Orbitals In Atoms And Orbits In Space

The orbitals of electrons around nuclei in atoms is very similar to the much-larger scale orbits of moons around planets and planets around stars. But there is one crucial difference that I think should get more attention because it reveals a lot about the underlying electrical nature of the universe.

The difference between the two confirms the principle seen in my cosmology theory, described in the compound posting on this blog, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", that both space and matter is composed of nearly-infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. Opposite charges attract and like charges repel. Empty space is a perfectly alternating pattern of the negative and positive charges. Matter is any concentration of like charges, held together against their mutual repulsion by energy.

This energy that holds the like charges of matter together against their mutual repulsion is why matter has mass. It also explains why a certain mass is equivalent to a certain amount of energy, the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence.

Antimatter is like matter except that the electric charges are reversed from ordinary matter. Positively-charged positrons are in atomic orbitals around negatively-charged anti-protons. When matter and antimatter are reacted together, the electric charges composing both realign back into the alternating pattern of empty space and the fantastic burst of energy that is released is the energy that had been holding like charges of each together against their mutual repulsion.

Matter, as opposed to space, is where there is energy holding together like electric charges against their mutual repulsion. But if the two electric charges, negative and positive, are equal then the two rules of electric charges, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel, must also be equal. If matter is where energy overcomes the rule that like charges repel, that means there must be a net attractive force involving matter.

There is indeed an attractive force involving matter. It is what we call gravity, and this explains what it is.

If energy can overcome the repulsive force between like charges to create matter, then energy should also be able to overcome the attractive force between opposite charges. That is what creates electromagnetic radiation and is why using energy to move electrons along a radio antenna, overcoming the bonds that the electrons had to the nuclei of their native atoms, creates radio waves.

When matter and antimatter are reacted together, the energy of the Mass-Energy Equivalence that was holding the like charges of both together against their mutual repulsion is released. The electric charges that comprised the matter and antimatter rearranges themselves into the alternating negative and positive charge pattern of empty space. The energy that once held the like charges of both together, against their mutual repulsion, is released. What energy always ultimately does is to overcome the basic rules of the electric charges. The released energy now goes to overcoming the attractive forces between opposite charges in space. That is why the energy that once held the masses of matter and antimatter together is released as a burst of electromagnetic radiation.

The difference between the electron orbitals in atoms and the orbits of moons and planets involves the space between the two.

There is one obvious difference between the orbits of a Solar System and the electron orbitals inside atoms. The gravity that governs orbits in the Solar System is solely an attractive force. But the electrical forces within atoms include both the attraction of the negatively-charged electrons to the positively-charged nucleus, and the electrons' mutual repulsion of each other.

The mutual repulsion of electrons in an atom bring about rules of their orbitals, nothing like of which applies to the orbits of a Solar System. Electrons orbit in shells that are governed by their mutual repulsion. The shells are numbered 1,2,3... The maximum number of electrons in a shell is given by the formula 2 (N squared). N is the number of the orbital.

The maximum number of electrons in the first orbital is thus 2 x 1 squared. Since 1 squared = 1, that means the maximum number of electrons in the first orbital is 2.

The maximum number of electrons in the second orbital is 2 x 2 squared, which equals 8.

The maximum number of electrons in the third shell of any atom is 2 x 3 squared, which equals 18.

The maximum number of electrons in the fourth orbital of any atom is 2 x 4 squared, which equals 32.

The formula for the maximum number of electrons in an electron orbital shell stops here. There can be more than four electron shells but the maximum number of electrons in any shell of any atom is 32.

The reason that the formula is 2N is that the 2 is because electrons exist in pairs, each with a spin that is opposite to the other. There are two possible spins for an electron, "up" and "down". There may be unpaired electrons and in some materials the orbitals of unpaired electrons can be aligned so that the material exerts an electromotive force. Materials with the orbitals of their unpaired electrons aligned are known as magnets. The square in the formula of 2N squared is because energy in space is governed by the Inverse Square Law.

That is one major difference between the orbitals of electrons in atoms and the orbits of planets and moons in a Solar System, the organization of electrons into orbital shells, but it is not the difference that I am referring to today.

In astronomical orbits, distance is always equivalent to energy. If we give a satellite in orbit more orbital energy, it will not move faster in the orbit it is in. Rather, it will climb to a higher orbit.

The formula is squared. If we give an object in orbit three times the orbital energy, it will climb to 9 times the altitude but will move at one-third the speed.

But the difference that I find so significant is that, with the orbitals of electrons inside the atom, it is the opposite.

The Periodic Table of the Elements is arranged according to the number of electron shells of each element, and the number of electrons in the outermost shell. The table is arranged like a calendar, with the same number of electron shells in all elements in the same row, and the same number of electrons in the outermost shell in each column.

As we go rightward across a row on the table the elements get successively heavier, with one additional proton and electron with each space in the table. This means that there is more electrical force between nucleus and electrons, because with each successively heavier element there is one more negatively-charged electron in an orbital and one more positively-charged proton in the nucleus.

Since negative and positive charges mutually attract, this means more orbital energy. If the same rules applied as in astronomical orbits, the atoms should get larger as we move rightward across a row on the Periodic Table, but instead the atoms actually get smaller in diameter, more massive and compact but smaller in diameter.

I can remember when this used to really puzzle me. It makes sense that atoms should get more compact as we move rightward across a row of the Periodic Table, because there is one additional proton and electron with each successive atom and thus the atom gets more compact, and smaller in diameter, at least until we add another electron shell.

But yet it also makes sense the way additional orbital energy in an astronomical orbit results in a higher, rather than a more compact, orbit. We can see that, if two objects fall to earth, the one that was higher will impact the ground with more energy. This shows that orbital energy is stored as distance in space, the altitude of the orbit.

The question is why, when the orbitals of electrons in atoms are so similar to the orbits of moons and planets in space, the way that additional orbital energy is stored is opposite. Atoms get smaller in diameter, more compact at least until an additional electron shell is added, while astronomical orbits get higher when additional energy is added.

There is actually a simple answer but it requires accepting the premise of my cosmology theory that empty space is composed of an alternating checkerboard of nearly-infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges, in multiple dimensions. An alternating pattern of negative and positive charges is the lowest energy state, because of the basic rules that opposite charges attract while like charges repel.

Energy can rearrange this alternating arrangement of negative and positive charges. In fact, energy ultimately always overcomes the basic rules of the electric charges.

We saw how the particles comprising matter, such as electrons, are concentrations of like charges, held together against their mutual repulsion by energy. This energy is why matter has mass and is referred to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. This energy is totally released during a matter-antimatter reaction and partially released during a nuclear reaction.

If energy is thus released from matter it will go from overcoming the mutual repulsion of the like charges comprising the matter to overcoming the attractive force between opposite charges in empty space. This is how electromagnetic waves are produced.

This explains why the addition of orbital energy in atoms and at an astronomical level obeys opposite rules.

Space, as described in my cosmology theory, is composed of an alternating checkerboard of opposite electric charges, in multiple dimensions. Energy is stored by overcoming the basic rules of these charges, that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. It is the presence of charged particles that so distorts the usual alternating checkerboard of opposite charges in space.

The electric charges in atoms, other than ions that have gained or lost electrons, ordinarily balance out to zero. This means that, in our scenario of astronomical orbits, net electric charge is not a factor. The electric charges in the earth, the moon and, the planets, all balance out to zero.

But within the atom, that is not the case. The electrons in orbitals have a negative charge, and the protons in the nucleus a positive charge. The space between them is composed of alternating negative and positive charges.

The difference between the astronomical orbits and the electron orbitals is that, within the atom, the charged particles distort the alternating pattern of the charges in the space between the nucleus and the electrons in orbitals. The electrons pull positive charges of space toward them, pushing negative charges away, while the protons in the nucleus do the opposite.

Adding another proton and electron, in successively heavier atoms, distorts the checkerboard structure of charges in the atom until an equilibrium is reached, the repulsion between like charges now dominating the electric charges of the space within the atom, until it balances the electrical attraction between the electrons and protons within the atom.

With astronomical orbits, because the electric charges balance out to zero, this is not possible and the only way to store orbital energy is the altitude of the orbit.

This proves, as stipulated in my cosmology theory, that space must be composed of alternating electric charges.

The cosmology theory is more briefly described in the posting on this blog,"In Cosmology, Everything Just Fell Right Into Place", May 2019.