the centers of the masses but due to electron repulsion, moving objects must come to a halt upon contact with another object. The manifestation of this blocked motion of objects during the movement toward a gravitational zero energy universe is weight. The basic meaning of weight is that an object is trying to fall but is blocked from doing so by electron repulsion. This is why a falling body is weightless and weight is not manifested until the call of gravity is blocked.
In an ideal universe, there would be mass but no weight. All weight is an symptom of an imperfect universe, a manifestation of the fact that gravity and the structure of atoms work in opposition to each other. Gravity keeps trying to get to a zero-energy universe but is blocked from doing so.
This has nothing to do with diet. It is well-known that matter in the universe seeks the lowest-energy state possible by way of gravity. When an object is in the air, it falls to the ground because it would require less energy to maintain it there than it would in the air. Planets and stars form into a spherical shape because that is the shape with the lowest surface are per volume and thus the lowest energy level.
I have been thinking about why the universe is unable to acheive a gravitational zero energy state. If matter could get to where gravity was trying to pull it in the seeking of a zero energy state, that matter would be weightless. Gravity should actually have put itself out of business and ceased to be a force by now but the way atoms are constructed makes a gravitational zero energy universe impossible.
Matter is mutually exclusive, two objects cannot occupy the same space, but gravity goes right through matter. My conclusion is that if matter could pass through other matter, it would be possible to attain a zero energy universe.
ELECTRON REPULSION
It is possible for two galaxies to collide and pass through each other without a single star collision. Atoms are also mostly empty space and it may seem that they should be able to pass through each other as well but cannot due to what is known as "electron repulsion".
Gravity attracts two objects together. The average distance between the negative and positive charges in one of the objects to the negative and positive charges in the other object is the same. But as the two objects get very close together, that no longer remains true.
The atoms in both objects have negatively-charged electrons on the outside. This means that when the objects reach very close quarters, the electrons repulse each other and the attractive force between the two ceases. A state of equilibrium is reached and the two objects remain as close as they can get but without merging into or passing through each other.
Despite what we perceive, two objects do not actually touch due to electron repulsion. The positive and negative charges in the atoms of two objects can be compared to positive and negative layers. Both objects have a negative layer on the outside. The thickness of the layers is insignificant in comparison with the distance between the objects until they get extremely close and the outer layer of each object repulses it's counterpart. An equilibrium is reached and the objects cannot get and closer or pass through each other.
If the positive and negative charges in atoms were random, this would not be the case. Neither is it the case when matter comes in contact with antimatter, which has the positively-charged particles on the outside.
WEIGHT
Weight is not the same thing as mass, which is fixed and is the amount of matter in an object. Weight is variable and is the result of gravity acting on a mass. Weight is therefore the result of kinetic energy, or energy of position. This hypothesis revolves around the idea that weight is the manifestation of the fact that matter is able to get only part of the way to where it is being directed by gravity.
The gravitational attraction between two objects is between the centers of the masses but due to electron repulsion, moving objects must come to a halt upon contact with another object. The manifestation of this blocked motion of objects during the movement toward a gravitational zero energy universe is weight. The basic meaning of weight is that an object is trying to fall but is blocked from doing so by electron repulsion. This is why a falling body is weightless and weight is not manifested until the call of gravity is blocked.
In an ideal universe, there would be mass but no weight. All weight is an symptom of an imperfect universe, a manifestation of the fact that gravity and the structure of atoms work in opposition to each other. Gravity keeps trying to get to a zero-energy universe but is blocked from doing so.
The Nature Of Weight And Weightlessness
When an object, such as a rock, is floating in open space it can be moved with minimal effort. This condition is known as "weightlessness" because the object is moved so easily in comparision with the effort that would be required if it were on the surface of the earth and thus had weight. The weight of any object is variable, unlike it's mass which is fixed.
The weight of an object is actually defined by the force of gravity upon it's mass. As long as atoms are in contact, there is no such thing as absolute weightlessness. Weight is the manifestation of the unsuccessful seeking of a zero energy condition of matter.
Gravity is prevented from placing matter as it would like by the electron repulsion of atoms in contact. The like charges of negatively-charged electrons in the atoms prevent gravity from moving them any closer. However, in an object in space subject to no significant exterior gravitational attractions, the internal gravity from all directions will balance out and produce a net weight of zero. In other words weightlessness, or more properly net weightlessness.
But what about the earth? Doesn't our planet fit the definition of a weightless object in space? The earth might have ten trillion times the mass of our rock in space but ten trillion multiplied by a weight of zero is still zero. The gravitational forces toward the center of the earth certainly balance out. This enables the gravity of the moon to strengthen earth's magnetic field as I described in "The Moon And Earth's Magnetic Field" on this blog.
The earth is within the sun's gravitational field but this is expressed in a perpendicular direction by the earth's orbit around the sun. So if the earth as a whole must be weightless, why can't we push it and move it? Maybe we could push it further from the sun to solve global warming.
The trouble is that inward forces within a gravitational system cannot move the system even though it may be weightless as a whole. If we push on the earth with a pole, we are part of the same gravitational system as the earth. The earth pushes back on the pole and the net force is zero. The earth does not move.
Likewise, an object falling in earth's gravity cannot exert a force on the earth as weightless because it becomes a part of the same gravitational system. The falling object does exert a force on the earth but if it is being pulled to earth by gravity, it becomes part of the same gravitational system. However, it is true that the earth and the falling object do combine their momentum.
If we could push against an outside body against the earth, it could conceivably be moved in it's orbit but then we have to consider that the body we would be pushing against would have a mass of it's own and this mass would exert a gravitational force on the earth so that the earth would no longer be weightless. The earth's mass would also exert a gravitational force on the outside body, giving it weight so that we could push against it in our effort to move the earth but this would also give the earth's weight, negating our efforts to move it as a weightless object.
Even though the earth is a weightless object in space, except for the direction of it's orbit around the sun due to the sun's gravity, it could only be moved by a pole of some kind pushing it from an external body such as the moon or a planet, which would also be moved by the effort in proportion to it's mass relative to that of the earth. It could also be moved by an object fired into space from earth, as long as the object exerted a force on the ground and was not a rocket, which is a self-contained gravitational unit. But then, the ratio of the object's mass to the earth's mass would determine how much the earth would move.
The weight of an object is actually defined by the force of gravity upon it's mass. As long as atoms are in contact, there is no such thing as absolute weightlessness. Weight is the manifestation of the unsuccessful seeking of a zero energy condition of matter.
Gravity is prevented from placing matter as it would like by the electron repulsion of atoms in contact. The like charges of negatively-charged electrons in the atoms prevent gravity from moving them any closer. However, in an object in space subject to no significant exterior gravitational attractions, the internal gravity from all directions will balance out and produce a net weight of zero. In other words weightlessness, or more properly net weightlessness.
But what about the earth? Doesn't our planet fit the definition of a weightless object in space? The earth might have ten trillion times the mass of our rock in space but ten trillion multiplied by a weight of zero is still zero. The gravitational forces toward the center of the earth certainly balance out. This enables the gravity of the moon to strengthen earth's magnetic field as I described in "The Moon And Earth's Magnetic Field" on this blog.
The earth is within the sun's gravitational field but this is expressed in a perpendicular direction by the earth's orbit around the sun. So if the earth as a whole must be weightless, why can't we push it and move it? Maybe we could push it further from the sun to solve global warming.
The trouble is that inward forces within a gravitational system cannot move the system even though it may be weightless as a whole. If we push on the earth with a pole, we are part of the same gravitational system as the earth. The earth pushes back on the pole and the net force is zero. The earth does not move.
Likewise, an object falling in earth's gravity cannot exert a force on the earth as weightless because it becomes a part of the same gravitational system. The falling object does exert a force on the earth but if it is being pulled to earth by gravity, it becomes part of the same gravitational system. However, it is true that the earth and the falling object do combine their momentum.
If we could push against an outside body against the earth, it could conceivably be moved in it's orbit but then we have to consider that the body we would be pushing against would have a mass of it's own and this mass would exert a gravitational force on the earth so that the earth would no longer be weightless. The earth's mass would also exert a gravitational force on the outside body, giving it weight so that we could push against it in our effort to move the earth but this would also give the earth's weight, negating our efforts to move it as a weightless object.
Even though the earth is a weightless object in space, except for the direction of it's orbit around the sun due to the sun's gravity, it could only be moved by a pole of some kind pushing it from an external body such as the moon or a planet, which would also be moved by the effort in proportion to it's mass relative to that of the earth. It could also be moved by an object fired into space from earth, as long as the object exerted a force on the ground and was not a rocket, which is a self-contained gravitational unit. But then, the ratio of the object's mass to the earth's mass would determine how much the earth would move.
The Chemical-Nuclear-Astronomical Relationship
I have noticed a simple relationship between chemistry, nuclear reactions and astronomical bodies that I have never seen documented.
CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY
First, let's review the difference between chemical and nuclear energy. A material, such as wood, has bonds between the atoms holding it together. These bonds involve the electrons in orbit around the atomic nuclei in the material. Generally, organic substances are held together by so-called covalent bonds, in which neighboring atoms share electrons.
Metals are also held together by shared electrons among a group of atoms. This is why metals tend to conduct electricity, these loose electrons can be made to flow in one direction by the application of a voltage pressure to the metal. Non-metallic inorganic materials are held together by simple ionic bonds because one atom loses an electron to a neighboring atom.
Since the positive charges in the atomic nucleus are usually balanced by the negative charges in the electrons orbitting the nucleus, this means that the losing atom becomes positively charged and the gaining atom, negatively charged. Thus, the two atoms attract each other and are bound together.
These types of inter-atomic bond are known as chemical bonds because they involve only the electrons in orbit around the nuclei of atoms and not the nuclei themselves. These chemical bonds contain energy. If the bond is somehow broken, such as by heat, the energy that was in the bond holding the atoms together is released, also in the form of heat, which causes still more bonds to be broken and to release their energy. This is how burning takes place.
In chemical reactions, the nuclei of the atoms are not affected at all. However, the positively charged nuclei of atoms also contain energy, in fact far more energy than the chemical bonds. The positively-charged protons in an atomic nucleus are held together by a powerful so-called "binding energy".
If the nucleus can be split, such as by a fast-moving neutron, this tremendous binding energy is released in the form of heat. This is the basis of nuclear fission in atomic bombs and reactors. Just as in simple burning, the released energy and neutrons from a split nuclei go on to split other nuclei and sustain the reaction.
There is another nuclear process, fusion, which operates by crushing together two or more small atoms to form a larger atom but where there is less binding energy required than in the smaller atoms together. Thus, the extra binding energy is released. This is how stars operate. Energy is released by both burning, a chemical process, and nuclear fusion. As a general rule, the energy from fusion is about a thousand million (a billion in North America) times that from chemical processes.
SPHERIZATION IN ASTRONOMICAL BODIES
Now, consider the structure of an object such as a rock. The atoms in the rock are held together by chemical bonds, forming the rock's structure. The rock also has gravity, but in a small rock or boulder, this internal gravity is insignificant in determining the structure of the rock.
Gravity is a very weak force compared with the other basic forces of nature but it is cumulative, meaning that it adds up as mass accumulates. If we begin adding matter to the rock, eventually we reach a point in which it's gravity becomes more important in the rock's structure than the chemical bonds between atoms. At this point, the rock and the matter that has been added to it begin to take the shape of a sphere.
This is because a sphere is the geometric shape in three dimensions requiring the least energy to maintain. Most of the asteroids in the solar system orbitting between Mars and Jupiter are not spherical in shape. But the largest asteroids, such as Ceres and Vesta, are spherical or close to it. And, of course, larger bodies such as the earth, moon and, sun are inevitably spherical in shape. As a general rule, there is no body to be seen a thousand kilometers or more in diameter that is not spherical in shape.
The shape of such astronomical bodies reveals the most important factor in it's structure. If chemical bonds between atoms predominate, the shape will be non-spherical. When there is enough matter together so that gravity becomes more important than the chemical structural bonds, the shape will become spherical.
THE FUSION THRESHOLD
Now suppose we keep adding still more matter to our now-spherical body in space. Let's keep adding millions and millions of times the matter it had when it first took on a spherical shape. As we add more and more mass, the internal gravity of the body keeps building and building. Eventually something will happen, the body will begin to glow with a light of it's own. A star has been born.
The body became a sphere when the cumulative gravity was strong enough to become more important than the chemical structural bonds in forming the body's structure. The process of nuclear fusion begins and forms a star when the internal gravity of the body becomes so strong that it overpowers the electromagnetic force in the atoms at the center of the star and crushes them together to form larger atoms out of smaller ones. This releases binding energy in the form of heat and light to continue the process and form a star.
THE CHEMICAL-NUCLEAR-ASTRONOMICAL RELATIONSHIP
What I am pointing out in this relationship is that the order of magnitude in the energy obtained from nuclear, as opposed to chemical fuels is roughly the same as the order of magnitude between the amount of mass necessary to reach the spherization threshold to the amount of mass necessary to reach the fusion threshold and create a star. I have never before seen this pointed out and it makes the different branches of science seem much more inter-connected than ever before.
CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY
First, let's review the difference between chemical and nuclear energy. A material, such as wood, has bonds between the atoms holding it together. These bonds involve the electrons in orbit around the atomic nuclei in the material. Generally, organic substances are held together by so-called covalent bonds, in which neighboring atoms share electrons.
Metals are also held together by shared electrons among a group of atoms. This is why metals tend to conduct electricity, these loose electrons can be made to flow in one direction by the application of a voltage pressure to the metal. Non-metallic inorganic materials are held together by simple ionic bonds because one atom loses an electron to a neighboring atom.
Since the positive charges in the atomic nucleus are usually balanced by the negative charges in the electrons orbitting the nucleus, this means that the losing atom becomes positively charged and the gaining atom, negatively charged. Thus, the two atoms attract each other and are bound together.
These types of inter-atomic bond are known as chemical bonds because they involve only the electrons in orbit around the nuclei of atoms and not the nuclei themselves. These chemical bonds contain energy. If the bond is somehow broken, such as by heat, the energy that was in the bond holding the atoms together is released, also in the form of heat, which causes still more bonds to be broken and to release their energy. This is how burning takes place.
In chemical reactions, the nuclei of the atoms are not affected at all. However, the positively charged nuclei of atoms also contain energy, in fact far more energy than the chemical bonds. The positively-charged protons in an atomic nucleus are held together by a powerful so-called "binding energy".
If the nucleus can be split, such as by a fast-moving neutron, this tremendous binding energy is released in the form of heat. This is the basis of nuclear fission in atomic bombs and reactors. Just as in simple burning, the released energy and neutrons from a split nuclei go on to split other nuclei and sustain the reaction.
There is another nuclear process, fusion, which operates by crushing together two or more small atoms to form a larger atom but where there is less binding energy required than in the smaller atoms together. Thus, the extra binding energy is released. This is how stars operate. Energy is released by both burning, a chemical process, and nuclear fusion. As a general rule, the energy from fusion is about a thousand million (a billion in North America) times that from chemical processes.
SPHERIZATION IN ASTRONOMICAL BODIES
Now, consider the structure of an object such as a rock. The atoms in the rock are held together by chemical bonds, forming the rock's structure. The rock also has gravity, but in a small rock or boulder, this internal gravity is insignificant in determining the structure of the rock.
Gravity is a very weak force compared with the other basic forces of nature but it is cumulative, meaning that it adds up as mass accumulates. If we begin adding matter to the rock, eventually we reach a point in which it's gravity becomes more important in the rock's structure than the chemical bonds between atoms. At this point, the rock and the matter that has been added to it begin to take the shape of a sphere.
This is because a sphere is the geometric shape in three dimensions requiring the least energy to maintain. Most of the asteroids in the solar system orbitting between Mars and Jupiter are not spherical in shape. But the largest asteroids, such as Ceres and Vesta, are spherical or close to it. And, of course, larger bodies such as the earth, moon and, sun are inevitably spherical in shape. As a general rule, there is no body to be seen a thousand kilometers or more in diameter that is not spherical in shape.
The shape of such astronomical bodies reveals the most important factor in it's structure. If chemical bonds between atoms predominate, the shape will be non-spherical. When there is enough matter together so that gravity becomes more important than the chemical structural bonds, the shape will become spherical.
THE FUSION THRESHOLD
Now suppose we keep adding still more matter to our now-spherical body in space. Let's keep adding millions and millions of times the matter it had when it first took on a spherical shape. As we add more and more mass, the internal gravity of the body keeps building and building. Eventually something will happen, the body will begin to glow with a light of it's own. A star has been born.
The body became a sphere when the cumulative gravity was strong enough to become more important than the chemical structural bonds in forming the body's structure. The process of nuclear fusion begins and forms a star when the internal gravity of the body becomes so strong that it overpowers the electromagnetic force in the atoms at the center of the star and crushes them together to form larger atoms out of smaller ones. This releases binding energy in the form of heat and light to continue the process and form a star.
THE CHEMICAL-NUCLEAR-ASTRONOMICAL RELATIONSHIP
What I am pointing out in this relationship is that the order of magnitude in the energy obtained from nuclear, as opposed to chemical fuels is roughly the same as the order of magnitude between the amount of mass necessary to reach the spherization threshold to the amount of mass necessary to reach the fusion threshold and create a star. I have never before seen this pointed out and it makes the different branches of science seem much more inter-connected than ever before.
Polarity, Turbulence And, Liquification
I was watching some turbulence in flowing water when something occurred to me that I had never read before. Eddys are the small whirlpools that form when flowing water is in contact with still or slower-moving water. Eddys also occur in the air when the wind encounters some obstacle.
I realized that this phenomenon only occurs when the molecules of the fluid or gas are polar. Atoms are symmetrical all around but most molecules are not. This means that the electric charge one one side of the molecule is more positive and the other side more negative. This polarity causes attraction or repulsion between molecules and when an attraction forms between still and moving molecules, the moving molecule is diverted in it's path and the still molecule is pulled along. The repulsion and attraction to other molecules by the pair creates a circular motion which is the beginning of an eddy.
A fluid, whether liquid or gas, will not form eddys if it consists of atoms alone and not molecules. This is because the atoms are symmetrical and without polarity eddys cannot get started. At the boundary between the moving and still water, millions of small eddys get started until they merge into few larger ones. Such an eddy is a compromise between the moving and still waters or the faster-moving and slower-moving waters.
Air is actually polar but not in the same way as water. Water has polarity because it's molecule consists of one atom of oxygen and two of hydrogen. Air is polar and so creates eddys because the oxygen and nitrogen in the air consists of two atoms together instead of one. In other words, these two gases in the air are in a "diatomic" state.
Thus, different part of the molecule display a different electric charge, Without this assymmetry of the oxygen and nitrogen in the air and thus polarity, tornados or hurricanes could not form, since these are really only large eddys. This could not happen if the oxygen and nitrogen in the air was not diatomic.
I noticed something else that I had never seen referred to anywhere. There is a direct relationship between the strength of the polarity of molecules of gas and the temperature at which the gas will liquify.
In any diatomic, which means molecules that pair together such as two oxygens or two nitrogens, or any gas that exists in molecular, as opposed to atomic, form, some degree of polarity will be inevitable. Polarity is simply the difference in electric charge from one side of the molecule to the other because it is generally impossible for a molecule to be symmetrical all around in the same way that a single atom is. Polarity in molecules is similar in concept to the ionic bonds between atoms which causes them to form molecules. One atom loses an electron to another, giving the losing one a positive charge and the gaining one a negative charge, which creates an electric bond between them.
As the temperature drops, the absolute temperature at which a gas will liquify is proportional to the difference in electrical charge between one side of the molecule and the other. To liquify at all at normal pressure, a gas must be molecular in structure. One that is composed of atoms instead of molecules will not liquify. A gas with strong polarity, such as water vapor (vapour), will liquify at high temperatures. This is why we can have liquid water at normal temperatures. A gas with weak polarity, such as oxygen, will require very low temperatures to become liquid.
Liquid is basically what a gas does when the temperature is low enough so that the polar attraction between molecules can overcome the motion of the molecules caused by heat energy. Pressure is a factor too, low pressure favors (favours) the molecules remaining as a gas while high pressure favours (favors) the formation of a liquid. Oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and, helium can all be liquified with enough cold and pressure. A simple molecule consisting of two like atoms together such as the gases of the atmosphere form (except carbon dioxide) has a different charge at one of the ends of the molecule than it does on a side of the molecule.
Thus when the gas condenses into a liquid, the molecules are like capsules fitting together end to side. What I want to do is to begin expressing the strength of polar bonds in terms of the degrees of temperature at which it breaks at the standard pressure of one atmosphere. There are supposedly three states of matter: solids, liquids and, gases. This is the most basic of chemistry. But it may be time for a reevaluation of the states of matter. I find it to be somewhat more complex with regard to liquids.
Unlike the other two states of matter, liquid cannot exist independently in open space. The formation of a liquid requires both gravity from below and pressure from above. Only two of the approximately one hundred chemical elements, mercury and bromine, are liquid at room temperature.
Water, for example, will be either a gas or a solid, water vapor (vapour) or ice, without such pressure. Ice is known to exist on the moon, but not liquid water because that would require pressure from above and the moon has almost no atmosphere to provide such pressure.
Comets are composed mostly of water ice, the water on earth almost certainly originated with comets. But the water can only exist as a solid and a gas before it is brought within the atmospheric pressure on earth. The body of the comet is solid ice, but a comet also manifests a "tail" as it nears the sun in it's orbit. This is caused by pressure from what is known as the "solar wind", the stream of particles from the sun. This pushes some of the water molecules back as vapor, which reflects sunlight and causes the appearance of the comet's tail. Notice that the tail of a comet always points away from the sun.
This leads me to believe that solids and gases are the primary states of matter, while liquids can be described as a secondary state. Matter will be a solid if the gravitational pull is strong enough so that there is no space left between the atoms or molecules or if there are chemical or structural bonds to hold it together. The matter will form a gas if the gravitational bonds are less, but there is no provision for liquids which can best be described as a transitional state of matter between gases and solids with special requirements such as gravity from below and pressure from above.
There is no better illustration of this than boiling water. Usually, water only evaporates from it's surface. But, if it is heated to a certain point, water will begin to evaporate from the entire volume of the water rather than just the surface. This is known as the boiling point, and the familiar bubbling is water evaporating from below the surface.
The boiling point of water is very much a function of atmospheric pressure. As anyone who has lived on mountains knows, water will boil at a lower temperature at higher altitude. Since there is no atmopsheric pressure in outer space, this means that the temperature at which ice will melt and water will vaporize is the same temperature, and thus there is no liquid water or any other liquid, in space.
Thus, it makes sense that a true state of matter, or at least a primary state of matter, must be able to exist in open space and this does not include liquids.
I realized that this phenomenon only occurs when the molecules of the fluid or gas are polar. Atoms are symmetrical all around but most molecules are not. This means that the electric charge one one side of the molecule is more positive and the other side more negative. This polarity causes attraction or repulsion between molecules and when an attraction forms between still and moving molecules, the moving molecule is diverted in it's path and the still molecule is pulled along. The repulsion and attraction to other molecules by the pair creates a circular motion which is the beginning of an eddy.
A fluid, whether liquid or gas, will not form eddys if it consists of atoms alone and not molecules. This is because the atoms are symmetrical and without polarity eddys cannot get started. At the boundary between the moving and still water, millions of small eddys get started until they merge into few larger ones. Such an eddy is a compromise between the moving and still waters or the faster-moving and slower-moving waters.
Air is actually polar but not in the same way as water. Water has polarity because it's molecule consists of one atom of oxygen and two of hydrogen. Air is polar and so creates eddys because the oxygen and nitrogen in the air consists of two atoms together instead of one. In other words, these two gases in the air are in a "diatomic" state.
Thus, different part of the molecule display a different electric charge, Without this assymmetry of the oxygen and nitrogen in the air and thus polarity, tornados or hurricanes could not form, since these are really only large eddys. This could not happen if the oxygen and nitrogen in the air was not diatomic.
I noticed something else that I had never seen referred to anywhere. There is a direct relationship between the strength of the polarity of molecules of gas and the temperature at which the gas will liquify.
In any diatomic, which means molecules that pair together such as two oxygens or two nitrogens, or any gas that exists in molecular, as opposed to atomic, form, some degree of polarity will be inevitable. Polarity is simply the difference in electric charge from one side of the molecule to the other because it is generally impossible for a molecule to be symmetrical all around in the same way that a single atom is. Polarity in molecules is similar in concept to the ionic bonds between atoms which causes them to form molecules. One atom loses an electron to another, giving the losing one a positive charge and the gaining one a negative charge, which creates an electric bond between them.
As the temperature drops, the absolute temperature at which a gas will liquify is proportional to the difference in electrical charge between one side of the molecule and the other. To liquify at all at normal pressure, a gas must be molecular in structure. One that is composed of atoms instead of molecules will not liquify. A gas with strong polarity, such as water vapor (vapour), will liquify at high temperatures. This is why we can have liquid water at normal temperatures. A gas with weak polarity, such as oxygen, will require very low temperatures to become liquid.
Liquid is basically what a gas does when the temperature is low enough so that the polar attraction between molecules can overcome the motion of the molecules caused by heat energy. Pressure is a factor too, low pressure favors (favours) the molecules remaining as a gas while high pressure favours (favors) the formation of a liquid. Oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and, helium can all be liquified with enough cold and pressure. A simple molecule consisting of two like atoms together such as the gases of the atmosphere form (except carbon dioxide) has a different charge at one of the ends of the molecule than it does on a side of the molecule.
Thus when the gas condenses into a liquid, the molecules are like capsules fitting together end to side. What I want to do is to begin expressing the strength of polar bonds in terms of the degrees of temperature at which it breaks at the standard pressure of one atmosphere. There are supposedly three states of matter: solids, liquids and, gases. This is the most basic of chemistry. But it may be time for a reevaluation of the states of matter. I find it to be somewhat more complex with regard to liquids.
Unlike the other two states of matter, liquid cannot exist independently in open space. The formation of a liquid requires both gravity from below and pressure from above. Only two of the approximately one hundred chemical elements, mercury and bromine, are liquid at room temperature.
Water, for example, will be either a gas or a solid, water vapor (vapour) or ice, without such pressure. Ice is known to exist on the moon, but not liquid water because that would require pressure from above and the moon has almost no atmosphere to provide such pressure.
Comets are composed mostly of water ice, the water on earth almost certainly originated with comets. But the water can only exist as a solid and a gas before it is brought within the atmospheric pressure on earth. The body of the comet is solid ice, but a comet also manifests a "tail" as it nears the sun in it's orbit. This is caused by pressure from what is known as the "solar wind", the stream of particles from the sun. This pushes some of the water molecules back as vapor, which reflects sunlight and causes the appearance of the comet's tail. Notice that the tail of a comet always points away from the sun.
This leads me to believe that solids and gases are the primary states of matter, while liquids can be described as a secondary state. Matter will be a solid if the gravitational pull is strong enough so that there is no space left between the atoms or molecules or if there are chemical or structural bonds to hold it together. The matter will form a gas if the gravitational bonds are less, but there is no provision for liquids which can best be described as a transitional state of matter between gases and solids with special requirements such as gravity from below and pressure from above.
There is no better illustration of this than boiling water. Usually, water only evaporates from it's surface. But, if it is heated to a certain point, water will begin to evaporate from the entire volume of the water rather than just the surface. This is known as the boiling point, and the familiar bubbling is water evaporating from below the surface.
The boiling point of water is very much a function of atmospheric pressure. As anyone who has lived on mountains knows, water will boil at a lower temperature at higher altitude. Since there is no atmopsheric pressure in outer space, this means that the temperature at which ice will melt and water will vaporize is the same temperature, and thus there is no liquid water or any other liquid, in space.
Thus, it makes sense that a true state of matter, or at least a primary state of matter, must be able to exist in open space and this does not include liquids.
Transparency And Color
You have probably wondered, at some point, why some materials are transparent, notably water and glass, while most are opaque and do not allow light to pass through.
The fact that light slows down when it goes from a medium with a low refractive index, such as air, to one with a higher refractive index, such as glass or water, means that lenses can be made and an object under water is not actually located where our eyes perceive it. But that opens another question; if the speed of light is so fixed by relativity theory, then how can it slow down when it enters another medium?
Air is transparent to light for a very simple reason. It is sparse enough to allow light to pass right through. Air is actually heavier than water by molecule, water has a molecular mass of 10 while the diatomic oxygen that is in the air has a mass of 16 and diatomic nitrogen of 14. But yet when water molecules are held together by the hydrogen bonding that occurs, it forms the familiar liquid and is 800 times as heavy as air at sea level. This means that the molecules in the air must actually occupy only about 1/1200 of the total space.
But then how does glass allow light to pass right through? The answer to this is also simple. Glass is a crystal in it's molecular structure. The chemistry of glass is actually similar to sand but it's molecules are lined up in rows and light can pass through the gaps between the rows since atoms are roughly spherical in shape. Imagine cans of soda stacked up with the cans aligned, light can pass through the gaps between the cans.
I must disagree with the popular idea in physics that light slows down when it goes from air into glass or into water, that would violate relativity. My explanation for this apparent deceleration of light that makes lenses possible is that while light is passing through the gaps between atoms in a crystal structure, there will not be a straight line for the light all the way through a thickness of thousands of millions of atoms For this to happen the glass would have to be at a temperature of absolute zero to eliminate molecular shifting due to heat.
Since the gaps between the atoms cannot possibly form straight lines all the way through, lot of refecting off the sides of the gaps is involved when light passes through a dense, transparent medium. This makes the path of the light longer than it would be otherwise and this makes light seem to slow down as it passes through glass. The index of refraction of a transparent medium is thus a function of the length of the path light must take to get through it. This also means that even clear glass must scatter light passing through it to a considerable extent but this scattering is over such a small scale that our eyes cannot detect it.
The reason that a glass prism splits light into it's component colors (colours) now becomes apparent. Ordinary white light is actually a mixture of all visible colours (colors) with that of the longest wavelength being red and that of the shortest wavelength being blue. The light of the shorter wavelength is more "compact" than the longer wavelengths of light. This means that in relation to blue light, the gap between the atoms will be relatively wider than it will be to the red light. So blue will do more reflecting off the sides of the gap to keep it in course while with the longer-wavelength red light, the gap will act more as a waveguide with less reflection involved.
The result is that the shorter the wavelength, the more the light will be bent by the structure of the glass and so white light will be broken down into it's component colours (colors). This will happen only if the white light is in a concise beam and it enters the glass at an angle to the surface.
What about water? It is also transparent. The reason is it's polar structure. A water molecule, consisting of an atom of oxygen joined to two atoms of hydrogen has an unsymmetrical structure. This makes it more negative on one side and more postitive on the other side so that water molecules line up negative side to positive side. This forms, in effect, a crystal structure with gaps between the molecules through which light can pass in the same way as it does through glass and other crystal materials.
By the way, you may notice that the dissolution of air in water does not affect it's transparency at all. You can see through clear shallow water regardless of how little or how much oxygen or CO2 is dissolved in it. If this were not so, the transparency of water would be affected by it's temperature since this determines the volume of gases that can dissolve in it. The reason is that atoms of dissolved atmospheric gases fit into the matrix of the structure of the atoms in the water. This supports the findings that I described in "The Collision Imbalance And The Evaporation-Dissolution Exchange" on my meteorology blog. If the atoms of dissolved gases were floating around in the water without fitting in to it's "crystal" structure, it would affect the transparency of the water.
Finally, we come to the colors (colours) of opaque (non-transparent) objects. Objects without the crystalline atomic structure required for transparency will not allow light to pass through. But it handles various wavelengths of light differently. The color (colour) of an object that we see is the result of the size and the space between it's surface atoms. That light with wavelengths short enough to fit between the atoms will be swallowed up by the object and will not be seen. The wavelength of light that we see will be that which the surface atoms reflect without absorbing or scattering.
The fact that light slows down when it goes from a medium with a low refractive index, such as air, to one with a higher refractive index, such as glass or water, means that lenses can be made and an object under water is not actually located where our eyes perceive it. But that opens another question; if the speed of light is so fixed by relativity theory, then how can it slow down when it enters another medium?
Air is transparent to light for a very simple reason. It is sparse enough to allow light to pass right through. Air is actually heavier than water by molecule, water has a molecular mass of 10 while the diatomic oxygen that is in the air has a mass of 16 and diatomic nitrogen of 14. But yet when water molecules are held together by the hydrogen bonding that occurs, it forms the familiar liquid and is 800 times as heavy as air at sea level. This means that the molecules in the air must actually occupy only about 1/1200 of the total space.
But then how does glass allow light to pass right through? The answer to this is also simple. Glass is a crystal in it's molecular structure. The chemistry of glass is actually similar to sand but it's molecules are lined up in rows and light can pass through the gaps between the rows since atoms are roughly spherical in shape. Imagine cans of soda stacked up with the cans aligned, light can pass through the gaps between the cans.
I must disagree with the popular idea in physics that light slows down when it goes from air into glass or into water, that would violate relativity. My explanation for this apparent deceleration of light that makes lenses possible is that while light is passing through the gaps between atoms in a crystal structure, there will not be a straight line for the light all the way through a thickness of thousands of millions of atoms For this to happen the glass would have to be at a temperature of absolute zero to eliminate molecular shifting due to heat.
Since the gaps between the atoms cannot possibly form straight lines all the way through, lot of refecting off the sides of the gaps is involved when light passes through a dense, transparent medium. This makes the path of the light longer than it would be otherwise and this makes light seem to slow down as it passes through glass. The index of refraction of a transparent medium is thus a function of the length of the path light must take to get through it. This also means that even clear glass must scatter light passing through it to a considerable extent but this scattering is over such a small scale that our eyes cannot detect it.
The reason that a glass prism splits light into it's component colors (colours) now becomes apparent. Ordinary white light is actually a mixture of all visible colours (colors) with that of the longest wavelength being red and that of the shortest wavelength being blue. The light of the shorter wavelength is more "compact" than the longer wavelengths of light. This means that in relation to blue light, the gap between the atoms will be relatively wider than it will be to the red light. So blue will do more reflecting off the sides of the gap to keep it in course while with the longer-wavelength red light, the gap will act more as a waveguide with less reflection involved.
The result is that the shorter the wavelength, the more the light will be bent by the structure of the glass and so white light will be broken down into it's component colours (colors). This will happen only if the white light is in a concise beam and it enters the glass at an angle to the surface.
What about water? It is also transparent. The reason is it's polar structure. A water molecule, consisting of an atom of oxygen joined to two atoms of hydrogen has an unsymmetrical structure. This makes it more negative on one side and more postitive on the other side so that water molecules line up negative side to positive side. This forms, in effect, a crystal structure with gaps between the molecules through which light can pass in the same way as it does through glass and other crystal materials.
By the way, you may notice that the dissolution of air in water does not affect it's transparency at all. You can see through clear shallow water regardless of how little or how much oxygen or CO2 is dissolved in it. If this were not so, the transparency of water would be affected by it's temperature since this determines the volume of gases that can dissolve in it. The reason is that atoms of dissolved atmospheric gases fit into the matrix of the structure of the atoms in the water. This supports the findings that I described in "The Collision Imbalance And The Evaporation-Dissolution Exchange" on my meteorology blog. If the atoms of dissolved gases were floating around in the water without fitting in to it's "crystal" structure, it would affect the transparency of the water.
Finally, we come to the colors (colours) of opaque (non-transparent) objects. Objects without the crystalline atomic structure required for transparency will not allow light to pass through. But it handles various wavelengths of light differently. The color (colour) of an object that we see is the result of the size and the space between it's surface atoms. That light with wavelengths short enough to fit between the atoms will be swallowed up by the object and will not be seen. The wavelength of light that we see will be that which the surface atoms reflect without absorbing or scattering.
Color Interpretation
Here is a riddle: What do you see all around you every time you open your eyes yet cannot be described with words? The answer is color (colour). (Note- to avoid excessive use of parenthesis, I will alternate the two global spellings of colour (color)).
Our language gives us no way to describe color. We can state it as a wavelength of electromagnetic wave but it cannot be described in itself. Try to think of a way to describe your favorite (favourite) colour to someone who can only see in black and white. It is not possible.
Of course, we know that colors do not really exist outside of our interpretation. In the universe of inanimate matter and space, colour is essentially meaningless except as a wavelength of electromagnetic wave. So, here is my question: If we are unable to describe color by use of our language, then how do we know that we all experience the different colours in the same way?
The answer is that we don't. It is very likely that if you are with someone looking at something red in color, while you both agree that it is red, you might see it as the other person sees green and the other person may see it as you see blue. Possibly, each of you may see it in a way that the other does not see any colour at all.
Since color cannot be described with words, there is no way to know for sure. We do know that so many other sensory inputs are experienced by people differently and also that the spectrum of visible light is not the same for all persons. So why should we not think that we experience colours differently?
The interpretation of color is in the brain and not in the eye so transplanting eyes from one person to another will not shed any light on it. But someday in the future when transplanting parts of the brain becomes possible, we can expect that such a transplant will reveal that we experience colour differently.
Our language gives us no way to describe color. We can state it as a wavelength of electromagnetic wave but it cannot be described in itself. Try to think of a way to describe your favorite (favourite) colour to someone who can only see in black and white. It is not possible.
Of course, we know that colors do not really exist outside of our interpretation. In the universe of inanimate matter and space, colour is essentially meaningless except as a wavelength of electromagnetic wave. So, here is my question: If we are unable to describe color by use of our language, then how do we know that we all experience the different colours in the same way?
The answer is that we don't. It is very likely that if you are with someone looking at something red in color, while you both agree that it is red, you might see it as the other person sees green and the other person may see it as you see blue. Possibly, each of you may see it in a way that the other does not see any colour at all.
Since color cannot be described with words, there is no way to know for sure. We do know that so many other sensory inputs are experienced by people differently and also that the spectrum of visible light is not the same for all persons. So why should we not think that we experience colours differently?
The interpretation of color is in the brain and not in the eye so transplanting eyes from one person to another will not shed any light on it. But someday in the future when transplanting parts of the brain becomes possible, we can expect that such a transplant will reveal that we experience colour differently.
Gravitational Chemistry
There is a factor in spacecraft design and planetary dynamics that I thought of but cannot find any reference to so, I will post it here.
Gravity makes atoms heavier. It does not change the mass of atoms but does change their weight. Suppose a piece of metal was floating in space relatively close to the sun. Radiation from the sun would impart energy to the atoms in the metal. This would cause those atoms to move faster and so cause the metal to melt when the speed of the atoms reached the metal's melting point.
Now suppose that the metal was on a planet, rather than floating in space, but was an equal distance from the sun and received an equal amount of solar energy. The solar radiation falling on the metal would be exactly the same and would impart the same amount of energy to the atoms of the metal. But this time, the atoms would be heavier due to the gravity of the planet. The atoms would not have more mass but would have more weight on the planet. The melting point of the piece of metal is based on the speed of the atoms reaching the threshold of moving too fast for the inter-atomic bonds in the metal holding to hold the atoms in a solid structure. So when that speed is reached, the metal melts.
But we must make a distinction here between the energy imparted to the atoms and their actual speed that results from that energy. Logic tells us that the metal melts when the atoms in it reach a certain speed, regardless of the energy required to get them to that speed. This means, of course, that it must require more energy to get the piece of metal to melt when it is within a stronger gravitational field. It requires more energy to get atoms to move at a certain speed when those atoms are heavier.
In this example, the mass and inter-atomic bonds of the metal are constant and only their weight due to gravity is variable. This factor has apparently not been noticed so far simply because it has not been very relevant. Gravity is rightly ignored in nuclear reactions because it is so insignificant. It has been ignored in chemical reactions thus far because when two chemicals come together and react, both must be in the same gravitational field. The modern science of chemistry was developed mostly in the Nineteenth Century when space travel and weightlessness was not considered.
The melting points of metals and other substances listed in science texts would better be described as the melting points within earth's gravitational field. Gravitational chemistry will naturally be more of a factor with heavier metals, where gravity is proportionally more important, than with lighter ones. This will make the weight of the atoms more important relative to the strength of the chemical bonds between atoms in heavier metals. It will be of most importance in a heavy metal with relatively weak inter-atomic bonds.
This hypothesis forces us to consider how we define heat. Heat is the actual energy of the atoms in motion but not their actual velocity. Heat energy causes atoms to move faster but the weight, by gravity, of the atoms is also a factor. I find no evidence that this has been considered up to now.
When we test the ability of a spacecraft component to withstand heat on earth, we must understand that it will require less heat energy to bring it to the melting point in the weightlessness of space. This can also be a factor in planetary dynamics. If a planet has seasons or has an eccentric orbit, closer to the sun at some times than at others, the melting of an icy surface on the planet will be affected by the gravity of the planet. Gravitational chemistry will probably not be much concerned with chemical reactions as it will be with melting and freezing points. There is another idea in the scientific community with the same name as this but it not the same thing at all.
Gravity makes atoms heavier. It does not change the mass of atoms but does change their weight. Suppose a piece of metal was floating in space relatively close to the sun. Radiation from the sun would impart energy to the atoms in the metal. This would cause those atoms to move faster and so cause the metal to melt when the speed of the atoms reached the metal's melting point.
Now suppose that the metal was on a planet, rather than floating in space, but was an equal distance from the sun and received an equal amount of solar energy. The solar radiation falling on the metal would be exactly the same and would impart the same amount of energy to the atoms of the metal. But this time, the atoms would be heavier due to the gravity of the planet. The atoms would not have more mass but would have more weight on the planet. The melting point of the piece of metal is based on the speed of the atoms reaching the threshold of moving too fast for the inter-atomic bonds in the metal holding to hold the atoms in a solid structure. So when that speed is reached, the metal melts.
But we must make a distinction here between the energy imparted to the atoms and their actual speed that results from that energy. Logic tells us that the metal melts when the atoms in it reach a certain speed, regardless of the energy required to get them to that speed. This means, of course, that it must require more energy to get the piece of metal to melt when it is within a stronger gravitational field. It requires more energy to get atoms to move at a certain speed when those atoms are heavier.
In this example, the mass and inter-atomic bonds of the metal are constant and only their weight due to gravity is variable. This factor has apparently not been noticed so far simply because it has not been very relevant. Gravity is rightly ignored in nuclear reactions because it is so insignificant. It has been ignored in chemical reactions thus far because when two chemicals come together and react, both must be in the same gravitational field. The modern science of chemistry was developed mostly in the Nineteenth Century when space travel and weightlessness was not considered.
The melting points of metals and other substances listed in science texts would better be described as the melting points within earth's gravitational field. Gravitational chemistry will naturally be more of a factor with heavier metals, where gravity is proportionally more important, than with lighter ones. This will make the weight of the atoms more important relative to the strength of the chemical bonds between atoms in heavier metals. It will be of most importance in a heavy metal with relatively weak inter-atomic bonds.
This hypothesis forces us to consider how we define heat. Heat is the actual energy of the atoms in motion but not their actual velocity. Heat energy causes atoms to move faster but the weight, by gravity, of the atoms is also a factor. I find no evidence that this has been considered up to now.
When we test the ability of a spacecraft component to withstand heat on earth, we must understand that it will require less heat energy to bring it to the melting point in the weightlessness of space. This can also be a factor in planetary dynamics. If a planet has seasons or has an eccentric orbit, closer to the sun at some times than at others, the melting of an icy surface on the planet will be affected by the gravity of the planet. Gravitational chemistry will probably not be much concerned with chemical reactions as it will be with melting and freezing points. There is another idea in the scientific community with the same name as this but it not the same thing at all.
Electron Repulsion And Density
A basic mystery of chemistry and physics class is why some materials are more dense than others. Density is simply the mass of a substance per unit of volume. All matter consists of identical protons, neutrons and, electrons so why should not all matter have the same density?
A chunk of matter will be composed of either more smaller atoms, if it is a lighter element such as aluminum, or fewer larger atoms, if it is a heavier element such as lead. So if there are either more smaller atoms or fewer larger atoms, what is the difference? Both should have about the same mass because they will have about the same number of nucleons and electrons.
Suppose we have a box of given dimensions. Atoms are known to be spherical in shape. If we fill the box with either many smaller spheres or fewer larger spheres, the weight of the box will end up about the same. Spheres are shape-inefficient when placed together because space is rectangular but this inefficiency is the same regardless of the size of the spheres we are dealing with.
So why then are elements composed of larger atoms, like uranium, usually more dense that those composed of smaller atoms, like magnesium or aluminum? Although this is not a strict rule.
The fact that heavier elements have more neutrons in their nuclei is certainly a factor in the increased density of heavier elements. But those elements composed of larger atoms are still more dense even if we compare densities by atomic weight, rather than by atomic number. The atomic number of an element is simply the number of protons in the nucleus and the atomic weight is the number of protons plus neutrons in the nucleus.
The binding energy curve is another factor in the comparative density of the elements. Lighter elements have more and more mass per nucleon (protons or neutrons in the nucleus) missing, as we move to the next heaviest element, that apparently should be there until we come to the element iron. From there, successively heavier elements have less and less mass missing per nucleon.
But even if we take this into account, elements composed of larger atoms are still more dense. How can we explain this density disparity?
Now, let's consider the concept of electron repulsion. We know that atoms are by far mostly empty space. So if we place a book on a table, why does the book not pass right through the table? The simple answer is that the outer layer of electrons in the table's outer atoms and the outer layer of electrons in the book's outer atoms are both negatively-charged. Since like charges repel, the book and the table are prevented from merging into each other and the book remains at rest on the table instead of merging into it.
The thought occurred to me that this electron repulsion can also explain the disparity in density between elements composed of more smaller atoms and those composed of fewer larger atoms. If we have blocks of lead and aluminum with equal mass, there is essentially the same total number of protons or neutrons and electrons in each.
But there is another factor. The more smaller aluminum atoms have far more atomic surface area than the few larger lead atoms. This can only mean that there is more electron repulsion within the block of aluminum than in the block of iron. This explains why the block of aluminum of the same mass will be larger, hence less dense, than the block of iron.
The atoms of aluminum have more surface area and thus more total force pushing each other apart than do the iron atoms. We could say that electron repulsion within a material is generally proportional to the total surface area of all atoms within the material. My conclusion is that, with all other factors being equal, the surface area of a mass of material will be proportional to the total surface area of all of it's atoms or molecules.
The density of a material is more complex than this. The actual sizes of the atoms varies with their charge and the number of electrons in the outer shell. In compounds, the atomic surface area will vary according to whether the bond between the atoms is ionic or covalent.
But I think that most of the mystery as to why a kg of iron is denser than a kg of aluminum, since they both contain about the same number of nucleons and electrons, can be explained by the same electron repulsion that holds a book on a table.
A chunk of matter will be composed of either more smaller atoms, if it is a lighter element such as aluminum, or fewer larger atoms, if it is a heavier element such as lead. So if there are either more smaller atoms or fewer larger atoms, what is the difference? Both should have about the same mass because they will have about the same number of nucleons and electrons.
Suppose we have a box of given dimensions. Atoms are known to be spherical in shape. If we fill the box with either many smaller spheres or fewer larger spheres, the weight of the box will end up about the same. Spheres are shape-inefficient when placed together because space is rectangular but this inefficiency is the same regardless of the size of the spheres we are dealing with.
So why then are elements composed of larger atoms, like uranium, usually more dense that those composed of smaller atoms, like magnesium or aluminum? Although this is not a strict rule.
The fact that heavier elements have more neutrons in their nuclei is certainly a factor in the increased density of heavier elements. But those elements composed of larger atoms are still more dense even if we compare densities by atomic weight, rather than by atomic number. The atomic number of an element is simply the number of protons in the nucleus and the atomic weight is the number of protons plus neutrons in the nucleus.
The binding energy curve is another factor in the comparative density of the elements. Lighter elements have more and more mass per nucleon (protons or neutrons in the nucleus) missing, as we move to the next heaviest element, that apparently should be there until we come to the element iron. From there, successively heavier elements have less and less mass missing per nucleon.
But even if we take this into account, elements composed of larger atoms are still more dense. How can we explain this density disparity?
Now, let's consider the concept of electron repulsion. We know that atoms are by far mostly empty space. So if we place a book on a table, why does the book not pass right through the table? The simple answer is that the outer layer of electrons in the table's outer atoms and the outer layer of electrons in the book's outer atoms are both negatively-charged. Since like charges repel, the book and the table are prevented from merging into each other and the book remains at rest on the table instead of merging into it.
The thought occurred to me that this electron repulsion can also explain the disparity in density between elements composed of more smaller atoms and those composed of fewer larger atoms. If we have blocks of lead and aluminum with equal mass, there is essentially the same total number of protons or neutrons and electrons in each.
But there is another factor. The more smaller aluminum atoms have far more atomic surface area than the few larger lead atoms. This can only mean that there is more electron repulsion within the block of aluminum than in the block of iron. This explains why the block of aluminum of the same mass will be larger, hence less dense, than the block of iron.
The atoms of aluminum have more surface area and thus more total force pushing each other apart than do the iron atoms. We could say that electron repulsion within a material is generally proportional to the total surface area of all atoms within the material. My conclusion is that, with all other factors being equal, the surface area of a mass of material will be proportional to the total surface area of all of it's atoms or molecules.
The density of a material is more complex than this. The actual sizes of the atoms varies with their charge and the number of electrons in the outer shell. In compounds, the atomic surface area will vary according to whether the bond between the atoms is ionic or covalent.
But I think that most of the mystery as to why a kg of iron is denser than a kg of aluminum, since they both contain about the same number of nucleons and electrons, can be explained by the same electron repulsion that holds a book on a table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)